4.6 Article

Silver-Free Au(I) Catalysis Enabled by Bifunctional Urea- and Squaramide-Phosphine Ligands via H-Bonding

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 27, 期 46, 页码 11989-11996

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.202101751

关键词

chloride abstraction; hydrogen bond; gold; kinetics; phosphine ligands

资金

  1. European Union (Horizon 2020 Marie Skodowska-Curie COFUND postdoctoral fellowship) [754510]
  2. European Research Council [835080]
  3. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [PID2019-104815GB-I00, CEX2019-000925-S]
  4. AGAUR [2017 SGR 1257]
  5. CERCA Program/Generalitat de Catalunya

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A library of gold(I) chloride complexes with phosphine ligands incorporating (thio)urea and squaramide H-bond donors was prepared to promote chloride abstraction from Au(I) via H-bonding. In the absence of silver additives, complexes bearing squaramides and trifluoromethylated aromatic ureas displayed good catalytic activity in various reactions, including cyclization and tandem reactions. Kinetic studies and DFT calculations suggest that the reaction's energy span is influenced by both the chloride abstraction step and subsequent cyclization step facilitated by the bidentate H-bond donor.
A library of gold(I) chloride complexes with phosphine ligands incorporating pendant (thio)urea and squaramide H-bond donors was prepared with the aim of promoting chloride abstraction from Au(I) via H-bonding. In the absence of silver additives, complexes bearing squaramides and trifluoromethylated aromatic ureas displayed good catalytic activity in the cyclization of N-propargyl benzamides, as well as in a 1,6-enyne cycloisomerization, a tandem cyclization-indole addition reaction and the hydrohydrazination of phenylacetylene. Kinetic studies and DFT calculations indicate that the energetic span of the reaction is accounted by both the chloride abstraction step, facilitated by the bidentate H-bond donor via an associative mechanism, and the subsequent cyclization step.

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

4.6
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