[10]Annulene: Bond shifting and conformational mechanisms for automerization

Journal of Organic Chemistry

Volumn 71, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 3001-3006

  Castro, Claire ^a   Karney, William L ^a   McShane, Colleen M ^a   Pemberton, Ryan P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS; CONFORMATIONS; ISOMERS; MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; NAPHTHALENE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION;

ANNULENE; AUTOMERIZATION; AZULENE; BOND SHIFTING; TRANSITION STATE;

HYDROCARBONS;

AZULENE; NAPHTHALENE DERIVATIVE;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL BOND; CONFORMATIONAL TRANSITION; DENSITY FUNCTIONAL THEORY; ISOMER; MAGNETISM; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY;

EID: 33645778480     PISSN: 00223263     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jo0521450     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Reviews of annulenes: (a) Kennedy, R. D.; Lloyd, D.; McNab, H. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1 2002, 1601.
2. (b) Balaban, A. T.; Banciu, M.; Ciorba, V. Annulenes, Benzo-, Hetero-, Homo-Derivatives, and their Valence Isomers; CRC Press: Boca Raton, 1987; Vol. I, Chapter 4.
3. van Tamelen, E. E.; Burkoth, T. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1967, 89, 151.
4. (a) Masamune, S.; Seidner, R. T. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1969, 542.
5. (b) Masamune, S.; Hojo, K.; Hojo, K.; Bigam, G.; Rabenstein, D. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1971, 93, 4966.
6. (c) Masamune, S.; Darby, N. Acc. Chem. Res. 1972, 5, 272.
7. Early computational work: (a) Allinger, N. L.; Sprague, J. T. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1973, 95, 3893.
8. (b) Loos, D.; Leska, J. Collect. Czech. Chem. Commun. 1980, 45, 187.
9. (c) Farnell, L.; Kao, J.; Radom, L.; Schaefer, H. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1981, 103, 2147.
10. (d) Hernando, J. M.; Enríquez, F.; Quirante, J. J. J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM) 1993, 287, 131.
11. (a) Xie, Y.; Schaefer, H. F.; Liang, G.; Bowen, J. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1994, 116, 1442.
12. (b) Sulzbach, H. M.; Schleyer, P. v. R.; Jiao, H.; Xie, Y.; Schaefer, H. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 1369.
13. (c) Schleyer, P. v. R.; Jiao, H.; Sulzbach, H. M.; Schaefer, H. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 2093.
14. (d) Sulzbach, H. M.; Schaefer, H. F.; Klopper, W.; Lüthi, H. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 3519.
15. (e) King, R. A.; Crawford, T. D.; Stanton, J. F.; Schaefer, H. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 10788.
16. Price, D. R.; Stanton, J. F. Org. Lett. 2002, 4, 2809.
17. Orlova, G.; Goddard, J. D. Mol. Phys. 2002, 100, 483.
18. Wannere, C. S.; Sattelmeyer, K. W.; Schaefer, H. F.; Schleyer, P. v. R. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 4200.
19. Sancho-García, J. C. J. Phys. Chem. A 2005, 109, 3470.
20. 5e This suggests that CCSD(T)//B3LYP relative energies for 3 and 5 would also be comparable to CCSD(T)//CCSD(T) relative energies.
21. 5e), it nevertheless does reasonably well at estimating the degree of delocalization in these systems (e.g., as manifested in Δr). For this reason, BH&HLYP is more reliable than B3LYP when the geometries obtained are to be evaluated for magnetic properties and aromaticity.
22. (a) Becke, A. D. J. Chem. Phys. 1992, 98, 1372.
23. (b) Miehlich, B.; Savin, A.; Stoll, H.; Preuss, H. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1989, 157, 200.
24. Hariharan, P. C.; Pople, J. A. Theor. Chim. Acta 1973, 28, 213.
25. (a) Bartlett, R. J. J. Phys. Chem. 1989, 93, 1697.
26. (b) Raghavachari, K.; Trucks, G. W.; Pople, J. A.; Head-Gordon, M. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1989, 157, 479.
27. (c) Scuseria, G. E. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1991, 176, 27.
28. Dunning, T. H., Jr. J. Chem. Phys. 1989, 90, 1007.
29. Dauben, H. J.; Wilson, J. D.; Laity, J. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1968, 90, 811.
30. 17b was complicated in the very nonplanar species, primarily because of local effects involving nearby π bonds, and in other species (e.g., 2, 4, and 5) because of extreme proximity of the inner hydrogen nuclei to the ring centroid. These effects rendered this method less attractive than MSE.
31. (b) Schleyer, P. v. R.; Maerker, C.; Dransfeld, A.; Jiao, H.; Hommes, N. J. R. v. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 6317.
32. Keith, T. A.; Bader, R. F. W. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1993, 210, 223.
33. (a) Becke, A. D. J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 98, 5648.
34. (b) Lee, C.; Yang, W.; Parr, R. G. Phys. Rev. B 1988, 37, 785.
35. (a) Frisch, M. J. et al. Gaussian 98, revision A. 11.3; Gaussian, Inc.: Pittsburgh, PA, 2002.
36. (b) Frisch, M. J. et al. Gaussian 03, revision D.01; Gaussian, Inc.: Wallingford, CT, 2004.
37. MacMolPlt v.5.3.5: Bode, B. M.; Gordon, M. S. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 1998, 16, 133.
38. Schaftenaar, G.; Noordik, J. H. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 123.
39. Oth, J. F. M. Pure Appl. Chem. 1971, 25, 573.
40. Castro, C.; Karney, W. L.; Valencia, M. A.; Vu, C. M. H.; Pemberton, R. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 9704.
41. See, for example, the comparison of ring inversion and nonplanar bond shifting in cyclooctatetraene: Paquette, L. A. Acc. Chem. Res. 1993, 26, 57.
42. For a recent example of two-twist topology in [14]annulene, see: Rzepa, H. Org. Lett. 2005, 7, 4637.
43. Scott, L. T.; Sumpter, C. A.; Gantzel, P. K.; Maverick, E.; Trueblood, K. N. Tetrahedron 2001, 57, 3795.
44. NICS computed at the CSGT-B3LYP/6-311+G**//BH&HLYP/6- 311+G** level.
45. -1).
46. 3b
47. For a detailed discussion of this type of analysis on other annulenes, see ref 23.
48. See also ref 24 for other highly aromatic bond-shifting transition states with large torsion angles.