On acetylation (OH group was changed to OCOCH3 group), the alpha
' X A! k( J7 Q# i( L* Kcarbon will show a downfield shift while the belta carbon will show a6 w. M0 c, M. x/ O
upfield shif. 3 O! V% Y8 x: l$ x
+ y- Z; _4 l, [+ s% D" ?% h
See the following article how to revise a structure reported before just using the above rule! * T( b5 m# N0 p. U) X$ I - ?) M' w. Y4 m7 X0 U" p* a( {! O
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. " L! Y+ v$ t. _ _% q0 ?$ T
% g$ H6 H9 q2 @4 R. [7 G% P, X* d/ g
Another compound with one OH group acetylated: it could be C-6 OAc, C-7
( a; P6 L) y" K2 G, ^: J# @OH (compound I in the article) or could be C-6 OH, C-7OAc (compound II
% L8 @2 J) P0 t9 b' L6 uin the article). The chemical shifts of the two carbons are 78.1 and
6 h* Y$ h$ g# [) a+ a5 |$ g80.5. How to determine which carbon (C-6 or C-7) has the OAC group?
& ] B0 P8 T% M5 R0 h- {, G 1 ?* k. c, r/ \3 U( N' f/ oThe auhors resovled the problem: 1 r" S6 w2 ] i$ Z4 C* k . |! d5 U1 |* [- N. B+ \! _
If C-6 (80.5) and C-7 (78.5) were right, meaning both the chemical
: ^$ |8 A- m" r" E; nshifts of C-6 (79.3 to 80.5) and C-7 (76.2 to 78.5) were increased.
: a0 u3 d3 f% ^# {. j- ~That assupmtion violates the above rule. * ], Y) [1 O( L) ~2 J" e - z# \/ I$ g3 w" b# e* \* ^
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. 8 ?. c8 Q h0 b $ z6 I v# p5 u4 ~+ q: KC-6 (78.5) and C-7 (80.5) meaned that C-6 shifted to highfield (from8 R$ C, ?5 P; G
79.3 to 78.5), C-7 shifted to lowfield (from 76.2 to 80.5). Logically,
5 j4 t5 @( ]2 H9 ~it was the C-7 with the OAC group (compound II), not the C-6 with the. L) f6 O! F8 k0 ^9 M
OAC group (compound I). & u. I6 {5 V; q o * Q# n6 S& l) X8 H. h& b2 }' U' j
Simple, logic structural revision published in 1981!