Understanding and Breaking Scaling Relations in Single-Site Catalysis: Methane-to-methanol Conversion by Fe(IV)=O

Terry Z. H. Gani and Heather J. Kulik (2017)

Highlighted by Jan Jensen

This is the first study I have come across that locates TS structures as part of a "high-throughput" single-site catalyst design study. Furthermore, the catalyst contains iron, which is not the easiest of elements to work with computationally. 

The study locates 76 and 43 TSs for the oxo formation (TS1) and hydrogen atom transfer (HAT, TS2) steps of the catalytic cycle. These are relatively small numbers compared to high throughput studies of other properties (hence the quotation marks), but they are roughly an order of magnitude larger than the number of TSs found in typical computational study of catalysts. The number is smaller for HAT due to difficulties in locating TSs for this step.

The TSs were located using either NEB implemented in DL-FIND or Q-CHEM where initial guess structures were generated using a locally modified version of molSimplify.

The studies show that there is a good correlation between reaction energy and barrier for the HAT step (R2 = 0.99) but a poor correlation for the oxo formation (R2 = 0.50 - 0.81). The authors conclude "Overall, our work shows that LFERs can be leveraged in single-site catalyst screening only when the coordination geometry is held fixed. Reliance solely on LFERs for single-site catalysis will thus miss rich areas of chemical space accessible through scaffold distortion."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Tunneling Control of Chemical Reactions: The Third Reactivity Paradigm

Schreiner, P. R., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 15276-15283
Contributed by Steven Bacharach
Reposted from Computational Organic Chemistry with permission

Over the past nine years the Schreiner group, often in collaboration with the Allen group, have produced some remarkable studies demonstrating the role of tunneling control. (I have made quite a number of posts on this topics.) Tunneling control is a third mechanism for dictating product formation, in tandem with kinetic control (the favored product is the one that results from the lowest barrier) and thermodynamic control (the favored product is the one that has the lowest energy). Tunneling control has the favored product resulting from the narrowest mass-considered barrier.

Schreiner has written a very clear perspective on tunneling control. It is framed quite interestingly by some fascinating quotes:

It is probably fair to say that many organic chemists view the concept of tunneling, even of hydrogen atoms, with some skepticism. – Carpenter 1983²

Reaction processes have been considered as taking place according to the laws of classical mechanics, quantum mechanical theory being only employed in calculating interatomic forces. – Bell 1933³

Schreiner’s article makes it very clear how critical it is to really think about reactions from a truly quantum mechanical perspective. He notes the predominance of potential energy diagrams that focus exclusively on the relative energies and omits any serious consideration of the reaction coordinate metrics, like barrier width. When one also considers the rise in our understanding of the role of reaction dynamics in organic chemistry (see, for example, these many posts), just how long will it take for these critical notions to penetrate into standard organic chemical thinking? As Schreiner puts it:

It should begin by including quantum phenomena in introductory textbooks, where they are, at least in organic chemistry, blatantly absent. To put this oversight in words similar to those used much earlier by Frank Weinhold in a different context: “When will chemistry textbooks begin to serve as aids, rather than barriers, to this enriched quantum-mechanical perspective?”⁴

References

1) Schreiner, P. R., "Tunneling Control of Chemical Reactions: The Third Reactivity Paradigm." J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 15276-15283, DOI: 10.1021/jacs.7b06035.

2) Carpenter, B. K., "Heavy-atom tunneling as the dominant pathway in a solution-phase reaction? Bond shift in antiaromatic annulenes." J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983, 105, 1700-1701, DOI: 10.1021/ja00344a073.

3) Bell, R. P., "The Application of Quantum Mechanics to Chemical Kinetics." Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A1933, 139 (838), 466-474, DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1933.0031.

4) Weinhold, F., "Chemistry: A new twist on molecular shape." Nature 2001, 411, 539-541, DOI: 10.1038/35079225.

'
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

The Cope Rearrangement of 1,5-Dimethylsemibullvalene-2(4)-d1: Experimental Evidence for Heavy-Atom Tunneling

Schleif, T.; Mieres-Perez, J.; Henkel, S.; Ertelt, M.; Borden, W. T.; Sander, W., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 10746-10749
Contributed by Steven Bacharach
Reposted from Computational Organic Chemistry with permission

Another prediction made by quantum chemistry has now been confirmed. In 2010, Zhang, Hrovat, and Borden predicted that the degenerate rearrangement of semibullvalene 1 occurs with heavy atom tunneling.¹ For example, the computed rate of the rearrangement including tunneling correction is 1.43 x 10^-3 s^-1 at 40 K, and this rate does not change with decreasing temperature. The predicted half-life of 485 s is 10¹⁰ shorter than that predicted by transition state theory.

Now a group led by Sander has examined the rearrangement of deuterated 2.² The room temperature equilibrium mixture of d⁴–2 and d²–2 was deposited at 3 K. IR observation showed a decrease in signal intensities associated with d⁴–2 and concomitant growth of signals associated with d²–2. The barrier for this interconversion is about 5 kcal mol^-1, too large to be crossed at this temperature. Instead, the interconversion is happening by tunneling through the barrier (with a rate about 10^-4 s^-1), forming the more stable isomer d²–2 preferentially. This is exactly as predicted by theory!

References

1. Zhang, X.; Hrovat, D. A.; Borden, W. T., "Calculations Predict That Carbon Tunneling Allows the Degenerate Cope Rearrangement of Semibullvalene to Occur Rapidly at Cryogenic Temperatures." Org. Letters 2010, 12, 2798-2801, DOI: 10.1021/ol100879t.

2. Schleif, T.; Mieres-Perez, J.; Henkel, S.; Ertelt, M.; Borden, W. T.; Sander, W., "The Cope Rearrangement of 1,5-Dimethylsemibullvalene-2(4)-d1: Experimental Evidence for Heavy-Atom Tunneling." Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 10746-10749, DOI: 10.1002/anie.201704787.

InChIs

1: InChI=1S/C8H8/c1-3-6-7-4-2-5(1)8(6)7/h1-8H
InChIKey=VEAPRCKNPMGWCP-UHFFFAOYSA-N

d⁴–2: InChI=1S/C10H12/c1-9-5-3-7-8(4-6-9)10(7,9)2/h3-8H,1-2H3/i5D
InChIKey=WUJOLJNLXLACNA-UICOGKGYSA-N

d²–2: InChI=1S/C10H12/c1-9-5-3-7-8(4-6-9)10(7,9)2/h3-8H,1-2H3/i7D
InChIKey=WUJOLJNLXLACNA-WHRKIXHSSA-N

'
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.