4.5 Article

Synthesis and structural characterization of facile ruthenium(II) hydrazone complexes: Efficient catalysts in α-alkylation of ketones with primary alcohols via hydrogen auto transfer

期刊

INORGANICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 512, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.ica.2020.119887

关键词

Ruthenium(II) catalyst; Hydrazino benzothiazole; Crystal structure; alpha-alkylation; Borrowing hydrogen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As a immersion for development of new complexes, new Ru(II) complexes (1-3) supported by benzothiazole hydrazine Schiff bases of the type [Ru(SAL-HBT)(CO)(AsPh3)(2)], [Ru(VAN-HBT)(CO)(AsPh3)(2)] and [Ru(NAPHBT)(CO)Cl(AsPh3)(2)] [SAL-HBT = (salicyl((2-(benzothiazol-2yl)hydrazono)methylphenol)), VAN-HBT = 2-((2(benzothiazol-2-yl)hydrazono)methyl)-6 methoxyphenol) and NAP-HBT = naphtyl-2-((2-(benzothiazol-2-yl) hydrazono)methyl phenol)] were synthesized. Their identities have been established by satisfactory elemental analyses, various spectroscopic techniques (IR, (H-1, C-13) NMR) and also mass spectrometry. The ruthenium(II) ion exhibits a hexa coordination with distorted octahedral geometry. In complexes 1 and 2, the ligand coordinated as dianionic tridentate fashion by forming N<^>N donor five member and N<^>O donor six member chelate rings. However, in complex 3, the ligand coordinated as monoanionic bidentate fashion by forming N<^>N donor five-membered ring. The new ruthenium(II) carbonyl complexes were successfully applied as catalysts in alpha-alkylation of aliphatic and aromatic ketones with alcohols via borrowing hydrogen strategy. Various parameters such as base, solvent, temperature, time and catalyst loading on the catalytic activity were analyzed. From the results, the catalyst 1 was found to be the best catalyst for alpha-alkylation reaction to obtain excellent yield. The catalytic system has a broad substrate scope, which allows the synthesis of alpha-alkylated ketones in mild reaction conditions with low catalyst loading under air atmosphere.

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