ATOOCV1 7 0 Aliphatic Electrophilic Substitution
ATOOCV1 7 0 Aliphatic Electrophilic Substitution
Mechanism involved: The proposed mechanism for the reaction given above says that the two electrons of
the carbon-electrophile bond reside in the central orbital. Ingold proposed that the electronic distribution
responsible for different stereochemistry of products is a function of bond-extension’s magnitude and the
extent of bond ionicity of the transition state.
It is obvious that the transition state needs to have high ionicity and good bond extension potential for SE2-
back reactions so that the carbon’s orbital is sufficiently spread on both ends, resulting in the inverted
configuration in the case of a chiral substrate. On the other hand, if there is a very little bond extension and
low ionicity in the transition state, the electron-pair of the original bond pretty much retains its position and
gives rise to the retention of the configuration, and we get SE2-front case.
Where E+ is the attacking electrophile whereas L+ is the leaving group. Furthermore, it is also worthy to note
that organometallic compounds have exceptional susceptibility towards electrophilic substitution.
Salient Features: The main features of the mechanism involved in electrophilic substitution bimolecular or
SE2 type reactions are given below.
i) SE2 reactions follow second-order kinetics with the rate law
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝑘[𝑅𝑋][𝐸]
Where k is the rate constant. The symbol [𝑅𝑋] and [𝐸] represent the molar concentration of the substrate and
attacking electrophile, respectively.
ii) If the substrate is chiral, then the SE2 mechanism can lead to the inversion, as well as, retention of the
configuration; depending upon the mode of attack (front or back).
iii) The rate of the substitution becomes independent of the concentration of the attacking electrophile if its
concentration is extremely high in comparison to the substrate.
iv) Stereochemical studies can be employed to differentiate between SE 2-front and SE2-back.
v) The SE2 reactions are favored by the more polar C−L bond.
Mechanism involved: The proposed mechanism for the reaction given above says that the two electrons of
the carbon-electrophile bond reside in the central orbital. It is observed that if there is a very little bond
extension and low ionicity in the transition state, the electron-pair of the original bond pretty much retains its
position and gives rise to the retention of the configuration, and we get SEi case (like SE2-front).
Salient Features: The main features of the mechanism involved in electrophilic substitution internal or SEi
type reactions are given below.
i) SEi reactions follow second-order kinetics with the rate law
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝑘[𝑅𝑋][𝐸𝑍]
Where k is the rate constant. The symbol [𝑅𝑋] and [𝐸𝑍] represent the molar concentration of the substrate and
attacking electrophile, respectively.
ii) Like SE2-front, SEi reactions result in the retention of the configuration.
iii) The SE2 reactions are favored by the more polar C−L bond.
Mechanism involved: The proposed mechanism for the reaction given above involves a three-step route which
must be discussed before we give the salient features of the same.
i) Heterolysis in substrate: This is the slowest, and therefore, is the rate-determining step that gives rise to a
carbanion.
ii) Electrophilic attack: This is a very fast step and involves the combination of attacking electrophile with the
carbanion produced in the previous step.
The stereochemistry of SE1 reactions is quite complicated to rationalize because of the configuration
of intermediatory carbanions obtained via the first step of heterolysis. Generally, we consider carbanions planar
(sp2 hybridization) or pyramidal (sp3 hybridization), or an in-between configuration. As far as the energy is
concerned, pyramidal geometry is more advantageous because lone pair will stay in sp3 hybridized orbital.
Furthermore, a pyramidal carbanion can retain its structure in the course of substitution to result in the retention
of the final configuration. However, it does not always go this way because a pyramidal carbanion has been
shown to results in racemization due to ‘pyramidal inversion’; amines and R 3C− carbanions are typical
examples.
On the other hand, if the carbanion is of trigonal planar geometry, the electrophile can attack from both sides
to give rise to racemized yield. So, we can conclude that racemization is the characteristic feature of the SE1
route. However, it is quite tedious to determine how the racemization actually occurred; via pyramidal
inversion or planar carbanions.
Salient Features: The main features of the mechanism involved in electrophilic substitution unimolecular or
SE1 type reactions are given below.
i) SE2 reactions follow first-order kinetics with the rate law
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝑘[𝑅𝑋]
Where k is the rate constant. The symbol [𝑅𝑋] represents the molar concentration of the substrate.
ii) If the substrate is chiral, then this always leads to the racemization of the final product.
iii) Unlike SN1-type, SE1 reaction can also occur at bridgehead carbon because the intermediate (carbanion in
this case) need not to be planar.
iv) The rate of the substitution increases as the steric bulk around the carbon center decreases.
v) The SE2 reactions are favored by the more polar C−L bond.
It is also worthy to note that terminal and non-conjugated alkenes can easily be converted into internal and
conjugated olefins using this route, proving its significance in synthetic organic chemistry.
➢ Acid-catalyzed Double Bond Migration
The second pathway is the acid-catalyzed double bond migration, where an equilibrium mixture of
isomers is obtained with a stable configuration as the major product. The reaction initiates with the attack of
E on the π-bond to yield a carbocation which then loses L forming a new alkene unit. The typical reaction
portraying mechanism is given below.
Just like base-catalyzed double bond migration, this route can also be used to convert terminal and non-
conjugated alkenes into internal and conjugated olefins.
Furthermore, it has also been observed that the rate of front-mode electrophilic substitution in aliphatic
compounds increases as the branching in the substrate increases increased, which can be attributed to the
electron-releasing effect of the alkyl groups that makes the electron-deficient transition state more stable.
However, it is also worthy to note that β-branching will reduce the substitution rate in SE2-front because of the
steric hindrance.
➢ Effect of Leaving Group
The ease of electrofuge’s detachment in both types (SE1 and SE2) increases with the increasing
polarity of the C−X bond. Nevertheless, if the leaving group is metallic in nature and metal has a valence
greater than one, then any group attached to the metal center will affect its electrofugal ability. For instance,
consider the case of Me3C−Hg−W (organomercurials) where the rate of reaction has decreased. The reason
lies in the fact that although Hg and W have less electronegativity than carbon (which is why the C−Hg bond
is polar), the C−Hg bond becomes less polar due to the higher electronegativity W than Hg. In other words,
carbon will have a lower negative charge in the C−Hg bond when W is attached to Hg because tungsten will
support Hg to hold the shared pair more firmly. Therefore, −HgMe will be a better leaving group than −HgCl.
Furthermore, it is also worthy to note that carbon-based leaving groups support the SE1 mechanism, whereas
SE2 or SEi mechanisms are favored by metal-based leaving groups.
❖ Problems
Q 1. Define electrophilic substitution reactions.
Q 2. What is the fundamental difference between SE 2 and SEi mechanisms?
Q 3. Discuss the step-to-step mechanism of SE1 reactions.
Q 4. How can electrophilic substitution occur via double bond shift?
Q 5. Discuss the effect of substrate structure and leaving group on the reactivity of electrophilic substitution
in aliphatic compounds.
Q 6. How does the nature of nucleophiles affect the rate of aliphatic electrophilic substitution?
Q 7. Write down a short note on the solvent polarity’s effect on electrophilic substitution reactions in aliphatic
systems.
❖ Bibliography
1. M. B. Smith, March’s Advanced Organic Chemistry: Reactions, Mechanisms, and Structure, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA, 2013.
2. D. Klein, Organic Chemistry, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA, 2015.
3. C. A. Coulson, B. O'Leary, R. B. Mallion, Hückel Theory for Organic Chemists, Academic Press,
Massachusetts, USA, 1978.
4. M.S. Singh, Reactive Intermediates in Organic Chemistry, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA,
2014.
5. H. Zimmerman, Quantum Mechanics for Organic Chemists, Academic Press, New York, USA, 1975.
6. J. Clayden, N. Greeves, S. Warren, Organic Chemistry, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2012.
7. R. L. Madan, Organic Chemistry, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi India, 2013.
Home
Join the revolution by becoming a part of our community and get all of the member benefits
--------
like downloading any PDF document for your personal preview.
Share this article/info with your classmates and friends
Sign Up
join the revolution by becoming a part of our community and get all of the member benefits like downloading any PDF document for your personal preview.
Sign Up