4.8 Article

Origins of Initiation Rate Differences in Ruthenium Olefin Metathesis Catalysts Containing Chelating Benzylidenes

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 137, Issue 17, Pages 5782-5792

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.5b01144

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. ONR [N00014-12-1-0596]
  2. NIH NIGMS [F32GM108145]
  3. NSF CRIF:MU award [CHE-0639094]
  4. NSF
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  6. Division Of Chemistry [1502616] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A series of second-generation ruthenium olefin metathesis catalysts was investigated using a combination of reaction kinetics, X-ray crystallography, NMR spectroscopy, and DFT calculations in order to determine the relationship between the structure of the chelating o-alkoxybenzylidene and the observed initiation rate. Included in this series were previously reported catalysts containing a variety of benzylidene modifications as well as four new catalysts containing cyclopropoxy, neopentyloxy, 1-adamantyloxy, and 2-adamantyloxy groups. The initiation rates of this series of catalysts were determined using a UV/vis assay. All four new catalysts were observed to be faster-initiating than the corresponding isopropoxy control, and the 2-adamantyloxy catalyst was found to be among the fastest-initiating Hoveyda-type catalysts reported to date. Analysis of the X-ray crystal structures and computed energy-minimized structures of these catalysts revealed no correlation between the Ru-O bond length and Ru-O bond strength. On the other hand, the initiation rate was found to correlate strongly with the computed Ru-O bond strength. This latter finding enables both the rationalization and prediction of catalyst initiation through the calculation of a single thermodynamic parameter in which no assumptions about the mechanism of the initiation step are made.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available