11
$\begingroup$

How does one explain the trend in bond lengths and acidity of the following hydrocarbons?

$$\begin{array}{ccc} \hline \text{Species} & \ce{C-H}\text{ bond length / Å} & \mathrm{p}K_\mathrm{a} \\ \hline \text{Ethane, }\ce{C2H6} & 1.102 & 50 \\ \text{Ethene, }\ce{C2H4} & 1.085 & 44 \\ \text{Ethyne, }\ce{C2H2} & 1.061 & 25 \\ \hline \end{array}$$

Shouldn't the shorter bonds between $\ce{C-H}$ be easier to break than longer ones, making ethane the most acidic?

$\endgroup$
16
$\begingroup$

You're right in that bond length, and therefore bond strength does affect acidity (see: $\ce{H2S}$, $\mathrm{p}K_\mathrm{a} = 7$ and $\ce{H2O}$, $\mathrm{p}K_\mathrm{a} = 15.7$). If we defined acidity with the following equation

$$\ce{HX -> H + X}$$

then the bond strength would indeed be the only deciding factor in the acidity of $\ce{HX}$, since the enthalpy change of that process is literally the bond dissociation energy.

However, acidity actually corresponds to the heterolytic dissociation of the $\ce{H-X}$ bond, with both electrons in the bond going to $\ce{X}$:

$$\ce{HX -> H+ + X-}$$

so bond strength isn't the only factor. In the case of ethane, ethene, and ethyne, the most important factor is the type of orbital that the electrons from the $\ce{C-H}$ bond end up in after deprotonation. For ethane, the two electrons end up in a carbon $\mathrm{sp^3}$ orbital; for ethene, an $\mathrm{sp^2}$ orbital; and for ethyne, an $\mathrm{sp}$ orbital.

Deprotonation

Now, of these three, the $\mathrm{sp}$ lone pair is the most stable, since the $\mathrm{sp}$ hybrid orbital contains the most s character ($50\%$) and therefore has the lowest energy. So, of the three carbanions, the lone pair in the acetylide ion $\ce{HC2-}$ is most stabilised, making ethyne the most acidic molecule.

The acidity of terminal alkynes is in fact pretty useful from a synthetic viewpoint, since you can deprotonate them with a strong base like $\ce{NaNH2}$, forming a carbon-based nucleophile which can then be used to make new $\ce{C-C}$ bonds.


As for why the electronic stabilisation outweighs the bond strength, it's worth looking at some quantitative data. The $\ce{H-O}$ and $\ce{H-S}$ bonds have mean bond enthalpies of $463$ and $338~\mathrm{kJ~mol^{-1}}$ respectively (source: Physical Chemistry 9th ed., Atkins & de Paula, p 932), which is a difference of $\mathbf{125~kJ~mol^{-1}}$. This can, to some extent, explain the difference in acidities of $\ce{H2O}$ and $\ce{H2S}$.

On the other hand, the dissociation energies of the $\ce{H-C\mathrm{(sp)}}$ and $\ce{H-C\mathrm{(sp^2)}}$ bonds are given in J. Phys. Chem. 1987, 91, 17-19 as $132.6$ and $116~\mathrm{kcal~mol^{-1}}$ respectively. The difference is roughly $17~\mathrm{kcal~mol^{-1}}$, which is equivalent to $\mathbf{69.5~kJ~mol^{-1}}$ - a somewhat smaller value than before. You can see why bond length variations might therefore play a smaller role in the hydrocarbons.


An alternative

Another equivalent way of looking at it is that an $\mathrm{sp}$-hybridised carbon is more electronegative than an $\mathrm{sp^2}$-hybridised carbon, which is in turn more electronegative than an $\mathrm{sp^3}$-hybridised carbon.

As mentioned earlier, an $\mathrm{sp}$ orbital has the greatest s-character, and consequently electrons in a carbon $\mathrm{sp}$ orbital experience a greater effective nuclear charge and are more tightly bound to the nucleus than electrons in $\mathrm{sp^2}$ or $\mathrm{sp^3}$ orbitals.

Of course, the $\ce{C-H}$ bond also involves a contribution from the hydrogen 1s orbital. However, the above means that the electrons in $\ce{C(sp)-H}$ bonds are more strongly attracted to the carbon nucleus than electrons in $\ce{C(sp^2)-H}$ or $\ce{C(sp^3)-H}$ bonds. This means that the $\ce{C(sp)-H}$ bond is more polarised towards carbon, leaving less electron density on hydrogen, and a greater acidity.

The amount of electron density on the hydrogen can in fact be probed using $\ce{^1H}$ NMR spectroscopy. A lower electron density translates into a higher chemical shift. Even though there is a second, unrelated, factor - anisotropic shielding - that serves to decrease the chemical shift of acetylenic hydrogens, they still tend to show up at higher chemical shifts than hydrogens on saturated hydrocarbons (~2 ppm, compared to ~1 ppm). This is a clear indication that the local electron density on a proton attached to $\ce{C(sp)}$ is less than that of a proton attached to $\ce{(sp^3)}$.

$\endgroup$

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.