November 26, 2024, 11:54:07 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Basicity of Cyclic Amines  (Read 4846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AlbertoA

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-1
Basicity of Cyclic Amines
« on: October 15, 2011, 06:18:46 PM »
let's consider the (Me)2NH3+ pKa=10.7
piperidineH+ pKa =11.2
pyrrolidineH+ pKa= 11.3

although the 3 amines are secondary, the pyrrolidine is more basic, it is a five member ring, so, I think that the angle strain is a factor but I'm not shure how that applies to the acyclic amine

Offline fledarmus

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1675
  • Mole Snacks: +203/-28
Re: Basicity of Cyclic Amines
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2011, 06:43:30 PM »
Diethylamine is actually a better comparator than dimethylamine - most of the difference between dimethyl amine and either of the other two can be accounted for by the difference in electronics between a methyl group and a higher chain alkane. My table shows 11.02 for diethylamine, 11.13 for piperidine, and 11.27 for pyrrolidine. (10.68 for dimethylamine). I believe the remaining differences can be accounted for by the difference in axial interactions in the two rings for lone pairs and protons.

Sponsored Links