4.7 Article

Singlet oxygen promoted carbon-heteroatom bond cleavage in dibenzyl sulfides and tertiary dibenzylamines. Structural effects and the role of exciplexes

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY
卷 72, 期 25, 页码 9582-9589

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jo701641b

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

[GRAPHICS] The C-heteroatom cleavage reactions of substituted dibenzyl sulfides and substituted dibenzylcyclo-hexylamines promoted by singlet oxygen in MeCN have been investigated. In both systems, the cleavage reactions (leading to benzaldehyde and substituted benzaldehyde) were slightly favored by electron withdrawing substituents with rho values of +0.47 (sulfides) and +0.27 (amines). With dibenzyl sulfides, sulfones were also obtained whereas sulfoxide formation became negligible when the reactions were carried out in the presence of a base. Through a careful product study for the oxidation of dibenzyl sulfide, in the presence and in the absence of Ph2SO, it was established that sulfone and cleavage product (benzaldehyde) do not come by the same route (involving the persulfoxide and the hydroperoxysulfonium ylide) as required by the generally accepted mechanism (Scheme 1) for C-heteroatom cleavage reactions of sulfides promoted by singlet oxygen. On this basis and in light of the similar structural effects noted above it is suggested that dibenzyl sulfides and dibenzylamines form benzaldehydes by a very similar mechanism. The reaction with singlet oxygen leads to an exciplex that can undergo an intracomplex hydrogen atom transfer to produce a radical pair. With sulfides, collapse of the radical pair leads to an alpha-hydroperoxy sulfide than can give benzaldehyde by an intramolecular path as described in Scheme 3. With amines, the radical pair undergoes an electron-transfer reaction to form an iminium cation that hydrolyzes to benzaldehyde. From a kinetic study it has been established that the fraction of exciplex converted to aldehyde is ca. 20% with sulfides and ca. 7% with amines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据