1980
DOI: 10.1021/jo01306a016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bond scission in sulfur compounds. 13. Reactivity-selectivity correlations. 3. The .alpha. effect at saturated carbon. Reactivity studies of methyl phenyl sulfates with nucleophiles

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
22
0

Year Published

1982
1982
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
2
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The plot between log k 2 and pk a for the corresponding arylthiols [30] shows considerably more scatter correlation than that obtained from the Hammett plot and has slope , Figure 2. As the transition state of a nucleophile implies (partial) donation of an electron pair from the nucleophile to the reaction center, the Bronsted coefficient ␤, is related to the extent of bond formation of the nucleophile to the reaction center, i.e., the ␤ values are generally positively associated with the degree of bond formation in the transition state [27,31,32]. Moreover, a transition state where bond breaking is so much advanced over bond making requires that the reaction center bears a sizable positive charge (with respect to the initial state) which in turn requires a negative with large substituent effect [33].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The plot between log k 2 and pk a for the corresponding arylthiols [30] shows considerably more scatter correlation than that obtained from the Hammett plot and has slope , Figure 2. As the transition state of a nucleophile implies (partial) donation of an electron pair from the nucleophile to the reaction center, the Bronsted coefficient ␤, is related to the extent of bond formation of the nucleophile to the reaction center, i.e., the ␤ values are generally positively associated with the degree of bond formation in the transition state [27,31,32]. Moreover, a transition state where bond breaking is so much advanced over bond making requires that the reaction center bears a sizable positive charge (with respect to the initial state) which in turn requires a negative with large substituent effect [33].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the following three major factors responsible for the a-effect, namely, (I) destabilization of the ground state of the a-nucleophile by repulsion between the adjacent lone electron pairs (5), (2) stabilization of the transition state by the extra pair of electrons, and (3) reduced solvation of the a-nucleophile by the adjacent lone electron pair, the last two factors have been fairly well substantiated by both theoretical (6)(7)(8)(9) and experimental studies (10)(11)(12)(13). Stabilization of the transition state by the a-nucleophile, namely the second factor, has recently been considered quite important and possibly the major factor for the enhanced reactivity in the nucleophilic attack of the a-nucleophile on the electropositive reacting center, especially in solution.…”
mentioning
confidence: 81%
“…From Figure 5 it is apparent that this would give a specific rate constant ~H O O -= 4.6 f 1.2M-l s-l. One hence obtains for the CY effect kHOO-/kMeO-= 8.8 f 2.2. The effect is clearly greater in magnitude than that observed with hydrazine [8], which is a significant finding. The error limit on K given above can be improved upon as a result of a corresponding study with methyl rn-nitrophenyl sulfate.…”
Section: Estimation Of Khoo-using the Derived K Valuementioning
confidence: 58%