4.6 Article

Sandwich Diimine-Copper Catalyzed Trifluoroethylation and Pentafluoropropylation of Unactivated C(sp3)-H Bonds by Carbene Insertion

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.202301672

关键词

C-H activation; carbenes; copper; diazo compounds; diimines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, trifluoroethylation and pentafluoropropylation reactions of unactivated C(sp(3))-H bonds in alkyl esters, halides, and protected amines were catalyzed by sandwich-diimine copper complex. The reactions took place in dichloromethane solvent at room temperature. Compounds with stronger electron-withdrawing substituents showed higher selectivities for C-H insertions. Preliminary mechanistic studies suggested that the reaction mechanism involves the formation of a pre-equilibrium sandwich-diimine copper-CF3CHN2 complex, followed by rate-determining loss of nitrogen to generate the reactive copper carbene. The carbene reacted with trifluoromethyldiazomethane much faster than with 1-fluoroadamantane, explaining the need for slow addition of the diazo compound.
We report here sandwich-diimine copper complex-catalyzed trifluoroethylation and pentafluoropropylation of unactivated C(sp(3))-H bonds in alkyl esters, halides, and protected amines by employing CF3CHN2 and CF3CF2CHN2 reagents. Reactions proceed in dichloromethane solvent at room temperature. Identical C-H functionalization conditions and stoichiometries are employed for generality and convenience. Selectivities for C-H insertions are higher for compounds possessing stronger electron-withdrawing substituents. Preliminary mechanistic studies point to a mechanism involving a pre-equilibrium forming a sandwich-diimine copper-CF3CHN2 complex followed by rate-determining loss of nitrogen affording the reactive copper carbene. It reacts with trifluoromethyldiazomethane about 6.5 times faster than with 1-fluoroadamantane explaining the need for slow addition of the diazo compound.

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