4.6 Review

Visible-Light-Mediated Photocatalytic Deracemization

期刊

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

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.202204029

关键词

deracemization; energy transfer; photocatalysis; radical; single electron transfer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Asymmetric catalysis is a powerful tool for synthesizing enantioenriched molecules. Deracemization, the direct conversion of a racemic compound to one enantiomer, is an attractive approach with high-atom efficiency. Visible-light-driven photocatalysis has recently emerged as a promising platform for deracemization, overcoming kinetic and thermodynamic challenges in chemical transformations without the need for additional stoichiometric reagents. This review systematically summarizes and discusses the advances in this area, categorizing examples based on energy transfer and single-electron transfer in photocatalysis.
Asymmetric catalysis has long been recognized as a powerful tool for the synthesis of enantioenriched molecules. In addition to precise enantiocontrol, high-atom economy, which is crucial for practicality, has always been pursued by chemists in the development of methodologies. Consequently, deracemization, the direct conversion of a racemic compound to one of its enantiomers, and thus characterized by a 100 % atom efficiency, has attracted increasing interest. Recently, visible-light-driven photocatalysis has been demonstrated to be a promising platform for the development of deracemization. Central to its success is its ability to efficiently overcome the prevailing kinetic issues in chemical transformations and the intrinsic thermodynamic challenges, which typically require the use of additional stoichiometric reagents, thus undermining the original advantages. In this review, the advances in this attractive area are systematically summarized and discussed, with examples organized according to the different modalities of energy transfer and single-electron transfer in photocatalysis.

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