Theoretical study of rhodium(III)-catalyzed hydrogenation of carbon dioxide into formic acid. Significant differences in reactivity among rhodium(III), rhodium(I), and ruthenium(II) complexes

The title reaction was theoretically investigated, where cis-RhH(2)(PH(3))(3)](+) and cis-RhH(2)(PH(3))(2)(H(2)O)](+) were adopted as models of the catalyst. The first step of the catalytic cycle is the CO(2) insertion into the Rh(III)-H bond, of which the activation barrier (E(a)) is 47.2 and 28.4 kcal/mol in cis-RhH(2)(PH(3))(3)](+) and cis-RhH(2)(PH(3))(2)(H(2)O)](+), respectively, where DFT(B3LYP)-calculated E(a) values (kcal/mol unit) are given hereafter. These results indicate that an active species is not cis-RhH(2)(PH(3))(3)](+) but cis-RhH(2)(PH(3))(2)(H(2)O)](+). After the CO(2) insertion, two reaction courses are possible. In one course, the reaction proceeds through isomerization (E(a) = 2.8) of RhH(eta(1)- OCOH)(PH(3))(2)(H(2)O)(2)](+), five-centered H-OCOH reductive elimination (E(a) = 2.7), and oxidative addition of H(2) to Rh(PH(3))(2)(H(2)O)(2)](+) (E(a) = 5.8). In the other one, the reaction proceeds through isomerization of RhH(eta(1)-OCOH)(PH(3))(2)(H(2)O)(H(2))](+) (E(a) = 5.9) and six-centered sigma-bond metathesis of RhH(eta(1)-OCOH)(PH(3))(2)(H(2)O)](+) with H(2) (no barrier). RhH(PH(3))(2)-catalyzed hydrogenation of CO(2) proceeds through CO(2) insertion (E(a) = 1.6) and either the isomerization of Rh(eta(1)-OCOH)(PH(3))(2)(H(2)) (E(a) = 6.1) followed by the six-centered sigma-bond metathesis (E(a) = 0.3) or H(2) oxidative addition to Rh(eta(1)-OCOH)(PH(3))(2) (E(a) = 7.3) followed by isomerization of RhH(2)(eta(1)-OCOH)(PH(3))(2) (E(a) = 6.2) and the five-centered H-OCOH reductive elimination (E(a) = 1.9). From these results and our previous results of RuH(2)(PH(3))(4)-catalyzed hydrogenation of CO(2) (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 3867), detailed discussion is presented concerning differences among Rh(III), Rh(I), and Ru(II) complexes.