2008
DOI: 10.1021/jp710656f
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thermochemical and Kinetic Study of the Carbocation Ring Contraction of Cyclohexylium to Methylcyclopentylium

Abstract: Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n'arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team atPublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the pub… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
12
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
3
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The large reaction barrier (20.1 kcal/mol) [10] calculated by Vrček et al [8] for the ring contraction of 1,2-dimethyl-1-cyclohexylium led us to ponder the influence of substituents on ring contraction reaction pathways given that, for 1, the experimentally-determined (E a = 7.4 ± 1 kcal/mol) [11] and our calculated (E a = 6.9 kcal/mol) [9,12] barriers are significantly lower. The main difference between the two reactions is that the latter is driven from a secondary (cyclohexylium) carbocation toward a tertiary (methyl-cyclopentylium) carbocation product for energetic reasons, whereas the former starts and ends with tertiary carbocations and the energetic driving forces are not present.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The large reaction barrier (20.1 kcal/mol) [10] calculated by Vrček et al [8] for the ring contraction of 1,2-dimethyl-1-cyclohexylium led us to ponder the influence of substituents on ring contraction reaction pathways given that, for 1, the experimentally-determined (E a = 7.4 ± 1 kcal/mol) [11] and our calculated (E a = 6.9 kcal/mol) [9,12] barriers are significantly lower. The main difference between the two reactions is that the latter is driven from a secondary (cyclohexylium) carbocation toward a tertiary (methyl-cyclopentylium) carbocation product for energetic reasons, whereas the former starts and ends with tertiary carbocations and the energetic driving forces are not present.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…[9], we employed the PBE density functional with 6-311++G(2d, 2p) basis sets to calculate the ring isomerizations of 2 and 3. These two systems neatly highlight differences in energetics and structure when either an electron donating or withdrawing group is added to a cyclohexylium cation, 1.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations