1
$\begingroup$

Most of the reactions undergo ring expansion whenever favourable. But this reaction [1, p. 514] doesn't seems to do so:

Practice Problem 11.18 Provide a mechanism for the following reaction.

Reaction between (1‐methoxyethyl)cyclopentane and HCl

Could anybody explain why?

References

  1. Solomons, T. W. G.; Fryhle, C. B.; Snyder, S. A. Organic Chemistry, 12e ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, NJ, 2016. ISBN 978-1-118-87576-6.
Improve this question
$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Presence of a good nucleophile Cl- that captures the stable cation faster than any ring expansion. Also 5 ring is pretty stable so expansion to 6 is not particularly favoured. $\endgroup$ – Waylander Sep 10 '19 at 18:12
  • $\begingroup$ But it does rearrange to a tertiary cation.....wouldn't it be better if it's a tertiary cation in a 6 membered ring? $\endgroup$ – Dheeraj Kamath Sep 10 '19 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ No, 6 ring is not better than 5 $\endgroup$ – Waylander Sep 10 '19 at 18:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ring strain slightly lower with 5 than 6 $\endgroup$ – Waylander Sep 10 '19 at 18:18
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In the future, please add complete reference to the textbook you are quoting from (page number(s), edition, publisher etc.: see my edit as an example). Also, this question somewhat looks like a "covert" homework question: probably you can share with us some of your own thoughts. Other than that, it's a nice question IMO. $\endgroup$ – andselisk♦ Sep 10 '19 at 18:19
2
$\begingroup$

There are 2 things to consider: What would be the energy difference between before and after rearrangement from initial $2^\circ$-carbocation (I) and each of rearranged carbocations II and III:

Cyclopentane Rearrangement

It is obvious that the rearrangement of carbocation I to give carbocation II by ring expansion have minimal energy change since both initial and final carbocations are $2^\circ$ and ring expansion does not relieve too much energy because it is cyclopentyl to cyclohexyl. However, the rearrangement of carbocation I to give carbocation III by 1,2-hydride transfer relieves good amount of energy since initial carbocation is $2^\circ$ and final rearranged carbocation is $3^\circ$. Although the carbocation II would undergo further stabilization by 1,2-hydride transfer to relieve extra energy, I to III happens much faster than I to II transfer to give 3 as the major product.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.