Publication Date:
2019
Description:
〈p〉Publication date: 25 January 2019〈/p〉
〈p〉〈b〉Source:〈/b〉 Tetrahedron, Volume 75, Issue 4〈/p〉
〈p〉Author(s): Nobuyuki Hayashi, Tomomi Ujihara, Hirotaka Ikeda〈/p〉
〈div xml:lang="en"〉
〈h5〉Abstract〈/h5〉
〈div〉〈p〉Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the origin of the conformational stabilities of 1,2-difluoroalkanes, for which bond orbital interactions are an important factor. However, there is a limit to the effectiveness of the traditional approach focusing on only the antiperiplanar interactions between bonding and antibonding orbitals such as σ〈sub〉C–H〈/sub〉/σ〈sub〉C–F〈/sub〉*, σ〈sub〉C–C〈/sub〉/σ〈sub〉C–F〈/sub〉*, and σ〈sub〉C–F〈/sub〉/σ〈sub〉C–F〈/sub〉*, which cannot actually explain the conformational stabilities of 2,3-difuluorobutanes. In this study, to elucidate the effect of bond orbital interactions on the conformational stabilities of 1,2-difluoroethane, 〈em〉erythro〈/em〉-2,3-difluorobutane, and 〈em〉threo〈/em〉-2,3-difluorobutane, we extended the range of interactions considered to beyond these conventional interactions. The results showed that for 1,2-difluoroethane, the conformational stability can be understood by considering all antiperiplanar bond orbital interactions around the C1–C2 bond, and for 2,3-difluorobutanes, by considering all antiperiplanar bond orbital interactions around the C2–C3 bond in addition to bond orbital interactions between the methyl groups.〈/p〉〈/div〉
〈/div〉
〈h5〉Graphical abstract〈/h5〉
〈div〉〈p〉〈figure〉〈img src="https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0040402018315072-fx1.jpg" width="368" alt="Image 1" title="Image 1"〉〈/figure〉〈/p〉〈/div〉
Print ISSN:
0040-4020
Electronic ISSN:
1464-5416
Topics:
Chemistry and Pharmacology
Permalink