4.5 Article

Are Methylaluminoxane Activators Sheets?

期刊

CHEMPHYSCHEM
卷 22, 期 13, 页码 1326-1335

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cphc.202100268

关键词

methylaluminoxane; ionization; ESI-MS; anionization; sheets

资金

  1. NSERC [478998-15]
  2. NOVA Chemicals' Centre for Applied Research
  3. University of Victoria
  4. Finnish Grid & Cloud Infrastructure [2016072533]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Density functional theory calculations on neutral sheet models for methylaluminoxane suggest that 5-coordinate and 4-coordinate aluminum structures may be precursors to ion pairs observed during the hydrolysis of trimethylaluminum. The studies show that low molecular weight 5-coordinate sheets mainly ionize through [Me2Al](+), while higher molecular weight 4-coordinate sheets are more likely to ionize through [Me](-) from Me3Al-OMTS. Additionally, comparisons of anion stabilities per mole of aluminoxane repeat unit indicate that certain anions are especially stable compared to higher homologues, despite their unstable neutral precursors.
Density functional theory calculations on neutral sheet models for methylaluminoxane (MAO) indicate that these structures, containing 5-coordinate and 4-coordinate Al, are likely precursors to ion-pairs seen during the hydrolysis of trimethylaluminum (Me3Al) in the presence of donors such as octamethyltrisiloxane (OMTS). Ionization by both methide ([Me](-)) and [Me2Al](+) abstraction, involving this donor, were studied by polarizable continuum model calculations in fluorobenzene (PhF) and o-difluorobenzene (DFB) media. These studies suggest that low MW, 5-coordinate sheets ionize by [Me2Al](+) abstraction, while [Me](-) abstraction from Me3Al-OMTS is the likely process for higher MW 4-coordinate sheets. Further, comparison of anion stabilities per mole of aluminoxane repeat unit (MeAlO)(n), suggest that anions such as [(MeAlO)(7)(Me3Al)(4)Me](-)=[7,4](-) are especially stable compared to higher homologues, even though their neutral precursors are unstable.

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

4.5
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