Department of Chemistry and Biotechnology, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan.
J Am Chem Soc. 2010 Nov 17;132(45):16030-42. doi: 10.1021/ja104837h. Epub 2010 Oct 25.
Palladium-catalyzed coordination-insertion copolymerization of ethylene with acrylonitrile (AN) proceeded only by using phosphine-sulfonate (P-SO(3)) as a ligand among the neutral and anionic ligands we examined, those are phosphine-sulfonate (P-SO(3)), diphosphine (P-P), and imine-phenolate (N-O). In order to answer a question that is unique for P-SO(3), theoretical and experimental studies were carried out for the three catalyst systems. By comparing P-SO(3) and P-P, it was elucidated that (i) the π-acrylonitrile complex [(L-L')PdPr(π-AN)] is less stable than the corresponding σ-complex [(L-L')PdPr(σ-AN)] in both the phosphine-sulfonato complex (L-L' = P-SO(3)) and the diphosphine complex (L-L' = P-P) and (ii) the energetic difference between the π-complex and the σ-complex is smaller in the P-SO(3) complexes than in the P-P complexes. Thus, the energies of the transition states for both AN insertion and its subsequent ethylene insertion relative to the most stable species [(L-L')PdPr(σ-AN)] are lower for P-SO(3) than for P-P. The results nicely explain the difference between these two types of ligands. That is, ethylene insertion subsequent to AN insertion was detected for P-SO(3), while aggregate formation was reported for cationic [(L-L)Pd(CHCNCH(2)CH(3))] complex. Aggregate formation with the cationic complex can be considered as a result of the retarded ethylene insertion to [(L-L)Pd(CHCNCH(2)CH(3))]. In contrast, theoretical comparison between P-SO(3) and N-O did not show a significant energetic difference in both AN insertion and its subsequent ethylene insertion, implying that ethylene/AN copolymerization might be possible. However, our experiment using [(N-O)PdMe(lutidine)] complex revealed that β-hydride elimination terminated the ethylene oligomerization and, more importantly, that the resulting Pd-H species lead to formation of free N-OH and Pd(0) particles. The β-hydride elimination process was further studied theoretically to clarify the difference between the two anionic ligands, P-SO(3) and N-O.
钯催化的乙烯与丙烯腈(AN)的配位插入共聚合仅使用我们研究的中性和阴离子配体中的膦磺酸盐(P-SO3)作为配体进行,这些配体是膦磺酸盐(P-SO3) ,二膦(P-P)和亚胺-酚(N-O)。为了回答 P-SO3 特有的问题,对三种催化剂体系进行了理论和实验研究。通过比较 P-SO3 和 P-P,可以阐明(i)在膦磺酸盐配合物(L-L'= P-SO3)和二膦配合物(L-L'= P-P)中,π-丙烯腈配合物[(L-L')PdPr(π-AN)]均不如相应的σ-配合物[(L-L')PdPr(σ-AN)]稳定,并且(ii)在 P-SO3 配合物中,π-配合物与σ-配合物之间的能垒差小于 P-P 配合物。因此,相对于最稳定的物种[(L-L')PdPr(σ-AN)],AN 插入及其随后的乙烯插入的过渡态的能量对于 P-SO3 来说比 P-P 低。结果很好地解释了这两种配体之间的差异。也就是说,对于 P-SO3 ,检测到丙烯腈插入后乙烯插入,而对于阳离子[(L-L)Pd(CHCNCH(2)CH(3))]配合物,则报道了聚集形成。阳离子配合物的聚集形成可以被认为是乙烯向[(L-L)Pd(CHCNCH(2)CH(3))]的插入受阻的结果。相比之下,P-SO3 和 N-O 之间的理论比较并未显示出在 AN 插入及其随后的乙烯插入中都存在显著的能量差异,这表明乙烯/丙烯腈共聚合可能是可行的。然而,我们使用[(N-O)PdMe(lutidine)]配合物进行的实验表明,β-氢消除终止了乙烯低聚物的聚合,更重要的是,生成的 Pd-H 物种导致游离的 N-OH 和 Pd(0)颗粒的形成。进一步从理论上研究了β-氢消除过程,以阐明两种阴离子配体 P-SO3 和 N-O 之间的差异。