Reactivity of the Latent 12‐Electron Fragment [Rh(PiBu3)2]+ with Aryl Bromides: Aryl?Br and Phosphine Ligand C?H Activation

Oxidative addition of aryl bromides to 12‐electron [Rh(PiBu₃)₂][BAr^F₄] (Ar^F=3,5‐(CF₃)₂C₆H₃) forms a variety of products. With p‐tolyl bromides, Rh^III dimeric complexes result [Rh(PiBu₃)₂(o/p‐MeC₆H₄)(μ‐Br)]₂[BAr^F₄]₂. Similarly, reaction with p‐ClC₆H₄Br gives [Rh(PiBu₃)₂(p‐ClC₆H₄)(μ‐Br)]₂[BAr^F₄]₂. In contrast, the use of o‐BrC₆H₄Me leads to a product in which toluene has been eliminated and an isobutyl phosphine has undergone C? H activation: [Rh{PiBu₂(CH₂CHCH₃C H₂)}(PiBu₃)(μ‐Br)]₂[BAr^F₄]₂. Trapping experiments with ortho‐bromo anisole or ortho‐bromo thioanisole indicate that a possible intermediate for this process is a low‐coordinate Rh^III complex that then undergoes C? H activation. The anisole and thioanisole complexes have been isolated and their structures show OMe or SMe interactions with the metal centre alongside supporting agostic interactions, [Rh(PiBu₃)₂(C₆H₄O Me)Br][BAr^F₄] (the solid‐state structure of the 5‐methyl substituted analogue is reported) and [Rh(PiBu₃)₂(C₆H₄S Me)Br][BAr^F₄]. The anisole‐derived complex proceeds to give [Rh{PiBu₂(CH₂CHCH₃C H₂)}(PiBu₃)(μ‐Br)]₂[BAr^F₄]₂, whereas the thioanisole complex is unreactive. The isolation of [Rh(PiBu₃)₂(C₆H₄O Me)Br][BAr^F₄] and its onward reactivity to give the products of C? H activation and aryl elimination suggest that it is implicated on the pathway of a σ‐bond metathesis reaction, a hypothesis strengthened by DFT calculations. Calculations also suggest that C? H bond cleavage through phosphine‐assisted deprotonation of a non‐agostic bond is also competitive, although the subsequent protonation of the aryl ligand is too high in energy to account for product formation. C? H activation through oxidative addition is also ruled out on the basis of these calculations. These new complexes have been characterised by solution NMR/ESIMS techniques and in the solid‐state by X‐ray crystallography.     

[Pd(Fmes)2(tmeda)]: A Case of Intermittent C?H⋅⋅⋅F?C Hydrogen‐Bond Interaction in Solution

The X‐ray structure of the title compound [Pd(Fmes)₂(tmeda)] (Fmes=2,4,6‐tris(trifluoromethyl)phenyl; tmeda=N,N,N′,N′‐tetramethylethylenediamine) shows the existence of uncommon C? H???F? C hydrogen‐bond interactions between methyl groups of the TMEDA ligand and ortho‐CF₃ groups of the Fmes ligand. The ¹⁹F NMR spectra in CD₂Cl₂ at very low temperature (157 K) detect restricted rotation for the two ortho‐CF₃ groups involved in hydrogen bonding, which might suggest that the hydrogen bond is responsible for this hindrance to rotation. However, a theoretical study of the hydrogen‐bond energy shows that it is too weak (about 7 kJ mol^?1) to account for the rotational barrier observed (ΔH^≠=26.8 kJ mol^?1), and it is the steric hindrance associated with the puckering of the TMEDA ligand that should be held responsible for most of the rotational barrier. At higher temperatures the rotation becomes fast, which requires that the hydrogen bond is continuously being split up and restored and exists only intermittently, following the pulse of the conformational changes of TMEDA.     

Theoretical Elucidation of the Mechanism of Cleavage of the Aromatic C?C Bond in Quinoxaline by a Tungsten‐Based Complex [W(PMe3)4(η2‐CH2PMe2)H]

The aromatic C? C bond cleavage by a tungsten complex reported recently by Sattler and Parkin 15 offers fresh opportunities for the functionalization of organic molecules. The mechanism of such a process has not yet been determined, which appeals to computational assistance to understand how the unstrained C? C bond is activated at the molecular level. 16 , 17 In this work, by performing density functional theory calculations, we studied various possible mechanisms of cleavage of the aromatic C? C bond in quinoxaline (QoxH) by the W‐based complex [W(PMe₃)₄(η²‐CH₂PMe₂)H]. The calculated results show that the mechanism proposed by Sattler and Parkin involves an overall barrier of as high as 42.0 kcal mol^?1 and thus does not seem to be consistent with the experimental observation. Alternatively, an improved mechanism has been presented in detail, which involves the removal and recoordination of a second PMe₃ ligand on the tungsten center. In our new mechanism, it is proposed that the C? C cleavage occurs prior to the second C? H bond addition, in contrast to Sattler and Parkin’s mechanism in which the C? C bond is broken after the second C? H bond addition. We find that the rate‐determining step of the reaction is the ring‐opening process of the tungsten complex with an activation barrier of 28.5 kcal mol^?1 after the first PMe₃ ligand dissociation from the metal center. The mono‐hydrido species is located as the global minimum on the potential‐energy surface, which is in agreement with the experimental observation for this species. The present theoretical results provide new insight into the mechanism of the remarkable C? C bond cleavage.     

Is an M?N σ‐Bond Insertion Route a Viable Alternative to the MN [2+2] Cycloaddition Route in Intramolecular Aminoallene Hydroamination/Cyclisation Catalysed by Neutral Zirconium Bis(amido) Complexes? A Computational Mechanistic Study

This study examines alternative reaction channels for intramolecular hydroamination/cyclisation (IHC) of primary 4,5-hexadien-1-ylamine aminoallene (1) by a neutral [Cp(2)ZrMe(2)] zirconocene precatalyst (2) by using the density functional theory (DFT) method. The first channel proceeds through a [Cp(2)Zr(NHR)(2)] complex as the reactive species and relevant steps including the insertion of an allenic C=C linkage into the Zr--NHR sigma-bond and ensuing protonolysis. This is contrasted to the [2+2] cycloaddition mechanism involving a [Cp(2)Zr=NR] transient species. The salient features of the rival mechanisms are disclosed. The cycloaddition route entails the first transformation of the dormant [Cp(2)Zr(NHR)(2)] complex 3 B into the transient [Cp(2)Zr=NR] intermediate 3 A', which is turnover limiting. This route features a highly facile ring closure together with a substantially slower protonolysis (k(cycloadd)>k(protonolysis)) and can display inhibition by high substrate concentration. In contrast, protonolysis is the more facile step for the channel proceeding through the [Cp(2)Zr(NHR)(2)] complex as the catalytically active species. Here, C=C insertion into the Zr--C sigma-bond of 3 B, which represents the catalyst resting state, is turnover limiting and substrate concentration is unlikely to influence the rate. The regulation of the selectivity is elucidated for the two channels. DFT predicts that five-ring allylamine and six-ring imine are generated upon traversing the cycloaddition route, thereby comparing favourably with experiment, whereas the cycloimine should be formed solely along the sigma-bond insertion route. The mechanistic analysis is indicative of an operating [2+2] cycloaddition mechanism. The Zr--NHR sigma-bond insertion route, although appearing not to be employed for the reactants studied herein, is clearly suggested as being viable for hydroamination by charge neutral organozirconium compounds.     

Dioxygen Reactivity of Biomimetic Iron–Catecholate and Iron–o‐Aminophenolate Complexes of a Tris(2‐pyridylthio)methanido Ligand: Aromatic C?C Bond Cleavage of Catecholate versus o‐Iminobenzosemiquinonate Radical Formation

An iron(III)–catecholate complex [L¹Fe^III(DBC)] ( 2 ) and an iron(II)–o‐aminophenolate complex [L¹Fe^II(HAP)] ( 3 ; where L¹=tris(2‐pyridylthio)methanido anion, DBC=dianionic 3,5‐di‐tert‐butylcatecholate, and HAP=monoanionic 4,6‐di‐tert‐butyl‐2‐aminophenolate) have been synthesised from an iron(II)–acetonitrile complex [L¹Fe^II(CH₃CN)₂](ClO₄) ( 1 ). Complex 2 reacts with dioxygen to oxidatively cleave the aromatic C? C bond of DBC giving rise to selective extradiol cleavage products. Controlled chemical or electrochemical oxidation of 2 , on the other hand, forms an iron(III)–semiquinone radical complex [L¹Fe^III(SQ)](PF₆) ( 2^ox‐PF₆ ; SQ=3,5‐di‐tert‐butylsemiquinonate). The iron(II)–o‐aminophenolate complex ( 3 ) reacts with dioxygen to afford an iron(III)–o‐iminosemiquinonato radical complex [L¹Fe^III(ISQ)](ClO₄) ( 3^ox‐ClO₄ ; ISQ=4,6‐di‐tert‐butyl‐o‐iminobenzosemiquinonato radical) via an iron(III)–o‐amidophenolate intermediate species. Structural characterisations of 1 , 2 , 2^ox and 3^ox reveal the presence of a strong iron? carbon bonding interaction in all the complexes. The bond parameters of 2^ox and 3^ox clearly establish the radical nature of catecholate‐ and o‐aminophenolate‐derived ligand, respectively. The effect of iron? carbon bonding interaction on the dioxygen reactivity of biomimetic iron–catecholate and iron–o‐aminophenolate complexes is discussed.