28.02.2013 Views

Handbook of Solvents - George Wypych - ChemTech - Ventech!

Handbook of Solvents - George Wypych - ChemTech - Ventech!

Handbook of Solvents - George Wypych - ChemTech - Ventech!

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

13.1 Solvent effects on chemical reactivity 745<br />

found between the solvent reorganizational energy accompanying the excitation <strong>of</strong> ruthenium(II)<br />

cyano complexes and the solvent acceptor number.<br />

In the basicity scales, on the other hand, complications by solvent structure are not as<br />

obvious. If restriction is to aprotic solvents, as is usual, various scales though obtained under<br />

different conditions, are roughly equivalent. 21,4 There is for instance a remarkably good<br />

relationship between the DN scale (obtained in dilute dichloromethane solution, i.e., with<br />

medium effects largely excluded) and the B scale (derived from measurements performed<br />

with 0.4 M solutions <strong>of</strong> MeOD in the various solvents 4 ). The relationship between β and B,<br />

on the other hand, separates out into families <strong>of</strong> solvents. 20 Donor measures for protic solvents<br />

eventually are hard to assess and <strong>of</strong>ten are at considerable variance from one scale to<br />

another. 28,29 To rationalize the discrepancies, the concept <strong>of</strong> “bulk donicity” was introduced 7<br />

but with little success. Instead, the consideration <strong>of</strong> structure changes accompanying solvation<br />

might better help tackle the problem.<br />

Another suspect feature <strong>of</strong> the common method <strong>of</strong> interpreting solvent-reactivity correlations<br />

is that it is notoriously done in enthalpic (electronic, bond-strength etc.) terms.<br />

This way <strong>of</strong> thinking goes back to the Hughes-Ingold theory. However, many reactions in<br />

solution are not controlled by enthalpy changes but instead by entropy. Famous examples<br />

are the class <strong>of</strong> Menschutkin reactions and the solvolysis <strong>of</strong> t-butyl halides. Both these reaction<br />

types are characterized by the development <strong>of</strong> halide ions in the transition state, which<br />

can be considered as ion-pair like. In view <strong>of</strong> this, rate acceleration observed in good acceptor<br />

(or, alternatively, highly polar) solvents seems readily explainable in terms <strong>of</strong> solvation<br />

<strong>of</strong> the developing halide ion with concomitant carbon-halogen bond weakening. If this is<br />

true, most positive activation entropies and highest activation enthalpies should be expected<br />

to occur for the poor acceptor solvents. However, a temperature dependence study <strong>of</strong> the<br />

t-butyl halide solvolysis revealed just the opposite. 17 This intriguing feature points to<br />

changes in solvent structure as a major determinant <strong>of</strong> the reaction rate with the ionic transition<br />

state acting as a structure maker in poor acceptor solvents, and as a structure maker in<br />

the protic solvents.<br />

It is rather ironic that the expected increase in rate with increasing solvent acceptor<br />

strength is a result <strong>of</strong> the coincidence <strong>of</strong> two, from the traditional point <strong>of</strong> view, unorthodox<br />

facts: (i) The intrinsic solvation <strong>of</strong> the developing halide ion disfavors the reaction via the<br />

entropy term. However, (ii), the extent <strong>of</strong> that solvation is greater in the poorly coordinating<br />

solvents (providing they are polarizable such as the aromatic solvents and the<br />

polyhalogenated hydrocarbons). In keeping with this interpretation, the Menschutkin reaction<br />

between benzyl bromide and pyridine is characterized by more negative activation<br />

volumina (i.e., stronger contraction <strong>of</strong> the reacting system in going to the activated complex)<br />

in poor acceptor (but polarizable) solvents. 30 The importance is evident <strong>of</strong> studying<br />

temperature or pressure dependencies <strong>of</strong> solvent effects on rate in order to arrive at a physically<br />

meaningful interpretation <strong>of</strong> the correlations.<br />

Another problem with the interpretation <strong>of</strong> multiparameter equations such as [13.1.2]<br />

arises since some <strong>of</strong> the parameters used are not fully independent <strong>of</strong> one another. As to this,<br />

the trend between π* and α has already been mentioned. Similarly, the δ H parameter displays<br />

some connection to the polarity indices. 31,32 Virtually, the various parameters feature just<br />

different blends <strong>of</strong> more fundamental intermolecular forces (see below). Because <strong>of</strong> this,<br />

the interpretations <strong>of</strong> empirical solvent-reactivity correlations are <strong>of</strong>ten based more on intuition<br />

or preconceived opinion than on physically defined interaction mechanisms. As it

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!