4.8 Article

Designing Pd and Ni Catalysts for Cross-Coupling Reactions by Minimizing Off-Cycle Species

期刊

ACS CATALYSIS
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 3499-3515

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.8b00230

关键词

catalysis; catalyst deactivation; cross-coupling Suzuki-Miyaura; palladium; nickel; DFT; precatalyst activation

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway through Centers of Excellence scheme
  2. CTCC (Centre for Theoretical and Computational Chemistry) [179568]
  3. Hylleraas Centre for Quantum Molecular Sciences [262695]
  4. Norwegian Metacenter for Computational Science (NOTUR) [nn4654k]
  5. EU REA [CompuWOC/618303]
  6. Research Council of Norway through FRINATEK scheme [221801, 250044]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This Perspective presents an overview on recent experimental and computational studies on the off-cycle reactions of palladium and nickel-catalyzed cross-couplings. Several reactions entering or leaving the catalytic cycle have been characterized, including the activation of Pd(II) precatalysts by H-shift and the deactivation of Ni(II) precatalysts by comproportionation. A fundamental difference between the off-cycle chemistries of palladium and nickel is the larger diversity of species yielded by the latter, with a rich combination of different oxidation states, nuclearity, and ligand coordination modes. The molecular-level understanding of off-cycle reactions has been exploited in catalyst design, including the stereoelectronic fine-tuning of the ligands aimed at maximizing the activation of the precatalyst meanwhile preventing its deactivation. Despite several challenges, which concern both experiments (e.g., isolation and characterization of transient species) and computations (e.g., comprehensive mapping of the potential energy surface), this approach has already been applied with success in the optimization of popular catalytic platforms (e.g., NHC-Pdally] precatalysts) and shows promise for the development of highly active and robust catalysts based on nickel.

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

4.8
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