Intrinsic barrier solvent effects

Other measures of nucleophilicity have been proposed. Brauman et al. studied Sn2 reactions in the gas phase and applied Marcus theory to obtain the intrinsic barriers of identity reactions. These quantities were interpreted as intrinsic nucleo-philicities. Streitwieser has shown that the reactivity of anionic nucleophiles toward methyl iodide in dimethylformamide (DMF) is correlated with the overall heat of reaction in the gas phase he concludes that bond strength and electron affinity are the important factors controlling nucleophilicity. The dominant role of the solvent in controlling nucleophilicity was shown by Parker, who found solvent effects on nucleophilic reactivity of many orders of magnitude. For example, most anions are more nucleophilic in DMF than in methanol by factors as large as 10, because they are less effectively shielded by solvation in the aprotic solvent. Liotta et al. have measured rates of substitution by anionic nucleophiles in acetonitrile solution containing a crown ether, which forms an inclusion complex with the cation (K ) of the nucleophile. These rates correlate with gas phase rates of the same nucleophiles, which, in this crown ether-acetonitrile system, are considered to be naked anions. The solvation of anionic nucleophiles is treated in Section 8.3. 

Another approach was used some years ago by Dewar and Storch (1989). They called attention to solvent effects in ion-molecule reactions which do not yield an activation energy in theoretical calculations related to gas-phase conditions, but which are known to proceed with measureable activation energy in solution. Dewar and Storch therefore make a distinction between intrinsic barriers due to chemical processes and desolvation barriers due to chemical processes. 

In cases where there is strong solvation of the carbanion, as for example hydrogen bonding solvation of enolate or nitronate ions in hydroxylic solvents, the intrinsic barrier is increased further because the transition state cannot benefit significantly from this solvation. This is the reason why AG for the deprotonation of nitroalkanes in water is particularly high, i.e., much higher than in dipolar aprotic solvents, see, e.g., entry 11 versus 15 and entry 13 versus 16 in Table 1. These solvation effects will be discussed in more detail below. 

Solvation can have a large effect on intrinsic barriers or intrinsic rate constants, especially hydrogen bonding solvation of nitronate or enolate ions in hydroxylic solvents. Table 4 reports intrinsic rate constants in water and aqueous DMSO for a number of representative examples.19,20,23 25,40,54 56 Entries 1-4 which refer to nitroalkanes show large increases in ogka when... 

Chemical reactivity is influenced by solvation in different ways. As noted before, the solvent modulates the intrinsic characteristics of the reactants, which are related to polarization of its charge distribution. In addition, the interaction between solute and solvent molecules gives rise to a differential stabilization of reactants, products and transition states. The interaction of solvent molecules can affect both the equilibrium and kinetics of a chemical reaction, especially when there are large differences in the polarities of the reactants, transition state, or products. Classical examples that illustrate this solvent effect are the SN2 reaction, in which water molecules induce large changes in the kinetic and thermodynamic characteristics of the reaction, and the nucleophilic attack of an R-CT group on a carbonyl centre, which is very exothermic and occurs without an activation barrier in the gas phase but is clearly endothermic with a notable activation barrier in aqueous solution [76-79]. 

The Br0nsted plots (Fig. 3) give information on this point. The higher curvature of the plot for DMSO compared to methanol is indicative of a lower intrinsic barrier to proton transfer for the dipolar aprotic solvent. Since in the extended Marcus theory the solvent effect has already been taken into account, one would expect the intrinsic barrier for proton transfer to be identical in the two systems. This is not the case. Therefore it appears that separation of the mechanism into reagent positioning with concomitant solvent reorganization is not warranted. 

---