Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (13.81 MB, 563 trang )
Ch007.qxd
12/22/2006
190
10:29 AM
Page 190
7. Relationships between Structure and Reactivity
Owing to the exponential dependence of the rate upon energy, the rate problem reduces
mainly to the determination of the lowest energy barrier that has to be surmounted. The
ISM model, which was presented in the previous chapter, points, in general terms, to some
structural factors that control the barriers of chemical reactions and as a consequence the
rate constants. These relevant factors are (i) reaction energy, ⌬E0, ⌬H0 or ⌬G0; (ii) the
electrophilicity index of Parr, m, a measure of the electron inflow to the reactive bonds at
the transition state, also characterised as a transition-state bond order n‡; (iii) when the
potential energy curves for reactants and products can be represented adequately by harmonic oscillators, the relevant structural parameters are the force constants of reactive
bonds, fr and fp in reactants and products, respectively; and (iv) equilibrium bond-lengths
of reactive bonds, lr and lp in reactants and products, respectively.
Let us represent the course of reaction (7.I) by the intersection of potential energy
curves of the reactant BC and the product AB as
A + BC → AB + C
(7.I)
When the potential energy of the molecular species is represented by harmonic oscillators,
the common energy of the distended configurations of BC and AB at the transition state is
represented by the following expression:
1
1
2
fr x 2 = fp ( d − x ) + ΔE 0
2
2
(7.1)
where x is the bond extension of the reactant molecule BC to the transition state, and d represents the sum of the bond extensions of BC and AB on going to the transition state. In
eq. (7.1), dϪx represents the bond extension of the product molecule as illustrated in
Figure 7.1. This equation expresses reaction energy in terms of a thermodynamic quantity,
the internal energy, ⌬E0, rather than in terms of a difference in the potential energies of
products and reactants, ⌬V0.
Before pursuing further, a word of caution is necessary. Chemical thermodynamics
deals with macroscopic observations, but aims to build a bridge between macroscopic
variables and events at microscopic level by specifying the composition of the system in
molecular terms. Potential energy, V, is a microscopic variable defined for all configurations of the reacting system. Thus, V varies in a continuous manner along the progress variable and defines a reaction path. But thermodynamic energies are not continuous functions
along this path. They are only valid for stable or metastable states, i.e., for elementary
reactions they are only valid for reactants, products and the transition state. Whereas
eq. (7.1), defined in terms of ⌬V0, possesses a physical meaning for all the points
0 Յ x Յ d, the same mathematical expression defined in terms of ⌬E0, or in terms of any
other thermodynamic quantity, has no physical meaning for the points interpolated
between reactants, transition state and products.
The energy barrier for the prototype reaction, measured with respect to reactants, is
expressed by the equation
ΔE ‡ =
1
fr x 2
2
(7.2)
Ch007.qxd
12/22/2006
7.1
10:29 AM
Page 191
Quadratic Free-Energy Relationships (QFER)
191
Figure 7.1 Reaction coordinate of a bond-breaking–bond-forming reaction in terms of intersecting
harmonic oscillators. The reaction coordinate d represents the sum of the reactant and product bond
extensions, from equilibrium to transition sate configurations.
Under the particular condition of almost equal force constants for reactant and product,
f=fr=fp, eq. (7.1) becomes
1 2 1 2
1
fx = fd − fdx + fx 2 + ΔE 0
2
2
2
(7.3)
Solving this equation for the reactant distension, x, yields
x=
d ΔE 0
+
2
fd
(7.4)
This expression can also take the more convenient form
x=
1 ⎛ 2 ΔE 0 ⎞
d 1+
2 ⎜
fd 2 ⎟
⎝
⎠
(7.5)
If we make the substitution of x in the expression of the energy barrier, eq. (7.2), then we have
⎛
ΔE 0 ⎞
ΔE = ΔE ( 0) ⎜ 1 +
⎟
‡
⎝ 4 ΔE ( 0) ⎠
‡
‡
2
(7.6)
Ch007.qxd
12/22/2006
10:29 AM
Page 192
192
7. Relationships between Structure and Reactivity
where ⌬E‡(0) represents the intrinsic barrier of reaction (7.I).
ΔE ‡ ( 0) =
1 2
fd
8
(7.7)
The intrinsic barrier represents the barrier of the reaction taking it as an isoenergetic
process, that is, with ⌬E0 = 0.
In the past, Evans and Polanyi [2] have introduced the concepts of chemical driving
force and chemical inertia. By chemical inertia they meant the work that must be done to
produce reaction, partly in breaking BC bond and in placing the atom A sufficiently close
to B. In the present formulation this can be represented by the intrinsic barrier, ⌬E‡(0). By
chemical driving-force they meant the contribution that the energy of formation of the new
bond AB makes towards overcoming the inertia, which is represented by the reaction
energy ⌬E0. Eq. (7.6) reveals that under certain approximations, one can separate the thermodynamic contribution, ⌬E0, and the kinetic contribution, ⌬E‡(0), for the energy barrier
of the reaction ⌬E‡. Seminal ideas for such a separation go back to Jean-Auguste Muller
in 1886, but the correct quantitative formulation was proposed by Rudolph Marcus [3] in
the 1960s.
The sum of bond extensions to the transition state, d, was given by ISM, in the previous chapter as
⎡ aЈ ln ( 2) aЈ ⎛ ΔE 0 ⎞ 2 ⎤
⎥ lr + lp
d=⎢
+ ⎜
‡
2⎝ Λ ⎟ ⎥
⎠ ⎦
⎢ n
⎣
(
)
(7.8)
When the dynamic parameter ⌳ is, in absolute terms, much greater than the reaction
energy, ⌳ Խ⌬E0Խ, then d is independent of the reaction energy. Under such conditions d
has a constant value that is the sum of bond extensions of reactants and products at thermoneutrality, d(0)
d ( 0) =
aЈln ( 2)
n‡
(l + l )
r
(7.9)
p
with aЈ=0.156. Under this set of approximations, the separation between the intrinsic and
thermodynamic contributions for the energy barrier, ⌬E‡, is valid (see eq. (7.6)). Thus, the
intrinsic barrier can be expressed in terms of several molecular factors, specifically force
constant, transition-state bond order and the sum of the equilibrium bond lengths of reactant and product.
ΔE ‡ (0 ) =
1
8
⎡ 0.108
⎤
f ⎢ ‡ lr + lp ⎥
n
⎣
⎦
(
)
2
(7.10)
Eq. (7.6), known as the equation of Marcus, leads to a quadratic relationship between
the barrier of reaction and the reaction energy, which shows up also in the modified form
(
)
2
ΔE 0
ΔE 0
ΔE = ΔE ( 0) +
+
2
16 ΔE ‡ ( 0)
‡
‡
(7.11)
Ch007.qxd
12/22/2006
7.2
10:29 AM
Page 193
Linear Free-Energy Relationships (LFER)
193
Figure 7.2 Rate constants of proton transfers from enolate ions and water. The curve represents an application of the Marcus quadratic relationship, with ⌬G‡(0) = 57 kJ molϪ1 and kdif = 1011 molϪ1 dm3 secϪ1.
For reactions in solution, one tends to use Gibbs energy, G, instead of internal energy,
E. For this reason, eqs. (7.6) and (7.11) are called (Gibbs) free-energy relationships. In this
particular case such equations represent quadratic free-energy relationships (QFER).
Figure 7.2 illustrates a QFER for the proton-transfer reactions between enolate anions
and water molecules [4]. The experimental data can be reproduced by the equation of
Marcus with an intrinsic barrier of ⌬G‡(0) = 57 kJ molϪ1 and a pre-exponential factor of kdif =
1011 molϪ1 dm3 secϪ1. This is a good illustration of a family of reactions which have similar behaviour throughout a very extensive energy range, ⌬⌬G0 = 200 kJ molϪ1 and ⌬⌬G‡ =
85 kJ molϪ1 and covering reaction rates over 14 orders of magnitude. Changes in reactivity are controlled entirely by changes in ⌬G0. This means that the bonds to be broken and
formed, OH and CH, have the same force constants and bond lengths throughout the reaction series and that n‡ is also constant. This implies that the electrophilicity is quite invariant for the different enolates employed in this study.
7.2
LINEAR FREE-ENERGY RELATIONSHIPS (LFER)
Eq. (7.11) can be further simplified if the intrinsic barrier is much higher than the range of
reaction energies, such that 16(⌬E‡(0)) (⌬E0)2. Inserting this condition into eq. (7.11)
leads to
ΔE ‡ Ϸ ΔE ‡ ( 0) +
ΔE 0
2
(7.12)
Ch007.qxd
12/22/2006
10:29 AM
Page 194
194
7. Relationships between Structure and Reactivity
This expression reveals the existence of a linear relation between energy barrier and reaction energy. When expressed in terms of Gibbs energy, this represents a linear free-energy
relationship (LFER).
The equation of Marcus was developed in 1956 and ISM in 1986. Predictions on the
effects of substituents on the rate constants and the equilibrium constants are not due to
such developments, but to a rich history of empiricism. Nevertheless, many of those historical paths can now be encompassed by the Marcus equation and ISM.
7.2.1
Brönsted equation
In the acid–base reaction (7.II), it appeared reasonable to Brönsted and Pederson that if the
rates k at which proton is removed by a particular basis BϪ were compared for various
acids HA
HA + B− → A− + BH
(7.II)
then the base might remove the proton more rapidly from the stronger acids. In fact, relationships between rate of an acid–base reaction and equilibrium have been observed in
many cases and frequently obey an equation known as the Brönsted catalysis law
k = GK
(7.13)
where G and are empirical constants, k the rate for reaction (7.II) and K the acid dissociation equilibrium constant. In logarithmic form, the Brönsted equation can be written as
log k = log K + constant
(7.14)
The value of can be estimated from a plot of the second-order catalytic constant log k for
the reaction catalysed by the acid HA, against the pKHA. Equivalent procedures can also
be performed for base catalysed reactions. Figure 7.3 illustrates the application of
Brönsted relationship for the proton-transfer reactions [5].
XC6 H 4 CH 2 CH(COCH 3 )CO 2 C2 H 5 + RCO − → XC6 H 4 CH 2 C− (COCH 3 )CO 2 C2 H 5
2
+ RCO 2 H
(7.III)
In one set of the reactions, the substituent X of the carbon acid was varied and the same
base, CH3COOϪ, was used; this allows one to estimate the Brönsted constant for the acid
catalysis, . In another set of experiments the base was varied, but the acid was kept constant; this allows the estimation of the Brönsted parameter for base catalysis.
Taking into consideration the relations between rate constants k and ⌬G‡ and equilibrium constants K and ⌬G0,
k=
⎛ ΔG ‡ ⎞
k BT
exp ⎜ −
h
⎝ RT ⎟
⎠
⎛ ΔG 0 ⎞
K = exp ⎜ −
⎝ RT ⎟
⎠
(7.15)
Ch007.qxd
12/22/2006
7.2
10:29 AM
Page 195
Linear Free-Energy Relationships (LFER)
195
Figure 7.3 Correlation between the ionisation constants of carboxylic acids RCOOH or carbon
acids R3CH, and the second-order rate constant of the reactions in mechanism (7.III).
the Brönsted equation takes the form
ΔG ‡ = ΔG 0 + constant
(7.16)
showing that, at a constant temperature, this equation reflects a LFER.
Following a suggestion of Leffler [6], chemists have tried for a number of years to use
the Brönsted coefficient, = * ΔG ‡ * ΔG 0 , as a measure of the position of the transition state (TS) along the reaction coordinate, since usually 0Ͻ Ͻ1 , with = 0 for reactants, and = 1 for products. As a consequence, = 0.5 would imply that the transition
state is exactly half way between reactants and products.
As illustrated in Figure 7.4 for a thermoneutral reaction, is not always a measure of the
position of TS. When fr = fp one has for this kind of reaction = 0.5, reflecting correctly
the position of the transition state. But if fr Ͼ fp the transition state is before the measure
provided by ; if fr Ͻ fp the transition state is ahead of the measure of .
The Marcus equation, now expressed in terms of Gibbs energy, can be written as
(
) (
)
*ΔG ‡ 1 1 ΔG 0
= +
*ΔG 0 2 8 ΔG ‡ ( 0)
(7.17)
This equation does not give full support to the empirical equation of Brönsted, because the
relation is a quadratic one, while that of Brönsted is linear, such that under the relevant
approximations would be constant and always equal to 0.5. ISM, which is more general
than the equation of Marcus, accommodates LFER with values of
0.5 (0 Ͻ Ͻ1)
when the force constants do not have a common value, fr fp. In empirical terms there are
cases with Ͼ1 and Ͻ0, but these are anomalous situations which will be discussed later
Ch007.qxd
12/22/2006
196
10:29 AM
Page 196
7. Relationships between Structure and Reactivity
Figure 7.4 Effect of the force constants of the reactive bonds on the position of the transition state
for an isothermal reaction.
on in the Chapter 13, devoted to proton-transfer reactions. Identical considerations are
valid for the coefficients.
7.2.2
Ϫ
Ϫ
BellϪEvansϪPolanyi equation
In the mid-1930s of the twentieth century, Bell, Evans and Polanyi correlated energies of
activation, Ea, for several reactions in the vapour phase with heats of reaction, ⌬H0,
according to the following expression:
Ea = ΔH 0 + constant
(7.18)
which is also a LFER. The additive constant in this relationship will be taken to assume,
according to Rudolph Marcus, the presence of an intrinsic barrier.
Both free-energy relationships expressed by eqs. (7.6) and (7.18) would imply that reactions which have a strong driving force thermodynamically will also proceed rapidly.
However, if we consider this more deeply we will see that such an implication does not
hold generally. For example, the energetically favourable oxidation of hydrocarbons in the
presence of air may not take place for years, whereas the energetically unfavourable hydration of carbon dioxide takes place in seconds. For elementary reactions, the correct interpretation rests on the values of the intrinsic barriers.
7.2.3
Hammett and Taft relationships
In January 1937, Hammett published a paper on the “Effects of structure upon the reactions of benzene derivatives”. Let us consider the dissociation of benzoic acid
C6 H 5 − COOH → C6 H 5 − COO − + H + ,
K 0 = 6.27 × 10 −5
(7.IV)
Ch007.qxd
12/22/2006
7.2
10:29 AM
Page 197
Linear Free-Energy Relationships (LFER)
197
Hammett realised that the addition of a substituent in the aromatic ring has a quantitative effect on the dissociation constant K. For para-nitrobenzoic acid the dissociation
constant
O2 N − C6 H 5 − COOH → O2 N − C6 H 5 − COO − + H + ,
K 0 = 37.1 × 10 −5
(7.V)
increases, indicating an increment in the stabilisation of the negative charge generated by
dissociation. If the substituent is an ethyl group in para position, the opposite effect is
observed with respect to the unsubstituted reaction
C2 H 5 − C6 H 5 − COOH → C2 H 5 − C6 H 5 − COO − + H + ,
K 0 = 4.47 × 10−5
(7.VI)
indicating that the ethyl group destabilises the negative charge generated in dissociation.
Hammett found, for example, that the nitro group has a stabilising effect on other dissociation reactions such as those of phenylacetic acid. He then proposed a quantitative
relationship to account for such findings
log K = log K 0 +
(7.19)
The same kind of expression is also valid for the rate constants, k
log k = log k 0 +
(7.20)
K0 and k0 denotes the corresponding constants for the “parent” or “unsubstituted” compound.
The substituent constant is a measure of the electronic effect of replacing H by a given
substituent (in the para or meta position) and is, in principle, independent of the nature of
reaction. The reaction constant depends on the nature of the reaction, including conditions such as solvent and temperature; is a measure of the susceptibility of the reaction
to the electronic effects of substituents. The reference reaction is the ionisation of unsubstituted benzoic acid in water at 25 °C, with = 1.
Thus it is clear that just a few values of and can summarise a large body of equilibrium and rate measurements, and can help to predict rate coefficients and equilibrium
constants for reactions which have not yet been studied. The substituent constant is a
positive or negative number (Table 7.1, Figure 7.5). For example, p = 0.71 for ϪNO2
indicates that this group has an electron-removing effect higher than H-atom, whereas
p= Ϫ0.66 for ϪNH2 indicates that this group has an electron-donating effect stronger than
H-atom. Reactions with Ͼ 0 are facilitated by electron-removing substituents.
Although the Hammett relationship works well for meta- and para-substituted aromatic
compound, it frequently fails for either ortho- aromatic (due to steric effects) or aliphatic
compounds, and other scales have been proposed, such as that of Taft.
log k − log k0 = * *
(7.21)
Figure 7.6 compares the performance of the equations of Hammett and Taft with respect
to the hydrolysis of ketals that proceed according to mechanism (7.VII) [7].
Ch007.qxd
12/22/2006
10:29 AM
Page 198
198
7. Relationships between Structure and Reactivity
Table 7.1
Hammett (
Substituents
᎐NH2
᎐NMe2
᎐OH
᎐OMe
᎐OAc
᎐SMe
᎐H
᎐Me
᎐Et
᎐n-Pr
᎐t-Bu
᎐C6H5
᎐COMe
᎐F
᎐Cl
᎐Br
᎐I
᎐CN
᎐NO2
᎐CF3
m,
p)
and Taft ( *) coefficients of common substituents in organic molecules
m
p
Ϫ0.16
Ϫ0.10
0.02
0.12
0.39
0.14
0
Ϫ0.06
Ϫ0.66
Ϫ0.32
Ϫ0.22
Ϫ0.27
0.31
0.06
0
Ϫ0.14
Ϫ0.09
0.05
0.36
0.34
0.37
0.37
0.34
0.62
0.71
0.46
Ϫ0.15
0.05
0.47
0.15
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.71
0.78
0.53
*(CH2Y)
0.555
0.52
Ϫ0.10
Ϫ0.10
Ϫ0.13
Ϫ0.165
0.215
0.60
1.1
1.05
1.00
0.85
1.30
1.40
0.92
Figure 7.5 Application of the Hammett equation to the reactions following mechanism (7.III).
Ch007.qxd
12/22/2006
7.2
10:29 AM
Page 199
Linear Free-Energy Relationships (LFER)
199
Figure 7.6 Application of Hammett and Taft equations to the rate of the hydrolysis of ketals that
proceed according to mechanism (7.VII).
+
H
R
R
OC2H5
+
C
H3C
OC2H5
C
+ BH
H3C
OC2H5
+ B
OC2H5
slow
+
R
R
C
H3C
O
+ BH+
H2O
fast
C
H3C
OC2H5
+ C2H5OH
(7.VII)
These empirical correlations call for an explanation, by which we mean a theoretical
basis, however profound or modest. From eq. (7.20) we can write
ΔG ‡0 = ΔG ‡0 − 2.3 RT
0
(7.22)
where Δ G ‡0 corresponds to the Gibbs activation energy of the reference reaction. For
0
other homologous reactions, with the same set of substituents, one has
ΔG ‡0 Ј = ΔG ‡0 Ј − 2.3 RT Ј
0
(7.23)
Ch007.qxd
12/22/2006
10:29 AM
Page 200
200
7. Relationships between Structure and Reactivity
Those two equations can be written in a different form
ΔG ‡0
=
ΔG ‡0
0
− 2.3 RT
ΔG ‡0 Ј ΔG ‡0 Ј
0
=
− 2.3 RT
Ј
Ј
(7.24)
and if one subtracts the other, we obtain
ΔG ‡0
−
ΔG ‡0 Ј ΔG ‡0 ΔG ‡0 Ј
0
0
=
−
Ј
Ј
(7.25)
We can therefore write a linear equation between the free energies of activation of one set
of reactions and those of a corresponding set
ΔG ‡0 −
Ј
ΔG ‡0 Ј = constant
(7.26)
where the coefficient / Ј has the same value for all reactions in the set. Hammett equations are thus another kind of LFER.
The equations of Hammett and Taft apply reasonably well to Gibbs free energies. One
might anticipate that this will also be valid for changes in enthalpies and entropies.
ΔG ‡ = ΔH ‡ − T ΔS ‡
(7.27)
However, this is not the case. The changes in ⌬H‡ and in ⌬S‡ show a considerable scatter
when compared with ⌬G‡, and there is a compensating effect between ⌬H‡ and ⌬S‡. A substituent group that induces a strong interaction of the solute with solvent molecules and
decreases ⌬H‡, also decreases ⌬S‡. Figure 7.7 illustrates this effect of compensation in the
alkaline hydrolysis of ethyl benzoate in water/alcohol and water/dioxane mixtures [8],
which can be translated by the linear relationship
ΔH ‡ =
iso
ΔS ‡
(7.28)
when a parameter of the reaction (solvent, substituent, etc.) is changed,
ΔG ‡ = ΔH ‡ − T ΔS ‡ = (
iso
− T ) ΔS ‡
(7.29)
The parameter iso represents the isokinetic temperature, the real or virtual temperature for
which all members of the series have the same rate constant (Figure 7.8). Equivalent considerations are also valid for equilibrium constants.