October 12, 2024, 12:31:47 AM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO  (Read 18142 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline minimal

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
  • Mole Snacks: +1/-0
Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO
« on: February 11, 2009, 06:11:55 PM »
Ok, I know hyperconjugation has a stabilizing effect.  For instance, ethane has the staggered conformer, as opposed to the eclipsed conformer, not due to steric hindrance, but due to hyperconjugation.

Now, since the bonding orbitals are already filled, the hyperconjugated electron goes into an antibonding orbital, if I understand properly.  Why is that stabilizing, considering an antibonding orbital is higher in energy than a nonbonding sp3 orbital.  Shouldn't the presence of an electron in the antibonding orbital destabilize the compound?

Thanks.

Offline Mitsunobo

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14
  • Mole Snacks: +3/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2009, 10:47:28 AM »
It is stabilizing in the sense that it distributes the charge. You have to look at the total stability that it brings to the molecule/ion. For example in a carbocation, the electrons involved in the hyperconjugation makes the positive charge lesser hence more stable than those carbocations is not undergoing hyperconjugation. And by the way, electrons can go in either nonbonding or antibonding orbitals during hyperconjugation

Offline azmanam

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1416
  • Mole Snacks: +160/-24
  • Mediocrity is a handrail -Charles Louis d'Secondat
Re: Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2009, 11:08:45 AM »
think of it as a 2-center, 2-electron bond.  similar to the anomeric effect, or the stability of diborane (even though that's 3-center, 2-electron bond.

For the anomeric effect:
Knowing why you got a question wrong is better than knowing that you got a question right.

Offline minimal

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
  • Mole Snacks: +1/-0
Re: Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2009, 03:06:23 PM »
think of it as a 2-center, 2-electron bond.  similar to the anomeric effect, or the stability of diborane (even though that's 3-center, 2-electron bond.

For the anomeric effect:

I don't quite understand the anomeric effect either.  What is a non-bonding orbital, and how is that different from an atomic orbital?  Also, how is a 2-center, 2-electron bond any different than any other bond?  Aren't they (almost) all 2-center, 2-electron bonds?

Thanks for the help.

Offline azmanam

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1416
  • Mole Snacks: +160/-24
  • Mediocrity is a handrail -Charles Louis d'Secondat
Re: Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2009, 01:30:02 PM »
I'm working on an answer to your q.  A large part of my PhD work is on the anomeric effect, so I have a lot to say about the subject.  I'm giving a departmental seminar on my research next week, so I'm a bit busy right now... but if you'll be patient, I'll explain.  I promise.

If you can't wait, read ch 1 & 2 of Jaristi & Cuevas, The Anomeric Effect (CRC, 1995).  That explains the anomeric effect, and the theory loosely explains hyperconjugation (and alkyl group stabiliztion of carbocations).
Knowing why you got a question wrong is better than knowing that you got a question right.

Offline minimal

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
  • Mole Snacks: +1/-0
Re: Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2009, 05:41:07 PM »
Sounds great.  I don't mind waiting.  Thanks for the help.

Offline azmanam

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1416
  • Mole Snacks: +160/-24
  • Mediocrity is a handrail -Charles Louis d'Secondat
Re: Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2009, 05:00:56 PM »
Whenever you can lower the energy of a system, the system is more stable.

This is common in resonance.  Allylic carbocations are stablized through resonance.  The electrons in the pi-bond can delocalize into the empty p-orbital and this delocalization of electrons lowers the energy of the system.  Allylic carbocations are stabilized through the delocalization of electrons through resonance.

The effect is also true for other carbocations.  When you form a carbocation you have a full positive charge on carbon, and an empty p orbital (fig. 1).  When it's a methyl carbocation, there are three hydrogen atoms attached to the carbocation, and that's it (fig 2).  we know that to be very unstable. 

As soon as you have one methyl group on the carbocation, things change.  Now, there is a carbon-hydrogen sigma bond that (when the rotation is right) is almost parallel to the empty p-orbital on the carbocation (fig 3).  Why is that important?  Because the orbital of the carbon-hydrogen sigma bond  (the one with two electrons) is very close in proximity to the empty p-orbital.  Because of the close proximity of an orbital high in electron density (the filled sigma bond) and an orbital low in electron density (the empty p-orbital), those orbitals can interact.  I'm not going to say they bond, or they overlap, but they interact.  The electron density in the filled sigma bond interacts with the empty p-orbital (fig 4)

This doesn't form a new bond, and doesn't mean there isn't a carbocation, and doesn't mean the carbon now is free of its full positive charge... but the electrons in the C-H sigma bond do interact with the empty p-orbital.  The filled molecular orbital of the C-H sigma bond (with its pair of electrons) and the empty p-orbital interact in a stabilizing manner.  The electron density is now spread out a bit and to some extent encompasses part of the empty p-orbital.  The electrons are somewhat delocalized over 2 atoms (even though there is still a full sigma bond between C-H), and the delocalization of electrons - along with the relief of some of the lack of electron density on carbon - lowers the energy of those electrons.  I've drawn a pseudo energy diagram in fig 5, but I made the electrons dashed lines.  I don't want you to think that a double bond is forming between the two carbon atoms (although you could draw that resonance structure if you wanted... you'd also have a free proton).  The interaction between the electrons in the C-H sigma bond and the empty p-orbital provides a net stabilizing interaction.

Same thing with hyperconjugation.  In this case, the electrons in one sigma bonding orbital delocalize and interact with the sigma star antibonding orbital of the neighboring group (fig 6).  The same energy diagram applies, except the C-H sigma bonding electrons are interacting with a C-H sigma* antibonding orbital - not a p orbital.  The delocalization of electrons lowers the energy of the electrons and provides a net stabilization to the system.

After re-reading the op, you say "the hyperconjugated electron goes into an antibonding orbital."  This is key.  The electron doesn't leave the sigma bonding orbital and relocate into the antibonding orbital.  If it did, that would be very destabilizing, as you'd remove electrons from a lower, more stable orbital and relocate the to a higher, much less stable orbital.  I used to think of this the same way for quite a while, but it's not how it works.  The key is the delocalization of electrons from a lower-energy filled orbital with a higher-energy unfilled orbital.  This delocalization provides a net stabilization to the pair of electrons, and provides a net stabilization to the molecule as a whole.

We mentioned the anomeric effect, so I'll talk about it here for a bit.  Although, it's the same analysis.  For a 6-membered ring with an endocyclic oxygen and an electronegative element as a substituent on the carbon atom next to the endocyclic oxygen atom (fig 7), that exocyclic electronegative substituent prefers to reside in an axial orientation.  Sterics would tell us the large substituent should be equatorial, and in the absence of the neighboring endocyclic oxygen atom that would be true.  But this particular orientation - the endocyclic oxygen atom next to the exocyclic electronegative atom - the substituent prefers an axial orientation.

Why?  In one explanation, the same orbital overlap scenario applies.  There are two lone pairs on the endocyclic oxygen atom.  As with all substituents in a 6-membered ring, one lone pair is axial, one lone pair is equatorial.  Here's the key - when the electronegative subtituent is axial, the axially-oriented lone pair of electrons is synperiplanar with the C-X sigma* antibonding orbital (fig 8 ).  In this case, the lone pair of electrons can delocalize with the antibonding orbital just like the energy diagram in fig 5.  This lowers the energy of the electrons and leads to a net stabilization of the system.  This is the principle behind the anomeric effect.  The delocalization of electrons leads to a net stabilization of the molecule.

This is much more dramatic for anomerically-stabilized systems than for, say, ethane.  Why?  The lone pair is higher in energy and the C-X antibonding orbital is lower in energy, and the two energy levels are closer together than a C-H sigma bond and a C-H sigma* antibonding orbital.   With the energy levels closer together, the overlap is more favorable.  There is a whole series of good electron donors (lone pairs are among the best) and electron acceptors (empty p-orbitals are among the best).

Hope this helps.
Knowing why you got a question wrong is better than knowing that you got a question right.

Offline sanderol

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 41
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-1
Re: Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2009, 05:32:42 PM »
Nice post, good work

Offline azmanam

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1416
  • Mole Snacks: +160/-24
  • Mediocrity is a handrail -Charles Louis d'Secondat
Knowing why you got a question wrong is better than knowing that you got a question right.

Offline sanderol

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 41
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-1
Re: Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2009, 12:13:49 PM »
Still having some difficulties in accepting that delocalization in an antibonding orbital gives a net stabilizing effect.... :-\

Also im also still in question why this anomeric effect is only present with different substituents then a -OH. Why is the effect not seen with a hydroxy group?

Offline azmanam

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1416
  • Mole Snacks: +160/-24
  • Mediocrity is a handrail -Charles Louis d'Secondat
Re: Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2009, 02:26:18 PM »
again, it's not delocalization into an antibonding orbital, it's delocalization with an antibonding orbital.  There is crystal structure data to show that the when the electronegative substituent is axial, the C-O bond is shorter and the C-X bond is longer than when the electronegative substituent is equatorial.  Because the electrons delocalize with the antibonding orbital, it gives a slight double bond character to the C-O bond an a slight weakening of the C-X bond.  Thus, the C-O bond shortens and the C-X bond lengthens when the compound is stabilized by the anomeric effect.

A compound will be stabilized by the anomeric effect when the axial substituent is OH, OCR, Cl, I, F, etc.  any substituent which begins with an electronegative element will be stabilized by the anomeric effect.  (that is, if the axial substituent is C or H, the compound will not be stabilized by the anomeric effect.  So the effect is seen with hydroxy groups.
Knowing why you got a question wrong is better than knowing that you got a question right.

Offline sanderol

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 41
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-1
Re: Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2009, 05:52:15 PM »
again, it's not delocalization into an antibonding orbital, it's delocalization with an antibonding orbital.  There is crystal structure data to show that the when the electronegative substituent is axial, the C-O bond is shorter and the C-X bond is longer than when the electronegative substituent is equatorial.  Because the electrons delocalize with the antibonding orbital, it gives a slight double bond character to the C-O bond an a slight weakening of the C-X bond.  Thus, the C-O bond shortens and the C-X bond lengthens when the compound is stabilized by the anomeric effect.

A compound will be stabilized by the anomeric effect when the axial substituent is OH, OCR, Cl, I, F, etc.  any substituent which begins with an electronegative element will be stabilized by the anomeric effect.  (that is, if the axial substituent is C or H, the compound will not be stabilized by the anomeric effect.  So the effect is seen with hydroxy groups.

Yes, I know this. Because we can also so that the anomeric effect is less when we replace our O to S to make a thioether. And the S-C bond is longer making the overlap between lonepair-antibonding smaller, so less anomeric effect.
I just have to get used to the idea of delocalization with a antibonding.. :P that's all.

The reason im asking about the OH group in particular is because I follow your blog (thnks for it btw) and I also read the baran group meeting on the anomeric effect. Herein they state that the in the case of an OH substituent, it prefers to be in the equatorial position. Is this wrong then?


Offline azmanam

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1416
  • Mole Snacks: +160/-24
  • Mediocrity is a handrail -Charles Louis d'Secondat
Re: Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2009, 06:04:15 PM »
Quote
I also read the baran group meeting on the anomeric effect. Herein they state that the in the case of an OH substituent, it prefers to be in the equatorial position. Is this wrong then?

It's right, but just for the particular case of glucose.  check the comments on the blog (thanks for reading) to see mitch ask the same question.  I attempted an answer, but for glucose I don't know for sure why equatorial is favored.  for sure, for methoxypyran, the axial is favored for the OH group.
Knowing why you got a question wrong is better than knowing that you got a question right.

Offline bort

  • New Member
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-0
Re: Question regarding hyperconjugation and FMO
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2009, 07:04:24 AM »
Old post, I know, but I just read it today.

I agree that adding e- to an empty antibonding orbital sounds like a strange way to stabilize a molecule.

However, think about any kind of conjugation, not just hyperconjugation. Consider our typical "arrow pushing" that we use to describe resonance of the allyl anion: in order to delocalize the lone pair  the filled non-bonding p orbital must form a bond with the empty pi* anti-bonding orbital.

Part of the confusion is due to our perception of bonding as a localized phenomena and our creative mixing of VB Theory and MO Theory to explain apparent aberrations in this localized model.

Sponsored Links