4.7 Article

Iron-Catalyzed/Mediated C-N Bond Formation: Competition between Substrate Amination and Ligand Amination

期刊

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY
卷 58, 期 3, 页码 1935-1948

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.8b02877

关键词

-

资金

  1. DST [YSS/2015/001552]
  2. IIESTS
  3. RGNF
  4. DST-Inspire
  5. UGC
  6. CICECO-Aveiro Institute of Materials (FCT) [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007679, UID/CTM/50011/2013]
  7. national funds through the FCT/MEC
  8. FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement
  9. Research Priority Area Sustainable chemistry of the University of Amsterdam
  10. Industrial Partnership Programme (IPP) Computational Sciences for Energy Research [13CSER003]
  11. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)
  12. Shell Global Solutions International B.V.
  13. SURF cooperative
  14. University of Gottingen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Iron catalyzed carbon-nitrogen bond formation reactions of a wide variety of nucleophiles and aryl halides using well-defined iron-complexes featuring redox noninnocent 2-(arylazo)-1,10-phenanthroline (L-1) ligands are reported. Besides substrate centered C-N coupling, C-N bond formation reactions were also observed at the ortho- and para-positions of the phenyl ring of the coordinated azo-aromatic scaffolds affording new tetradentate ligands, 2-N-aryl-(2-arylazo)-1,10-phenanthroline (L-2), and tridentate ligands, 4-N-aryl-(2-arylazo)-1,10-phenanthroline (L-3), respectively. Control experiments and mechanistic studies reveal that the complex [(FeLCl2)-Cl-1] (1) undergoes in situ reduction during the catalytic reaction to produce the monoanionic complex [1](-), which then acts as the active catalyst. The metal (iron) and the coordinated ligand were found to work in a cooperative manner during the transfer processes involved in the fundamental steps of the catalytic cycle. Detailed experimental and theoretical (DFT) studies were performed to get insight into the competitive substrate versus ligand centered amination reactions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据