Why is E2 preferred over SN2 for 2-chlorobutane with sodium ethoxide?

  • Thread starter Thread starter silversurf
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on why the E2 elimination mechanism is favored over the SN2 substitution mechanism for the reaction of 2-chlorobutane with sodium ethoxide, a strong base. It highlights that secondary alkyl halides tend to favor elimination when a strong base is present, as they are less likely to undergo substitution due to steric hindrance. The conversation also touches on the relationship between basicity and nucleophilicity, noting that a stronger base like ethoxide is more effective at deprotonating than substituting. Additionally, it clarifies that the pKa of acetate is used as a benchmark for determining relative basicity. Overall, the preference for E2 in this scenario is attributed to the nature of the alkyl halide and the strength of the base involved.
silversurf
Messages
25
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Why would this reaction favor E2 over SN2? Since its a secondary halide reacting with a strong base/nucleophile, and all other conditions being equal isn't SN2 favored? Or is ethoxide somehow a stronger base than nucleophile? If so, how can you tell that it's a better base than nucleophile? Below is the question.

What is the major product formed from the reaction of 2-chlorobutane in aqueous sodium ethoxide?
A.

2-ethoxybutane
B.

1-butene
C.

cis-2-butene
D.

trans-2-butene

Correct Answer
Explanation:
D. 2-Chlorobutane, a secondary alkyl halide, will react with a strong base, such as ethoxide, via an E2 mechanism. Choice A can be eliminated because it is the result of a substitution reaction. Elimination reactions generally follow Zaitsev's rule, which states that the product with the most substituted double bond is formed (provided an unhindered base is used). 1-Butene has a terminal double bond, which is less substituted than the double bond in 2-butene, so choice B can be eliminated. The most stable geometric isomer will have the two largest groups on opposite sides of the double bond, so choice C can be eliminated.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
For secondary alkyl halides, any nucleophile that is a base stronger than acetate (pKa 4.8) will deprotonate rather than undergo substitution. What do you think this says about the acidity of secondary alkyl halides with alpha protons?
 
Hi Chemisttree,
I think I understand but I'm not sure. I'm confused on why you used pka of acetate, for comparison, to determine basicity. Are you just using this as a starting point converting to pkb and then looking at basicity? If so couldn't we just look at each pkb and pick the one with the smallest pkb to determine the stronger base. Is there a way to determine basicity, relative to nucleophilicity without using pkb/pka values? I read there's a trend where basicity is highest going towards the upper left hand side of the periodic table and a trend where nucleophilicity is highest going towards the bottom left hand side of the periodic table but they aren't explained and I can't find information on what these trends are based on, relative to each other. Would you happen to know what these trends are based on? About your question, this basically tells us that the alpha proton in this case is not very acidic so we need a strong base right?
 
Last edited:
silversurf said:
Hi Chemisttree,
I think I understand but I'm not sure. I'm confused on why you used pka of acetate, for comparison, to determine basicity. Are you just using this as a starting point converting to pkb and then looking at basicity? If so couldn't we just look at each pkb and pick the one with the smallest pkb to determine the stronger base. Is there a way to determine basicity, relative to nucleophilicity without using pkb/pka values?

We use either pKa or pKb as a measure of basisity. Of course when we use pKa, we assume the protonated form. pKa of acetate being 4.8 is actually that of the acid form... acetic acid. Kind of confusing to speak of base strength in terms of acidity but you will note that they are related by the formula pKa +pKb = 14.

Is there a way to determine basisity relative to nucleophilicity without using pKa/pKb? Not really. You see, even a fairly weak base like acetate is a pretty good nucleophile. Pretty good towards the right alkyl halide, that is. Good nucleophile for primary alkyl halides without beta carbon branching, not so good toward secondary, tertiary or primary with beta carbon branching.

About your question, this basically tells us that the alpha proton in this case is not very acidic so we need a strong base right?

Actually it was a bit of a trick question. If a base only a little stronger than acetate is capable of deprotonating alpha to the C-X bond you might be tempted to assume that something like chloroethane is a fairly strong acid and might exist in equilibrium as:
CH3-CH2-X <------> CH-2-CH2-X + H+

which doesn't happen... hence the "2" subscript for an E2 elimination. Plucking off that proton doesn't happen without the acetate and a particular arrangement of the C-Cl bond anti to the proton being removed. It is more than an acid/base thing.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
chemisttree said:
Is there a way to determine basisity relative to nucleophilicity without using pKa/pKb? Not really. You see, even a fairly weak base like acetate is a pretty good nucleophile. Pretty good towards the right alkyl halide, that is. Good nucleophile for primary alkyl halides without beta carbon branching, not so good toward secondary, tertiary or primary with beta carbon branching.

@hat about KCN reacting with a secondary carbon, in aprotic solution, this results in a nucleophilic attack sn2 major product, how would we know that the major product is SN2 in this case? since aprotic conditions favor sn2 and e2 and secondary carbons are in the middle favor ability for both too.
 
Actually never mind, I just realized the reason why is because it's a weak base.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top