On acetylation (OH group was changed to OCOCH3 group), the alpha
' H. T' `" A1 _9 i4 r0 zcarbon will show a downfield shift while the belta carbon will show a
[/ d. `6 K2 L. Fupfield shif. 9 b/ a0 w# u# m* N# S- ~& _ $ X8 n' s7 q1 k1 H1 r
See the following article how to revise a structure reported before just using the above rule! $ O3 l' }5 m$ N ; s9 {' c& r* }. A$ ^6 F3 j
One compound with C-6 OH, C-7 OH (compound IV in the article): chemical shift values of C-6 79.3 ppm, C-7 76.2 ppm were known. $ U! {( Z# h( m$ H2 G
# T8 ?' P5 n( {. xAnother compound with one OH group acetylated: it could be C-6 OAc, C-7
2 Z& h" ?4 }7 I4 |( KOH (compound I in the article) or could be C-6 OH, C-7OAc (compound II
! ?; B' F) U* P4 e4 vin the article). The chemical shifts of the two carbons are 78.1 and* ^$ a! I3 x) K% I+ @8 C( ?& n
80.5. How to determine which carbon (C-6 or C-7) has the OAC group?
- Q) q. Q" `8 f
( N0 b2 ` q8 f" D
The auhors resovled the problem: 4 I8 E8 |% o1 x , W8 ]2 L+ d% }9 o' a( i- E
If C-6 (80.5) and C-7 (78.5) were right, meaning both the chemical
2 D2 R1 I& v" Y% ]shifts of C-6 (79.3 to 80.5) and C-7 (76.2 to 78.5) were increased./ Z+ {( q$ ]7 D( y2 M
That assupmtion violates the above rule. # T2 h' q5 |% J) k
/ y x# t( P2 T% u
So chemical shift of C-6 was not 80.5 but 78.5, chemical shift of C-7 was not 78.5 but 80.5. % V5 x0 U7 v; x: [$ \; i I! e- {5 Z & w/ t- P- F: |. `
C-6 (78.5) and C-7 (80.5) meaned that C-6 shifted to highfield (from4 o% f8 E8 h' N5 ^1 q9 M. z9 J. G
79.3 to 78.5), C-7 shifted to lowfield (from 76.2 to 80.5). Logically,
% O7 _4 `: _3 _" B; Mit was the C-7 with the OAC group (compound II), not the C-6 with the& C$ [( [. t% h
OAC group (compound I). " ?# d" Q& [5 k6 K8 @$ [
( q) S" S$ h- m0 {% SSimple, logic structural revision published in 1981!
6 _, O k1 p7 a. ^4 |
, ^# r8 S+ {( [8 H+ F5 s. @! b * u1 b1 u8 s4 G% T5 i2 W7 ]' c+ O