Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: Syn-selective Allylation of Aldehydes using Organo-Tin-Allyls
fluorescence
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 285
Registered: 11-11-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: So cold outside

[*] posted on 12-2-2017 at 09:52
Syn-selective Allylation of Aldehydes using Organo-Tin-Allyls


Hey guys,

So I am currently studying for an exam on asymmetric synthesis and catalysis and we had different methods vor selective allylations of aldehydes. The so called Type II Reagents, often Tin or Silicon allyls can be used as either (E)-configured or (Z)-configured tin-allyl. Both of them yield syn-products only.

Now for the Type I reactions you have a closed, cyclic, Zimmerna-Traxler transition state and it doesn't really matter if there is an (Z) or (E) allyl as the repulsion isn't too big. So Z -> Syn and E-> Anti. For Type III like Cr(II)-Allyls the metallotropic shift from (Z) to (E) is so fast that only (E) reacts so only the anti-product is formed.

Type II however does not have a cyclic state because the tin-reagents have to be activated using an additional lewis acid. You can write this in the newman-projection (picture added below).


Trans.jpg - 85kB

The synclinal state is further stabilized by an interaction of the Sn-C-bonding bond donation e-density into the C=O-antibond of the Carbonyl-group. The problem I have here is why are both these states now syn ? What I am looking at is the "R" in the background which could be either syn or anti to the C=O (OH) and in one case it's close to it while in the other case it is on the other side.

I'm not sure how an anti-product would look like in a newman projection but I just can't imagine the synclinal to have the "R" later on the same side as the CO (OH). Do I look at this in a wrong way or how would I have to imagine an anti-product in this case ?




View user's profile View All Posts By User

  Go To Top