Translate this page into:
Theoretical study of the pressure dependent rate constants of the thermal decomposition of β-propiolactone
⁎Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 44434072. shiroudi_a@yahoo.com (Abolfazl Shiroudi)
-
Received: ,
Accepted: ,
This article was originally published by Elsevier and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.
Abstract
A theoretical study of the thermal decomposition of β-propiolactone is carried out using ab initio molecular orbital (MO) methods at the MP2/6-311+G∗∗ level and Rice–Ramsperger–Kassel–Marcus (RRKM) theory. The reported experimental results showed that decomposition of β-propiolactone occurred by three competing homogeneous and first order reactions. For the three reactions, the calculation was also performed at the MP2/6-311+G∗∗ level of theory, as well as by single-point calculations at the B3LYP/6-311+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗, and MP4/6-311+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗ levels of theory. The fall-off pressures for the decomposition in these reactions are found to be 2.415, 9.423 × 10−2 and 3.676 × 10−3 mmHg, respectively.
Keywords
Unimolecular reaction
Fall-off pressure
Thermal decomposition
RRKM
1 Introduction
The thermal decarboxylation of β-lactones (2-oxetanones) is a well-established methodology for the stereo-specific synthesis of substituted olefins. The reaction is also interesting from the mechanistic point of view, since it is one of the very few examples of a [2+2]-cyclo-reversion process taking place with retention of configuration (Fig. 1) (Moyano et al., 1989).Thermal decarboxylation of β-lactones (2-oxetanones).
β-Propiolactone was a small molecule and offered the opportunity for the following fall-off in unimolecular rate constant with respect to pressure. Moreover, it can be decomposed by three different ring cleavages (Fig. 2) (James and Wellington, 1969). In pyrolysis studies on β-propiolactone, the activation energy for reaction 1 has been found to be 191.7 or 180 kJ mol−1 (Frey and Pidgeon, 1985; James and Wellington, 1969). Considering enthalpy changes, reactions 2 and 3 are presumed to have much higher activation energies than reaction 1.Three different ring cleavages of β-propiolactone.
The kinetics of the gas-phase thermal decomposition of β-propiolactone has been experimentally studied by James and Wellington (1969) and Frey and coworkers (Sugita et al., 2000; Frey and Watts, 1983). The presented results demonstrate that the reaction is homogeneous, unimolecular and obeys a first-order rate law. In particular, the rate coefficient for the gas-phase decomposition at low pressure to form carbon dioxide and ethylene has been determined (Sugita et al., 2000; Frey and Watts, 1983) and expressed as a function of temperature by the following Arrhenius-type equation: The kinetic of thermal decomposition of β-propiolactone has been studied previously but in this work, the rate constants and fall-off pressures were computed for the thermal decomposition reactions of β-propiolactone by using high-level ab initio methods and RRKM theory. Based on the obtained results, thermal decomposition pathways were compared according to kinetic and energetic points of view and available experimental data. Finally, using NBO analysis, reasonable insights about the reaction pathways mechanism were given.
2 Computational details
The ab initio molecular orbital calculations have been performed with the gaussian 98 program (Frisch et al., 1998), implemented on a Pentium-PC computer with 2.4 GHz processor. Equilibrium geometries and harmonic vibrational frequencies of β-propiolactone molecule and the transition states in the considered reactions were optimized at the MP2/6-311+G∗∗ level of theory. The thermodynamic functions have been calculated at the same level. The MP2/6-311+G∗∗ level of theory has been used for characterization of stationary points, zero-point vibrational energies (ZPVE) and RRKM computations. Initial estimates of the geometry of β-propiolactone and related products in each reactions were obtained by using MMX method in a molecular-mechanics program pc-model (88.0) (Serena Software, 1991) followed by full minimization using semi-empirical calculations which were carried out using the PM3 method with the MOPAC 6.0 computer program (Stewart, 1990a, 1990b). The gaussian 98 was finally utilized to perform ab initio calculation at the MP2/6-311+G∗∗ level of theory in order to obtain the energy minimum and energy maximum structures and B3LYP/6-311+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗, and MP4/6-311+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗ levels of theory for single point calculations.
Energy minimum molecular geometries were located by minimizing the energy, with respect to all geometrical coordinates. The structures of the transition state geometries were obtained using the optimized geometries of the equilibrium structures and the procedure of Dewar et al. (keyword SADDLE) (Dewar et al., 1984). For minimum state structures, only real frequency values and for the transition states, only a single imaginary frequency value is accepted. All energy-minima and energy-maxima geometries obtained in the present work are calculated to have 3N-6 and 3N-7 real vibrational frequencies (Ermer, 1975; Mclever, 1974).
In order to calculate the unimolecular rate constant on the basis of the RRKM theory, the critical energy was computed using ground state and transition state vibrational frequencies, temperature of the thermal decomposition and Eo. The selected pressure ranges for the decomposition of β-propiolactone are 10−12–103 mmHg. The RRKM algorithm and the Q-Basic package were used to carry out the unimolecular rate constants and fall off pressure calculations for reactions 1–3 in the various pressures.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Energetic parameters
The ZPVE, total electronic (Eel) energies and total internal energies at 0 K (Eo = Eel + ZPVE) for reactant and transition states of reactions 1–3 are summarized in Table 1. MP2/6-311+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗, B3LYP/6-311+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗ and MP4/6-311+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗ results show that the energy barrier of thermal decomposition in reaction 1 is 49.95, 35.83 and 44.36 kcal mol−1, respectively. In reaction 2, the energy barrier of thermal decomposition is 66.52, 50.89 and 58.48 kcal mol−1, respectively. While, in reaction 3, it is 93.44, 77.25 and 81.76 kcal mol−1, respectively at the same calculations. These results reveal that reaction 1 has the lowest energy barrier among the considered reactions. Clearly reaction 1 has the lowest energy barrier and the result of this reaction is in good agreement with the computed activation energy and that obtained by Frey and Pidgeon (43.11 kcal mol−1) (Frey and Pidgeon, 1985). Indeed, this agreement is achieved at the MP4/6-311+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗ levels of theory. Further improvement in the quality of the basis set or in the computational level does not result in a better agreement. Energy profile for thermal decomposition reactions 1–3 is depicted in Fig. 3.
Method
Geometry
(GS)
(TS1)
(TS2)
(TS3)
MP2/6-311+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗
ZPVE
0.0694
0.0651
0.0638
0.0608
Eel
−265.7104
−265.6265
−265.5988
−265.5529
Eo
−265.6410
−265.5614
−265.5350
−265.4921
ΔEoa
0.0000 (0.0000)b
0.0796 (49.9497)b
0.1060 (66.5161)b
0.1489 (93.4362)b
B3LYP/6-311+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗
ZPVE
0.0694
0.0651
0.0638
0.0608
Eel
−267.2356
−267.1742
−267.1489
−267.1039
Eo
−267.1662
−267.1091
−267.0851
−267.0431
ΔEoa
0.0000 (0.0000)b
0.0571 (35.8308)b
0.0811 (50.8911)b
0.1231 (77.2465)b
MP4/6-311+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗
ZPVE
0.0694
0.0651
0.0638
0.0608
Eel
−266.5541
−266.4791
−266.4553
−266.4152
Eo
−266.4847
−266.414
−266.3915
−266.3544
ΔEoa
0.0000 (0.0000)b
0.0707 (44.3649)b
0.0932 (58.4839)b
0.1303 (81.7645)b
Ea (kcal/mol)c
43.11
–
–
Energy profile for β-propiolactone unimolecular thermal decomposition reactions 1–3.
The changes of thermodynamic functions i.e. Gibbs free energies (ΔGr), enthalpies (ΔHr), and entropies (ΔSr), enthalpies of activation (ΔH≠), Gibbs activation free energies (ΔG≠) and activation entropies (ΔS≠) of reactions are given in Table 2. The thermal decomposition of compounds 1–3 is an endothermic process; ΔH≠ and ΔS≠ values are positive. As can be seen, ΔS≠ values are relatively small, so that the calculated ΔH≠ and ΔG≠ parameters are close to the ΔEo values.
Reaction
ΔHr (kcal mol−1)
ΔSr (kcal mol−1 K−1)
ΔGr (kcal mol−1)
ΔH≠ (kcal mol−1)
ΔS≠ (kcal mol−1K−1)
ΔG≠ (kcal mol−1)
R1
−17.761670
0.036649
−28.677874
41.553084
0.002611
40.774972
R2
27.696408
0.044721
14.363076
54.765307
0.003024
53.864203
R3
−2.692017
0.041791
−15.151856
82.927956
0.005843
81.186616
3.2 RRKM study and thermal rate constants
RRKM calculations have been performed to determine the rate constants of the unimolecular decomposition reactions 1–3 by using the ab initio calculated harmonic frequencies and the energy barrier heights. The reaction 1 involves the lowest activation barrier; therefore, it has the fastest rate over the whole energy ranges considered. In order to calculate the unimolecular rate constants on the basis of modern RRKM theory, several parameters such as temperature, collision diameter, reduce mass and vibrational frequencies of ground state and transition state structures should be used. The harmonic vibrational frequencies of β-propiolactone and transition states at the MP2/6-311+G∗∗ level of theory are presented in Table 3.
States
Geometry
(GS)
(TS1)
(TS2)
(TS3)
1
163.8436
−1039.3274
−655.5682
−992.1818
2
499.6887
105.0030
173.1409
102.4405
3
518.5293
323.3872
227.7582
132.3231
4
753.3876
459.3902
357.0684
384.0039
5
809.4455
565.3825
470.6599
438.7145
6
910.7025
659.4909
627.1011
531.7378
7
968.2425
779.9780
722.1626
572.6190
8
1039.5582
839.5812
869.4198
768.8294
9
1064.5471
931.4578
890.6937
980.5825
10
1114.2314
1000.7532
1013.7005
1017.9513
11
1180.4820
1066.0180
1086.3011
1031.1339
12
1213.7873
1200.9404
1186.0083
1230.0656
13
1230.8474
1253.4061
1239.7614
1289.4975
14
1367.6988
1325.3584
1419.2081
1349.0152
15
1476.6096
1485.7128
1472.6945
1456.7215
16
1546.0812
1581.7495
1605.2539
1526.1187
17
1901.0079
1994.2972
2126.5492
2058.4005
18
3134.9825
3190.8998
3012.2454
2380.7898
19
3140.2356
3198.9206
3081.1217
3050.3459
20
3203.5321
3287.4598
3126.9494
3135.7020
21
3217.9141
3310.1744
3295.4099
3258.0571
We have also presented the fall-off data for the unimolecular thermal decomposition of β-propiolactone at 523.15 K and the pressure range, 10−12–103 mmHg, respectively, in Fig. 4. The rate constant of the fastest reaction, reaction 1, approaches at atmospheric pressure limit about 100.38 mmHg (P1/2 = 2.415 mmHg). For reaction 1, the rate constant, k1, can be represented as k1 = 1.1 × 1014 exp(−82.82/T) s−1, while k2 for reaction 2 is 1.35 × 1014 exp(−111.65/T) s−1 and k3 for reaction 3 is 5.61 × 1014 exp(−156.16/T) s−1. The Arrhenius factors, A, in k1, k2 and k3 are almost of the same order. The exponential factors of k2 and k3 are much lower than that of k1, which means the activation energies in reactions 2 and 3 are much higher than that of reaction 1. This indicates again that k1 is much higher than k2 and k3 and that the decomposition of the β-propiolactone molecule is dominated by reaction 1.Fall-off pressure curve of the rate constants for reactions 1–3 at the 523.15 K.
In the neighborhood of atmospheric pressures within the lower stratospheric region it is readily seen that the rates of all three reactions are well outside the fall-off region. The pressure in which k∞ is reduced to k∞/2 is determined using the obtained fall-off pressure curve. The fall-off pressures for the decomposition of β-propiolactone are found to be 2.415, 9.423 × 10−2 and 3.676 × 10−3 mmHg, respectively. The fall-off curves of the decomposition of β-propiolactone show that the decomposition of reaction 1 is faster than reactions 2 and 3 and is in agreement with activation energies. A small fall-off pressure value indicates that collision between molecules and their activated forms occur at low pressures; consequently the reaction would be slow.
4 Conclusion
Theoretical calculations provide a picture from structural and energetic points of view for three reactions of the thermal decomposition of β-propiolactone. The results calculated by MP2/6-311+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗, B3LYP/6-311+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗ and MP4/611+G∗∗//MP2/6-311+G∗∗ levels showed that the barrier height of reaction 1 is the lowest of the three reactions. The fall-off curves of the above mentioned reactions 1–3 have been drawn by calculating the unimolecular rate constants at the 523.15 K and the pressure range of 10−12–103 mmHg and the fall-off pressures are found to be 2.415, 9.423 × 10−2 and 3.676 × 10−3 mmHg, for reactions 1–3, respectively. The obtained small fall-off pressure values indicate that collision between molecules and their activated forms occur at low pressure; consequently the reaction would be slow.
References
- J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 2. 1984;80:227.
- Tetrahedron. 1975;31:1849.
- J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 1. 1985;81:1087.
- J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 1. 1983;79:1659.
- Frisch, M.J., Trucks, G.W., Schlegel, H.B., Scuseria, G.E., Robb, M.A., Cheeseman, J.R., Zakrazewski, V.G., Montgomery, J.A., Startmann, R.E., Burant, J.C., Dapprich, S., Millam, J.M., Daniels, A.D., Kudin, K.N., Strain, M.C., Farkas, O., Tomasi, J., Barone, V., Cossi, M., Cammi, R., Mennucci, B., Adamo, C., Clifford, S., Ochterski, J., Petersson, G.A., Ayala, P.Y., Cui, Q., Morokuma, K., Malik, D.K., Rabuck, A.D., Raghavachar, K., Foresman, J.B., Cioslowski, J., Ortiz, J.V., Stefanov, B.B., Liu, G., Liashenko, A., Piskorz, P., Komaromi, I., Gomperts, R., Martin, R.L., Fox, D.J., Keith, T., Al-Laham, M.A., Peng, C.Y., Nanyakkara, A., Gonzalez, C., Challacombe, M., Gill, P.M.W., Johnson, B., Chen, W., Wong, M.W., Andres, J.L., Head-Gordon, M., Replogle, E.S., Pople, J.A., 1998. gaussian 98 (Revision A.3) Gaussian Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
- J. Am. Chem. Soc.. 1969;91:7743.
- J. Am. Chem. Soc.. 1969;91:1969.
- Acc. Chem. Res.. 1974;7:72.
- J. Org. Chem.. 1989;54:573.
- PC-Model, Serena Software, 1991. Box 3076, Bloomington, IN 47402-3076, USA.
- J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des.. 1990;4:1.
- Stewart, J.J.P., 1990b. QCPE 581, Department of Chemistry, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
- J. Phys. Chem. A.. 2000;104:2587.