4.5 Article

Knolker Iron Catalysts for Hydrogenation Revisited: A Nonspectator Solvent and Fine-Tuning

期刊

ORGANOMETALLICS
卷 41, 期 10, 页码 1204-1215

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.organomet.2c00099

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministere de la Recherche et des Nouvelles Technologies
  2. CNRS
  3. LABEX SynOrg [ANR-11-LABX-0029]
  4. Graduate School of Research XL-Chem [ANR-18-EURE-0020 XL-Chem]
  5. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (MINECO) of Spain [PGC2018-097722-B-I00, PGC2018-098212-B-C22, PID2020-13711GB-I00]
  6. Generalitat de Catalunya [2017SGR39]
  7. ICREA Academia prize 2019
  8. Generalitat de Catalunya
  9. Fons Social Europeu [2018 FI_B01120]
  10. Universitat de Girona
  11. Donostia International Physics Center (DIPC)
  12. Normandie Universite

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the reductive amination catalyzed by a Knolker-type iron complex was investigated using DFT calculations and chemical structure analysis. It was found that introducing electron-withdrawing substituents on the cyclopentadienone ring of the catalyst can enhance the catalytic efficiency.
The reductive amination process under hydrogen at high pressure catalyzed by iron complexes is of great synthetic interest. In this work, we report density functional theory (DFT) studies on the reductive amination catalyzed by a Knolker-type iron complex. Different modifications of the catalyst are explored to improve the efficiency and guide experiments toward milder conditions. DFT calculations in conjunction with analysis of the chemical structure in terms of geometry, fragment partial charges, effective oxidation states (EOS), and aromaticity allows us to conclude that the presence of electron-withdrawing substituents on the cyclopentadienone ring induces a decrease of the activation barriers of most relevant steps, leading to a more efficient catalysis. The present work is a dear example that predictive catalysis can have a fundamental role in sustainable catalytic transformations.

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