4.6 Article

Two Reaction Mechanisms via Iminium Ion Intermediates: The Different Reactivities of Diphenylprolinol Silyl Ether and Trifluoromethyl-Substituted Diarylprolinol Silyl Ether

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 21, 期 35, 页码 12337-12346

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.201500326

关键词

asymmetric synthesis; iminium ions; organocatalysis; reaction mechanisms; silyl ethers

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan [23105010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reactions of alpha,beta-unsaturated aldehydes with cyclopentadiene in the presence of diarylprolinol silyl ethers as catalyst proceed via iminium cations as intermediates, and can be divided into two types; one involving a Michael-type reaction (type A) and one involving a cycloaddition (type B). Diphenylprolinol silyl ethers and trifluoromethyl-substituted diarylprolinol silyl ethers, which are widely used proline-type organocatalysts, have been investigated in this study. As the LUMO of the iminium ion derived from trifluoromethyl-substituted diarylprolinol silyl ether is lower in energy than that derived from diphenylprolinol silyl ether, as supported by ab initio calculations, the trifluoromethyl-substituted catalyst is more reactive in a type B reaction. The iminium ion from an alpha,beta-unsaturated aldehyde is generated more quickly with diphenylprolinol silyl ether than with the trifluoromethyl-substituted diarylprolinol silyl ether. When the generation of the iminium ion is the rate-determining step, the diphenylprolinol silyl ether catalyst is the more reactive. Because acid accelerates the generation of iminium ions and reduces the generation of anionic nucleophiles in the Michael-type reaction (type A), it is necessary to select the appropriate acid for specific reactions. In general, diphenylprolinol silyl ether is a superior catalyst for type A reactions, whereas the trifluoromethyl-substituted diarylprolinol silyl ether catalyst is preferred for type B reactions.

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