Chemical Forums
Chemistry Forums for Students => Organic Chemistry Forum => Topic started by: cabaal on December 09, 2010, 03:51:09 PM
-
Under acidic conditions the nucleophile attacks the more hindered carbon. Under basic, the less hindered.
(https://www.chemicalforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg135.imageshack.us%2Fimg135%2F6648%2F29894987.png&hash=a3f420cce3c7bdc1983ccf306cd751992b574578)
Why in this problem (acidic conditions) does the reaction give a major product characteristic of the nucleophile attacking the less hindered carbon?
-
Why would you not expect the major product to be the one where the EtOH attacks the least hindered carbon?? What is the reasoning behind that rule?
I am confused!
-
This could be because the sulfuric acid is catalytic and allows the reaction to proceed by an Sn2 mechanism.
I didn't see the full scheme origionally. Sorry.
-
Why would you not expect the major product to be the one where the EtOH attacks the least hindered carbon?? What is the reasoning behind that rule?
I am confused!
My notes say that under basic conditions the nucleophile attacks the least hindered, and under acidic conditions it attacks the most hindered. Is this incorrect?
-
No, but in order to rationalize the discrepancy I would say the the epoxide is activated by catalytic acid in a way similar to how a carbonyl can be activated towards nucleophilic substitution by catalytic acid.
-
It looks like an error.
-
It definitely looks like an error.
As far as I know, epoxide ring opening in guided by stability of C+(Carbocation) formed under Acidic conditions,
and under Basic/Neutral conditions, it is guided by steric hindrance.
So according to that, I think the image itself, provided by you might have error.
-
It definitely looks like an error.
As far as I know, epoxide ring opening in guided by stability of C+(Carbocation) formed under Acidic conditions,
and under Basic/Neutral conditions, it is guided by steric hindrance.
So according to that, I think the image itself, provided by you might have error.
Yes! this is correct.
Pls find the detailed of the same in the below page:
http://www.chem.ucalgary.ca/courses/350/Carey/Ch16/ch16-6-3.html
-
@prabakar
I saw your link which says that mechanizm follow carbocation stability.
But in all examples i came across while studying (many as i am studying for my exams these days) i observed that till both carbons forming epoxide. if both are 2 or 1 degree ... SN2 mechanism follows, but if any1 is 3 degree ... SN1 mechanism follows. Though i have no surety about this, its just my observation. But yes this is valid for ether (non cyclic) cleavage surely.
Please any cross check this.