Hemichordate

Peds
10+ Year Member
May 5, 2008
1,092
4
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I've read the definitions for both of these two terms but I still don't understand it. Can someone give a brief explanation and provide an example?
 

loveoforganic

-Account Deactivated-
10+ Year Member
Jan 30, 2009
4,222
12
Status
I believe that the difference is stereospecific provides essentially one stereoisomer product while stereoselective provides some sort of mixture.

If this is the case, my example for stereospecific would be an SN2 mechansim, while stereoselective would be an SN1 mechanism with a hindered face.
 

sleepy425

10+ Year Member
Mar 6, 2008
530
5
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I believe that the difference is stereospecific provides essentially one stereoisomer product while stereoselective provides some sort of mixture.

If this is the case, my example for stereospecific would be an SN2 mechansim, while stereoselective would be an SN1 mechanism with a hindered face.
Your example is correct, but your definition isn't quite right. You don't have to have a mixture for it to be stereoselective. You can have 100% stereoselectivity without it being stereospecific.

Stereospecificity is where the mechanism of the reaction only allows formation of one stereoisomer. So Sn2 is a great example of this because you can only have backside attack, which means that the mechanism only allows formation of the opposite stereochemical configuration.

A stereoselective reaction is one where the mechanism allows formation of both products, but one product is preferred over the other. So a good example of this is the Sharpless epoxidation (go to the wikipedia page for this, but don't try to understand it fully unless you want to). Anyway, the Sharpless epoxidation allows you to form an epoxide selectively onto one face of the double bond versus the other. But the agent that forms the epoxide, a hydroperoxide (a peracid), can theoretically react from both sides, but prefers to react from one face due to the conditions of the reaction. These conditions don't affect the mechanism of the reaction, but they direct the hydroperoxide towards one face or the other. The enantioselectivity of the Sharpless epoxidation is very high.

For stereospecific reactions, you cannot get a mixture because the mechanism precludes formation of a mixture. The stereospecificity is always 100%. For stereoselectivity, you can get a mixture, but 100% stereoselectivity is also possible, since the selectivity could be so good that none of the other isomer forms. However, in practice, you don't really see 100% stereoselective reactions, although many reactions are in the high 90s.
 

boaz

shanah alef
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Dec 31, 2007
1,373
25
bachelor pad
Status
Medical Student
LOL, I had this same question on my organic II midterm.

Sleepy is stereospecifically right.
 
Aug 22, 2012
19
0
Status
Medical Student
Your example is correct, but your definition isn't quite right. You don't have to have a mixture for it to be stereoselective. You can have 100% stereoselectivity without it being stereospecific.

Stereospecificity is where the mechanism of the reaction only allows formation of one stereoisomer. So Sn2 is a great example of this because you can only have backside attack, which means that the mechanism only allows formation of the opposite stereochemical configuration.

A stereoselective reaction is one where the mechanism allows formation of both products, but one product is preferred over the other. So a good example of this is the Sharpless epoxidation (go to the wikipedia page for this, but don't try to understand it fully unless you want to). Anyway, the Sharpless epoxidation allows you to form an epoxide selectively onto one face of the double bond versus the other. But the agent that forms the epoxide, a hydroperoxide (a peracid), can theoretically react from both sides, but prefers to react from one face due to the conditions of the reaction. These conditions don't affect the mechanism of the reaction, but they direct the hydroperoxide towards one face or the other. The enantioselectivity of the Sharpless epoxidation is very high.

For stereospecific reactions, you cannot get a mixture because the mechanism precludes formation of a mixture. The stereospecificity is always 100%. For stereoselectivity, you can get a mixture, but 100% stereoselectivity is also possible, since the selectivity could be so good that none of the other isomer forms. However, in practice, you don't really see 100% stereoselective reactions, although many reactions are in the high 90s.
Thankssss alott
 

Temperature101

Membership Revoked
Removed
May 27, 2011
3,487
79
Status
Medical Student
Your example is correct, but your definition isn't quite right. You don't have to have a mixture for it to be stereoselective. You can have 100% stereoselectivity without it being stereospecific.

Stereospecificity is where the mechanism of the reaction only allows formation of one stereoisomer. So Sn2 is a great example of this because you can only have backside attack, which means that the mechanism only allows formation of the opposite stereochemical configuration.

A stereoselective reaction is one where the mechanism allows formation of both products, but one product is preferred over the other. So a good example of this is the Sharpless epoxidation (go to the wikipedia page for this, but don't try to understand it fully unless you want to). Anyway, the Sharpless epoxidation allows you to form an epoxide selectively onto one face of the double bond versus the other. But the agent that forms the epoxide, a hydroperoxide (a peracid), can theoretically react from both sides, but prefers to react from one face due to the conditions of the reaction. These conditions don't affect the mechanism of the reaction, but they direct the hydroperoxide towards one face or the other. The enantioselectivity of the Sharpless epoxidation is very high.

For stereospecific reactions, you cannot get a mixture because the mechanism precludes formation of a mixture. The stereospecificity is always 100%. For stereoselectivity, you can get a mixture, but 100% stereoselectivity is also possible, since the selectivity could be so good that none of the other isomer forms. However, in practice, you don't really see 100% stereoselective reactions, although many reactions are in the high 90s.
Thanks...I finally understand these concepts due to your outstanding explanation.
 
Jun 20, 2014
4
0
Status
Pre-Medical
In EK Ochem: "Any reaction that is stereospecific is also stereoselective, but the converse is not true." Is the book wrong? It seems from sleepy425's definitions that a reaction can be either stereospecific or stereoselective, not both. Examples would be appreciated (hopefully outside EK). Thanks!!
 

Lunasly

5+ Year Member
May 17, 2010
798
28
Canada
Status
In EK Ochem: "Any reaction that is stereospecific is also stereoselective, but the converse is not true." Is the book wrong? It seems from sleepy425's definitions that a reaction can be either stereospecific or stereoselective, not both. Examples would be appreciated (hopefully outside EK). Thanks!!
Can someone clarify this? Are all stereospecific reactions also considered stereoselective?