The structure of ruthenium-based olefin metathesis catalyst 3 and model pi-complex 5 in solution and in the solid state are reported. The N-tolyl ligands, due to their lower symmetry than the traditional N-mesityl substituents, complicate this analysis, but ultimately provide explanation for the enhanced reactivity of 3 relative to standard catalyst 2. The tilt of the N-tolyl ring provides additional space near the ruthenium center, which is consistent with the enhanced reactivity of 3 toward sterically demanding substrates. Due to this tilt, the more sterically accessible face bears the two methyl substituents of the N-aryl rings. These experimental studies are supported by computational studies of these complexes by DFT. The experimental data provides a means to validate the accuracy of the B3LYP and M06 functionals. B3LYP provides geometries that match X-ray crystal structural data more closely, though it leads to slightly less (approximately 0.5 kcal mol-1) accuracy than M06 most likely because it underestimates attractive noncovalent interactions.
The structure of <n class="Chemical">span class="Chemical">ruthenium-<span class="Chemical">based olefin metathesis catalyst 3 and model pi-complex 5 in solution and in the solid state are reported. The N-tolyl ligands, due to their lower symmetry than the traditional N-mesityl substituents, complicate this analysis, but ultimately provide explanation for the enhanced reactivity of 3 relative to standard catalyst 2. The tilt of the N-tolyl ring provides additional space near the ruthenium center, which is consistent with the enhanced reactivity of 3 toward sterically demanding substrates. Due to this tilt, the more sterically accessible face bears the two methyl substituents of the N-aryl rings. These experimental studies are supported by computational studies of these complexes by DFT. The experimental data provides a means to validate the accuracy of the B3LYP and M06 functionals. B3LYP provides geometries that match X-ray crystal structural data more closely, though it leads to slightly less (approximately 0.5 kcal mol-1) accuracy than M06 most likely because it underestimates attractive noncovalent interactions.
Authors: Diego Benitez; Ekaterina Tkatchouk; Il Yoon; J Fraser Stoddart; William A Goddard Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2008-10-21 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Ian C Stewart; Thay Ung; Alexandre A Pletnev; Jacob M Berlin; Robert H Grubbs; Yann Schrodi Journal: Org Lett Date: 2007-03-23 Impact factor: 6.005
Authors: Jacob M Berlin; Katie Campbell; Tobias Ritter; Timothy W Funk; Anatoly Chlenov; Robert H Grubbs Journal: Org Lett Date: 2007-03-08 Impact factor: 6.005
Authors: David E White; Ian C Stewart; Brinton A Seashore-Ludlow; Robert H Grubbs; Brian M Stoltz Journal: Tetrahedron Date: 2010-03-26 Impact factor: 2.457
Authors: Wioletta Kośnik; Dawid Lichosyt; Marcin Śnieżek; Angelika Janaszkiewicz; Krzysztof Woźniak; Maura Malińska; Bartosz Trzaskowski; Anna Kajetanowicz; Karol Grela Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 16.823