4.8 Article

Pd-Catalyzed C-N Coupling Reactions Facilitated by Organic Bases: Mechanistic Investigation Leads to Enhanced Reactivity in the Arylation of Weakly Binding Amines

期刊

ACS CATALYSIS
卷 9, 期 5, 页码 3822-3830

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.9b00981

关键词

palladium; homogeneous catalysis; mechanism; cross-coupling; amination

资金

  1. NIH [GM122483, GM58160, 1F32GM120847-01]
  2. NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program [1122374]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability to use soluble organic amine bases in Pd-catalyzed C-N cross-coupling reactions has provided a long-awaited solution to the many issues associated with employing traditional, heterogeneous reaction conditions. However, little is known about the precise function of these bases in the catalytic cycle or about the effect of variations in base structure on catalyst reactivity. We used F-19 NMR to analyze the kinetic behavior of C-N coupling reactions facilitated by different organic bases. In the case of aniline coupling reactions employing DBU, the resting state was a DBU-bound oxidative addition complex, LPd(DBU)(Ar)X, and the reaction was found to be inhibited by base. Generally, however, depending on the binding properties of the chosen organic base, increasing the concentration of the base can have a positive or negative influence on the reaction rate. Furthermore, the electronic nature of the aryl triflate employed in the reaction directly affects the reaction rate. The fastest reaction rates were observed with electronically neutral aryl triflates, while the slowest were observed with highly electron-rich and electron-deficient substrates. We propose a model in which the turnover-limiting step of the catalytic cycle is dependent on the relative nucleophilicity of the base, compared to that of the amine. This hypothesis guided the discovery of new reaction conditions for the coupling of weakly binding amines, including secondary aryl amines, which were unreactive nucleophiles in our original protocol.

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