Dandamudi Usharani1, David C Lacy, A S Borovik, Sason Shaik. 1. Institute of Chemistry and the Lise-Meitner-Minerva Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem , 91904 Jerusalem, Israel.
Abstract
We describe herein the hydrogen-atom transfer (HAT)/proton-coupled electron-transfer (PCET) reactivity for Fe(IV)-oxo and Fe(III)-oxo complexes (1-4) that activate C-H, N-H, and O-H bonds in 9,10-dihydroanthracene (S1), dimethylformamide (S2), 1,2-diphenylhydrazine (S3), p-methoxyphenol (S4), and 1,4-cyclohexadiene (S5). In 1-3, the iron is pentacoordinated by tris[N'-tert-butylureaylato)-N-ethylene]aminato ([H3buea](3-)) or its derivatives. These complexes are basic, in the order 3 ≫ 1 > 2. Oxidant 4, [Fe(IV)N4Py(O)](2+) (N4Py: N,N-bis(2-pyridylmethyl)bis(2-pyridyl)methylamine), is the least basic oxidant. The DFT results match experimental trends and exhibit a mechanistic spectrum ranging from concerted HAT and PCET reactions to concerted-asynchronous proton transfer (PT)/electron transfer (ET) mechanisms, all the way to PT. The singly occupied orbital along the O···H···X (X = C, N, O) moiety in the TS shows clearly that in the PCET cases, the electron is transferred separately from the proton. The Bell-Evans-Polanyi principle does not account for the observed reactivity pattern, as evidenced by the scatter in the plot of calculated barrier vs reactions driving forces. However, a plot of the deformation energy in the TS vs the respective barrier provides a clear signature of the HAT/PCET dichotomy. Thus, in all C-H bond activations, the barrier derives from the deformation energy required to create the TS, whereas in N-H/O-H bond activations, the deformation energy is much larger than the corresponding barrier, indicating the presence of a stabilizing interaction between the TS fragments. A valence bond model is used to link the observed results with the basicity/acidity of the reactants.
We describe herein the hydrogen-atom transn class="Chemical">fer (HAT)/proton-coupled electron-transfer (PCET) reactivity for Fe(IV)-oxo and Fe(III)-oxo complexes (1-4) that activate C-H, N-H, and O-H bonds in 9,10-dihydroanthracene (S1), dimethylformamide (S2), 1,2-diphenylhydrazine (S3), p-methoxyphenol (S4), and 1,4-cyclohexadiene (S5). In 1-3, the iron is pentacoordinated by tris[N'-tert-butylureaylato)-N-ethylene]aminato ([H3buea](3-)) or its derivatives. These complexes are basic, in the order 3 ≫ 1 > 2. Oxidant 4, [Fe(IV)N4Py(O)](2+) (N4Py: N,N-bis(2-pyridylmethyl)bis(2-pyridyl)methylamine), is the least basic oxidant. The DFT results match experimental trends and exhibit a mechanistic spectrum ranging from concerted HAT and PCET reactions to concerted-asynchronous proton transfer (PT)/electron transfer (ET) mechanisms, all the way to PT. The singly occupied orbital along the O···H···X (X = C, N, O) moiety in the TS shows clearly that in the PCET cases, the electron is transferred separately from the proton. The Bell-Evans-Polanyi principle does not account for the observed reactivity pattern, as evidenced by the scatter in the plot of calculated barrier vs reactions driving forces. However, a plot of the deformation energy in the TS vs the respective barrier provides a clear signature of the HAT/PCET dichotomy. Thus, in all C-H bond activations, the barrier derives from the deformation energy required to create the TS, whereas in N-H/O-H bond activations, the deformation energy is much larger than the corresponding barrier, indicating the presence of a stabilizing interaction between the TS fragments. A valence bond model is used to link the observed results with the basicity/acidity of the reactants.
Authors: Sarmistha Chakrabarty; Rachel N Austin; Dayi Deng; John T Groves; John D Lipscomb Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2007-03-07 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Subrata Kundu; Florian Felix Pfaff; Enrico Miceli; Ivelina Zaharieva; Christian Herwig; Shenglai Yao; Erik R Farquhar; Uwe Kuhlmann; Eckhard Bill; Peter Hildebrandt; Holger Dau; Matthias Driess; Christian Limberg; Kallol Ray Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2013-04-15 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Debanjan Dhar; Gereon M Yee; Andrew D Spaeth; David W Boyce; Hongtu Zhang; Büsra Dereli; Christopher J Cramer; William B Tolman Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Mukunda Mandal; Courtney E Elwell; Caitlin J Bouchey; Timothy J Zerk; William B Tolman; Christopher J Cramer Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Regina A Baglia; Katharine A Prokop-Prigge; Heather M Neu; Maxime A Siegler; David P Goldberg Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Tibor András Rokob; Jakub Chalupský; Daniel Bím; Prokopis C Andrikopoulos; Martin Srnec; Lubomír Rulíšek Journal: J Biol Inorg Chem Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 3.358
Authors: Graham de Ruiter; Kurtis M Carsch; Sheraz Gul; Ruchira Chatterjee; Niklas B Thompson; Michael K Takase; Junko Yano; Theodor Agapie Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Ethan A Hill; Andrew C Weitz; Elizabeth Onderko; Adrian Romero-Rivera; Yisong Guo; Marcel Swart; Emile L Bominaar; Michael T Green; Michael P Hendrich; David C Lacy; A S Borovik Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Evan E Joslin; Jan Paulo T Zaragoza; Regina A Baglia; Maxime A Siegler; David P Goldberg Journal: Inorg Chem Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 5.165