4.8 Article

The Role of Chelating Phosphine Rhodium Complexes in Dehydrocoupling Reactions of Amine-Boranes: A Theoretical Investigation Attempting To Rationalize the Observed Behaviors

期刊

ACS CATALYSIS
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 1104-1113

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/cs4012556

关键词

amine-boranes dehydrogenation; chelating phosphine; rhodium complex; DFT; homogeneous catalysis

资金

  1. Universita della Calabria
  2. FP7- PEOPLE-IRSES [295172]
  3. Commissione Europea, Fondo Sociale Europeo, Regione Calabria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A quantum-chemical investigation of the dehydrocoupling reaction of the secondary amine-borane Me2HNBH3 assisted by phosphine chelating [Rh(Ph2P(CH2)(n)-PPh2)(C6H5F)](+) (n = 3-5) complexes to ultimately afford the cyclic dimer [Me2NBH2](2) is reported. The hypothesis, proposed on the basis of experimental evidence, that the catalytic efficiency of such systems is due to formation of Rh(III) dihydride complexes, which rapidly lose H-2 and reform Rh(I) species, has been explored, together with the influence that the structure of the ligand (namely, the chelating phosphine P-Rh-P bite angle) has on the rate of the reaction. Along the pathway that our computational analysis has indicated as the most likely, the first step of the dehydrogenation reaction is the concerted B H hydride and N-H proton transfer from an additional amine-borane molecule to the rhodium center of the formed [Rh(Ph2P(CH2)(n)-PPh2)(eta(2)-Me2HNBH3)](+) complexes. The reaction proceeds by formation of dihydrogen complexes, which eliminate molecular hydrogen and restore the sigma-amine-borane complexes. The impact of the bite angle on the kinetics has been rationalized in terms of both the distortions to the geometry of stationary points around the metal center and the strength of the Rh-B interaction with the amine-borane ligand. The final cyclic dimer is formed by off-metal coupling of the released aminoboranes. A plausible explanation of the observed induction period is also given.

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

4.8
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