On acetylation (OH group was changed to OCOCH3 group), the alpha0 K8 \& @% N( S* M Y [
carbon will show a downfield shift while the belta carbon will show a8 a5 E- p& j7 ]0 i& i
upfield shif. + L9 v4 j5 k$ W% A' b) K9 P# Q; ~
! h& G* o$ h# V) n9 S3 b) {See the following article how to revise a structure reported before just using the above rule! : Y$ s& U/ ~" M
' C0 `- d0 `5 G: k* z# GOne 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. # I% ?9 N( h; V" ` ~, @. `: `- S7 x
' }# {6 f. `% [/ }
Another compound with one OH group acetylated: it could be C-6 OAc, C-7; |7 x' V3 o9 |" w$ [! B9 _
OH (compound I in the article) or could be C-6 OH, C-7OAc (compound II
, B$ B3 K5 }/ Q2 l4 Qin the article). The chemical shifts of the two carbons are 78.1 and: Y a' Z6 q9 j' Q
80.5. How to determine which carbon (C-6 or C-7) has the OAC group?
/ }: i! i" J# i( ?
6 t+ s& V, G8 A- N8 f# L
The auhors resovled the problem: 9 U2 y' p* |; }) A C8 \0 i* c / W9 g* Y; J8 E: ^, g! v2 cIf C-6 (80.5) and C-7 (78.5) were right, meaning both the chemical) e% H4 B; ?, [
shifts of C-6 (79.3 to 80.5) and C-7 (76.2 to 78.5) were increased.# x$ a; [$ _6 d$ N5 e g" M' F
That assupmtion violates the above rule. 3 c2 r1 }8 i$ i1 p2 e 5 y' j$ h7 U6 c& c" M- T$ Y+ CSo chemical shift of C-6 was not 80.5 but 78.5, chemical shift of C-7 was not 78.5 but 80.5. $ k: d; C: I" s5 B, A) c9 e
/ v3 r8 O$ I4 M' g: O- HC-6 (78.5) and C-7 (80.5) meaned that C-6 shifted to highfield (from: z1 ~6 Q, d8 I) v
79.3 to 78.5), C-7 shifted to lowfield (from 76.2 to 80.5). Logically,! n9 `3 b" t0 ~1 @
it was the C-7 with the OAC group (compound II), not the C-6 with the4 _3 C6 M: C# Q6 d7 ? t H
OAC group (compound I). , C$ H* w& n% |: Q: U ; V* [7 c/ N" {1 r8 ZSimple, logic structural revision published in 1981!