4.5 Article

New chiral phosphine-phosphite ligands in the enantioselective rhodium-catalyzed hydroformylation of styrene

期刊

ORGANOMETALLICS
卷 19, 期 11, 页码 2065-2072

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/om990760m

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of chiral phosphine-phosphite ligands la-g have been synthesized from monophosphines 2-4, enantiomerically pure propene oxide or styrene oxide, and 3,3',5,5'-tetra(tert-butyl)-2,2'-bisphenol phosphorochloridite or enantiomerically pure 3,3'-bis(trimethylsilyl)-2,2'-binaphthol phosphorochloridites. These phosphine-phosphites have been used in the rhodium-catalyzed asymmetric hydroformylation of styrene; The structures of the active catalysts, [HRh(L-L)(CO)(2)] complexes (L-L = ligands 1a-g), have been studied using high-pressure NMR and IR spectroscopy. The obtained spectroscopic data show that the ligands coordinate in an equatorial-apical fashion to the rhodium center with the phosphine in apical position. Systematic variation in configuration of the stereocenters at both the ligand bridge and the phosphine moiety revealed a remarkable cooperative effect on the selectivity of the hydroformylation reaction. Under mild reaction conditions ee's of 63% and regioselectivities up to 92% toward 2-phenylpropanal were obtained (25-60 degrees C, 20 bar of syn gas CO:H-2 [1:1]) for ligands 1. The absolute configuration of the product is governed by the stereogenic center of the backbone of the ligand. There is a large cooperative effect, however, from the phosphine moiety. Spectroscopic data, in combination with the obtained results in catalysis, suggest that phosphine-phosphite ligands (L-L) containing the conformationally flexible and axially chiral biphenyl moiety exist predominantly as single atropisomers in the HRh(L-L)(CO)(2) complexes. Comparison of the bisphenol and binaphthol substituents suggests that the high enantiomeric excesses obtained with the former are caused by the preferential formation of the most selective diastereomer.

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