Electronic effects of the anionic ligand in ruthenium-catalyzed olefin metathesis

Organometallics

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 944-946

  Monfette, Sebastien ^a   Camm, Kenneth D ^a   Goreisky, Serge I ^a   Fogg, Deryn E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIONIC LIGANDS; CATECHOLATE; ELECTRON DEFICIENTS; ELECTRONIC EFFECTS; METATHESIS ACTIVITIES; OLEFIN METATHESIS;

CATALYSIS; CATALYSTS; OLEFINS; RUTHENIUM;

LIGANDS;

EID: 64549162398     PISSN: 02767333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/om900006f     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. For selected reviews on olefin metathesis, see: (a) Handbook of Metathesis; Grubbs, R. H., Ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2003.
2. (b) Deshmukh, P. H.; Blechert, S. Dalton Trans. 2007, 2479-2491.
3. (c) Schrock, R. R. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 3748-3759.
4. (d) Grubbs, R. H. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 3760-3765.
5. (e) Astruc, D. New J. Chem. 2005, 29, 42-56.
6. (f) Fürstner. A. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2000, 39, 3012-3043.
7. For detailed discussions, see: (a) Sanford, M. S.; Love, J. A. In ref la, Vol. 1. pp 112-131.
8. (b) Conrad, J. C; Fogg, D. E. Curr. Org. Chem. 2006, 10, 185-202.
9. (a) Sanford, M. S.; Love, J. A.; Grubbs, R. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 6543-6554.
10. (b) Michrowska, A.; Bujok, R.; Harutyunvan, S.; Sashuk, V.; Dolgonos, G.; Grela, K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 9318-9325.
11. (c) Romero, P. E.; Piers, W. E.; McDonald, R. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 6161-6165.
12. Occhipinti, G.; Biorsvik. H.-R.; Jensen. V. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 6952-6964.
13. 2) are ca. 19 (X = Cl). 15 (X = Br), and 1 (X = I). See: Dias. E. L.; Nguyen, S. T.; Grubbs. R. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 3887-3897.
14. Buchowicz, W.; Ingold. F.; Mol. J. C; Lutz. M.; Spek, A. L. Chem. Eur. J. 2001, 7, 2842-2847.
15. Halbach, T. S.; Mrx, S.; Fischer, D.; Maechling, S.; Krause, J. O.; Sievers. C; Blechert, S.; Nuvken, O.; Buchmeiser, M. R. J. Org. Chem. 2005, 70, 4687-4694.
16. Monfette, S.; Fogg, D. E. Organometallics 2006, 25, 1940-1944.
17. 2 isomers. See: (a) Barbasiewicz, M.; Szadkowska, A.; Bujok. R.; Grela, K. Organometallics 2006, 25, 3599-3604.
18. (b) Ung, T.; Hejl, A.; Grubbs, R. H.; Schrodi, Y. Organometallics 2004, 23, 5399-5401.
19. (c) Benitez, D.; Goddard, W. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 12218-12219.
20. 2 geometries may be associated with low activity. See: (a) Slugovc, C.; Perner, B.; Stelzer, F.; Mereiter, K. Organometallics 2004, 23, 3622-3626.
21. (b) Ben-Asuly, A.; Tzur, E.; Diesendruck, C. E.; Sigalov, M.; Goldberg, I; Lemcoff, N. G. Organometallics 2008, 27, 811-813.
22. Correa, A.; Cavallo, L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 13352-13353.
23. Straub, B. F. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2007, 349, 204-214.
24. Anderson, D. R.; Hickstein, D. D.; O'Leary, D. J.; Grubbs, R. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 8386-8387.
25. For details, including numerical data where relevant, see the Supporting Information.
26. Bohle, D. S.; Carron, K. T.; Christensen, A. N.; Goodson. P. A.; Powell, A. K. Organometallics 1994, 13, 1355-1373.
27. Eelman, M. D.; Blacquiere, J. M.; Moriarty, M. M.; Fogg. D. E. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 303-306.
28. Armstrong, S. K. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1998, 371-388.
29. 31P NMR handle. For a useful analysis of deficiencies in prior kinetics studies of Ru catalysts with α,ω-olefins, particularly arising from co-formation of methylidene species, see: (a) Love, J. A.; Sanford, M. S.; Day, M. W.; Grubbs, R. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 10103-10109.
30. i in ROMP, in which solely alkylidene species are formed, see: (b) Ivin, K. J.; Mol, J. C., Olefin Metathesis and Metathesis Polymerization; Academic Press: New York, 1997; p 232.
31. (c) Benedicto, A. D.; Claverie, J. P.; Grubbs, R. H. Macromolecules 1995, 28, 500-511.
32. (d) Bazan, G. C; Khosravi, E.; Schrock, R. R.; Feast. W. J.; Gibson, V. C; O'Regan, M. B.; Thomas, J. K.; Davrs, W. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990, 112, 8378-8387.
33. Where NMR methods are not feasible, initiation efficiencies have been inferred from comparisons of ROMP polymer chain lengths with theoretical values. This requires that ring opening be irreversible and intramolecular chain transfer (backbiting) be slow. See, for example: (a) Six, C.; Beck, K.; Wegner, A.; Leitner, W. Organometallics 2000, 19, 4639-4642.
34. (b) Gstrein. X.; Burtscher, D.; Szadkowska, A.; Barbasiewicz, M.; Stelzer, F.; Grela, K.; Slugovc, C. J. Polym. Sci., Part A 2007, 45, 3494-3500.
35. (c) Nomura, K.; Sakai, L; lmanishi, Y.; Fujiki, M.; Miyamoto, Y. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2004, 25, 571-576.
36. Backbiting of substituted polynorbornenes, inhibited by steric encumbrance and the high rigidity of the polymer chain, cannot normally compete with ROMP itself. See: (d) Breslow, D. S. Prog. Polym. Sci. 1993, 18, 1141-1195.
37. The low initiation efficiencies of these catecholate catalysts may reflect the cis disposition of the anionic ligands: see ref 9.
38. Wada, T.; Yamanaka, M.; Fujihara, T.; Miyazato. Y.; Tanaka, K. Inorg. Chem. 2006, 45, 8887-8894.