The six-electron oxidation of two nitrides to N2 is a key step of ammonia synthesis and decomposition reactions on surfaces. In molecular complexes, nitride coupling has been observed with terminal nitrides, but not with bridging nitride complexes that more closely resemble catalytically important surface species. Further, nitride coupling has not been reported in systems where the nitrides are derived from N2. Here, we show that a molecular diiron(II) diiron(III) bis(nitride) complex reacts with Lewis bases, leading to the rapid six-electron oxidation of two bridging nitrides to form N2. Surprisingly, these mild reagents generate high yields of iron(I) products from the iron(II/III) starting material. This is the first molecular system that both breaks and forms the triple bond of N2 at room temperature. These results highlight the ability of multi-iron species to decrease the energy barriers associated with the activation of strong bonds.
The six-electron oxidation of two nitrides to N2 is a key step of ammonia synthesis and decomposition reactions on surfaces. In molecularcomplexes, nitridecoupling has been observed with terminal nitrides, but not with bridging nitridecomplexes that more closely resemble catalytically important surface species. Further, nitridecoupling has not been reported in systems where the nitridesare derived from N2. Here, we show that a moleculardiiron(II) diiron(III) bis(nitride)complex reacts with Lewis bases, leading to the rapid six-electron oxidation of two bridging nitrides to form N2. Surprisingly, these mild reagents generate high yields of iron(I) products from the iron(II/III) starting material. This is the first molecular system that both breaks and forms the triple bond of N2 at room temperature. These results highlight the ability of multi-iron species to decrease the energy barriers associated with the activation of strong bonds.
Reactive nitridocomplexes of
the late transition metals have aroused much interest, particularly
in the past few years.[1] One exciting reaction
of these complexes is nitridecoupling to form N2, a six-electron
reaction that makes and breaks many bonds. In these reactions, N2 formation is driven by the reduction of two metal nitrides,
and thus it is seen with complexes of metals having high formal oxidation
states. Nitridecoupling is the microscopic reverse of N2 cleavage, and thus it is mechanistically relevant to the industrial
production of ammonia in the iron-catalyzed Haber–Bosch process.
Dissociation of the N–N bond is the rate-limiting step in the
Haber–Bosch process,[2] and likewise
assembly of the N–N triple bond is the challenging step for
NH3 decomposition catalysts (which are of interest for
NH3 fuel cells).[3]In molecular
systems, nitridecoupling has been seen with terminal M–N multiple bonds.[1] However,
complexes with bridging nitrides would
be more relevant to the bridging modes of the nitrides in heterogeneous
catalysts, particularly the proposed nitride intermediates in catalytic
ammonia synthesis and decomposition.[2] Additionally,
reported examples of nitridecoupling are limited to studies of terminal
nitrides that are prepared from nitride/nitrene sources rather than
N2.[1] Studying nitridecoupling
in systems where the nitridescome from N2 would be most
relevant, given the reversible N2 cleavage in the Haber–Bosch
systems.To our knowledge, there is only one reported iron system
where
a nitridecomplex is generated from N2.[4] Our group described a reaction sequence that started with
reduction of LFeCl (L = bulky β-diketiminate ligand, shown in
Figure 1) to the iron(I) oxidation level. In
the presence of 1 atm N2, the N–N triple bond of N2 was cleaved to give two bridging nitrides
in a tetranuclearcomplex that has two iron(II) ions and two iron(III)
ions (1 in Scheme 1). Herein, we report the selective formation of N–N
bonds in the bis(nitride)complex to release the two bridging nitride
ligands as N2 in high yield. This is the first demonstration
of N–N triple bond cleavage and N–N triple bond formation
by a single homogeneous system. Both reactions occur at or below room
temperature, indicating that the multi-iron active site greatly lowers
the kinetic barriers for N2 formation and cleavage.
Figure 1
ORTEP diagrams of the X-ray crystal structures of LFe(CNXyl)3 (3, left) and LFe(CO)3 (4, right) using 50% thermal ellipsoids. The xylyl groups on the isocyanides
in 3 are omitted for clarity.
Scheme 1
Reactions of Compound 1 That Transfer Six Electrons
from Nitrides to Iron
ORTEP diagrams of the X-ray crystal structures of LFe(CNXyl)3 (3, left) and LFe(CO)3 (4, right) using 50% thermal ellipsoids. The xylyl groups on the isocyanides
in 3 are omitted for clarity.We previously reported a tetrairon–bis(nitride)complex
(1 in Scheme 1), in which the
iron sites were shown to be two iron(II) and two iron(III).[4] Crystalline samples of 1 are stable
under N2 or Ar for 1 month at −40 °C but decompose
slowly in benzene solution at 25 °C with a half-life of 8 h.
The major decomposition product under these conditions has now been
identified as the iron(I)complex LFe(η6-benzene)
(2) in 56% spectroscopic yield (Scheme 1).Compound 2 was independently synthesized
by reduction
of [LFeCl]2 with 2 molar equivalents of KC8 in
thf/benzene (4:1) under an argon atmosphere. The solid-state molecular
structure of 2 (Figure S-20) showed the η6 binding mode of the benzene ligand,
with Fe–C distances ranging from 2.128(2) to 2.147(3) Å.
The solution magnetic moment (1.7 μB) and rhombic
EPR signal (g = 2.182, 2.010, 1.979) indicate that 2 has low-spin iron(I) with an S = 1/2 electronic
configuration. The zero-field 57Fe Mössbauer spectrum
of solid 2 at 80 K has a single quadrupole doublet with
δ = 0.68 mm/s and |ΔEQ| =
0.69 mm/s (Figure S-1).The rate
of conversion of 1 to 2 increased
in the presence of pyridine. Upon treatment of 1 in benzene
with 4 equiv of pyridine, 1 was completely consumed within
10 min to produce 2 in 72% yield (determined by 1HNMR and Mössbauer spectroscopies on the crude reaction
mixtures; see Figures S-3 and S-11). Additionally,
a sub-stoichiometric amount of pyridine (0.22 equiv compared to 1) also produced 2 in 70% yield (determined by 1HNMR spectroscopy), with the reaction requiring only 3 h
to reach completion. The absence of pyridine in the reaction product,
as well as the observed rate dependence on pyridineconcentration,
suggests that pyridine is a catalyst for decomposition of the bis(nitride) 1. This indicates that Lewis bases may act to break up the
tetraironcomplex during formation of the iron(I) product, and thus
subsequent research used slender Lewis bases that could access the
metal sites more easily.Treatment of a benzene solution of 1 with 12 equiv
of CNXyl (2,6-dimethylphenyl isocyanide) caused a rapid color change
from red-brown to green. Mössbauer analysis of a frozen solution
(80 K) of the crude reaction mixture showed conversion to a single
product (94%) with δ = 0.15 mm/s and |ΔEQ| = 0.79 mm/s (Figure 2, top).
On the basis of its Mössbauer parameters and 1HNMR spectrum (Figure S-12), the predominant
(94%) reaction product was identified as a tris(isocyanide)compound,
LFe(CNXyl)3 (3).
Figure 2
Zero-field Mössbauer
spectra at 80 K. The black circles
are the data, and the red lines are simulations. (Top) Mössbauer
spectrum of a frozen benzene solution of the reaction mixture of 1 with CNXyl (12 equiv). The blue line represents the major
product of the reaction (3) with δ = 0.15 mm/s
and |ΔEQ| = 0.79 mm/s accounting
for 94% of the sample. The green line represents an unknown byproduct
(6% of the sample) with δ = 0.83 mm/s and |ΔEQ| = 2.16 mm/s. (Bottom) Mössbauer spectrum of
independently synthesized LFe(CNXyl)3 (3),
with a fit having δ = 0.17 mm/s and |ΔEQ| = 0.81 mm/s. Analogous spectra for the CO reaction
are shown in the Supporting Information.
Zero-field Mössbauer
spectra at 80 K. The black circles
are the data, and the red lines are simulations. (Top) Mössbauer
spectrum of a frozen benzene solution of the reaction mixture of 1 with CNXyl (12 equiv). The blue line represents the major
product of the reaction (3) with δ = 0.15 mm/s
and |ΔEQ| = 0.79 mm/s accounting
for 94% of the sample. The green line represents an unknown byproduct
(6% of the sample) with δ = 0.83 mm/s and |ΔEQ| = 2.16 mm/s. (Bottom) Mössbauer spectrum of
independently synthesized LFe(CNXyl)3 (3),
with a fit having δ = 0.17 mm/s and |ΔEQ| = 0.81 mm/s. Analogous spectra for the CO reaction
are shown in the Supporting Information.The independent synthesis of 3 was achieved by treating
the iron(I)compound 2 with CNXyl. Crystallization from
pentane provided a 5-coordinate tris(isocyanide)compound LFe(CNXyl)3 (3) with a square pyramidal geometry at the
iron center (Figure 1, left). The IR spectrum
of 3 contained two bands at 2075 and 1977 cm–1 (the latter of which is composed of two overlapping bands), which
correspond to the isocyanide C–N stretching vibrations. Consistent
with the solid-state structure, a frozen solution of 3 had an axial EPR signal with g⊥ = 2.052 and g|| = 2.002, and a solution
magnetic moment of 1.6 μB, indicating a low-spin
(S = 1/2) iron(I) electronic configuration. The zero-field
Mössbauer spectrum of solid 3 at 80 K showed a
quadrupole doublet with δ = 0.17 mm/s and |ΔEQ| = 0.81 mm/s (Figure 2, bottom),
which are the same as the parameters observed for the product of the
reaction of 1 with CNXyl. These results indicate that
the reaction of the diiron(II)diiron(III)complex 1 with
isocyanide yields 94% crude yield of the iron(I) product 3.The tricarbonyl analogue of compound 3 was also
prepared
independently by reaction of the iron(I)compound 2 with
CO (1 atm), which resulted in a rapid color change to green. The solid-state
molecular structure confirmed a five-coordinate square-pyramidal iron
species of the formula LFe(CO)3 (4, Figure 1, right). The IR spectrum of 4 contained
three strong bands (2023, 1952, and 1938 cm–1) in
the C–O stretching region. Consistent with a square-pyramidal
low-spin iron(I) electronic configuration, 4 had a solution
magnetic moment of 1.8 μB, and a nearly axial EPR
signal (g = 2.043, 2.038, 2.000). The zero-field
Mössbauer spectrum of solid 4 at 80 K had δ
= 0.12 mm/s and |ΔEQ| = 0.77 mm/s
accounting for 97% of the iron, and a second minor component (3%)
with δ = 0.18 mm/s and |ΔEQ| = 2.04 mm/s, which is assigned to a 4-coordinate dicarbonyl species
LFe(CO)2.[5,6]Treatment of a benzene solution
of the bis(nitride) 1 with CO (1 atm) caused a rapid
color change from red-brown to green.
The zero-field Mössbauer spectrum of a frozen solution (80
K) of the crude reaction mixture contained signals corresponding to
the tricarbonyl 4 and dicarbonyl analogueLFe(CO)2 accounting for a combined 94% of the ironcontaining products
(Figure S-4).[1j] In summary, addition of either isocyanide or CO to the Fe2+2Fe3+2(N3–)2 complex 1 gives a high yield of an iron(I) product,
suggesting that all four iron(II)/iron(III) sites are reduced by a
total of six electrons. This, in turn, suggests the possible oxidation
of the two N3– ligands by a total of six electrons
to give N2.Consistent with this hypothesis, compound 1 was observed
to release a gas upon reaction with CNXyl or pyridine. Monitoring
the pressure change upon addition of 13 equiv of CNXyl to a solution
of 1 showed the production of 1.00 ± 0.04 mol of
gas per mol of 1. Analysis of the resulting gas by GC-MS
under an Ar atmosphere confirmed that N2 was formed in
the reactions (Figure 3). A sample of 1 labeled with 15N gave 15N2 that was observed in the mass spectrum at m/z = 30. These results demonstrate the
quantitative release of N2 from bis(nitride) 1 upon addition of CNXyl, which is accompanied by formation of the
reduced iron(I)compound LFe(CNXyl)3 (3).
Figure 3
Mass spectra
of the gas evolved during reactions with CNXyl under
Ar (m/z = 40) with 1 (a), 15N-labeled 1 (b), and a mixture of 15N-labeled 1 and unlabeled 1 (c).
The spectra indicate the formation of 14N2 and 15N2 with m/z =
28 and 30, respectively. The smaller peak at m/z = 28 in (b) resulted from unavoidable contamination by 14N2 in air.
Mass spectra
of the gas evolved during reactions with CNXyl under
Ar (m/z = 40) with 1 (a), 15N-labeled 1 (b), and a mixture of 15N-labeled 1 and unlabeled 1 (c).
The spectra indicate the formation of 14N2 and 15N2 with m/z =
28 and 30, respectively. The smaller peak at m/z = 28 in (b) resulted from unavoidable contamination by 14N2 in air.Though the mechanism of the N–N bond formation is
not known
in detail, mechanistic information was gathered using isotopically
labeled 1-N. A benzene solution containing a 1:1 mixture
of 15N-labeled 1 and unlabeled 1 was treated with 13 equiv of CNXyl. The headspace contained exclusively 14N2 (m/z = 28)
and 15N2 (m/z = 30). The lack of mixed-label 14N15N at m/z = 29 indicates that N2 formation
proceeds by an intramolecularN–N bond formation process, and
that the nitride ligands do not exchange between complexes. Additionally,
the fact that 15N-labeled 1 can be handled
and stored under N2 atmosphere without loss of the 15N-labeled nitride ligands indicates that the nitride ligands
do not exchange with atmospheric N2 in either solution
or the solid state prior to the addition of the π-acidic ligands.In a previous report, we described the reduction of [LFeCl]2 with 1 equiv of potassium per iron atom, which cleaves the N–N bond of dinitrogen at room
temperature
to form 1 (Scheme 2, left).[4] We proposed that the iron(II)complex is first
reduced by the potassium to form a transient intermediate with formally
iron(I) ions, which react cooperatively with a single N2 molecule.[7] Notably, the ability of four
iron centers to arrange around a single molecule of N2 provided
compound 1, which has two iron(II) and two iron(III)metal centers. Therefore, the six-electron reduction
of the N2 unit was accomplished using four metal centers, thereby avoiding the need to access a high oxidation
state of iron. In an equivalent manner, the N–N bond formation
described herein is a six-electron oxidation of nitrides
to N2 with quantitative reduction of iron
centers to iron(I) in compounds 2, 3, and 4 (Scheme 2, right).
Scheme 2
Key N2-Cleaving and N2-Forming Reactions in
the Multi-iron System
A number of well-defined molecular systems are known to
cleave
the triple bond in dinitrogen.[8] These systems
use highly reducing metal centers, typically early transition metals
in low oxidation states, and are driven by the oxidation of the metal
and formation of a very strong metal–ligand multiple bond.[9] Conversely, a number of reports have described
the reverse reaction, N2 formation as a result of metal–nitridecoupling.[1] The N2-forming systems
use middle to late transition metals in unusually high oxidation states,
and are driven by the reduction of the metal. Thus, the known reactions
in each direction are brought about by a large thermodynamic driving
force, which is unlike the reversible cleavage/formation of N2 that is characteristic of the heterogeneous catalyst. To
our knowledge, no homogeneous system has been reported to both cleave and form the N–N triple bond of dinitrogen,
and it is distinctive that this multi-iron system is poised at the
brink of N2 activation. However, the N–N cleavage/formation
here is not truly reversible, because the iron(I) species are not
the same in both reactions. Driving forces for the new N2-forming reaction likely include the stabilization of iron(I) by
the π-accepting ligands in 2, 3, and 4, and also the precipitation of KCl as a byproduct.However, the kinetic aspects are most significant. This work suggests
that the ability to place multiple iron centers (≥3) around
a single molecule of N2 gives fast rates for N–N
bond cleavage/formation. As a testament to the low barriers for these
reactions, both the N–N bond cleavage and formation reactions
in this system occur rapidly at room temperature. This indicates that
cooperation between several iron centers facilitates multi-electron
reactions of difficult substrates like N2, identifying
this as a key strategy for accomplishing homogeneous reactions with
this inexpensive metal. At the same time, it provides key insight
into the bond cleaving and forming steps in the iron-catalyzed Haber–Bosch
process, by showing that four iron atoms can cooperate to accomplish
N–N bond transformations observed on heterogeneous iron catalysts.[10]
Authors: Jeremy M Smith; Azwana R Sadique; Thomas R Cundari; Kenton R Rodgers; Gudrun Lukat-Rodgers; Rene J Lachicotte; Christine J Flaschenriem; Javier Vela; Patrick L Holland Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2006-01-25 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Yann Gloaguen; Christophe Rebreyend; Martin Lutz; Pravin Kumar; Martina Huber; Jarl Ivar van der Vlugt; Sven Schneider; Bas de Bruin Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2014-05-19 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Markus G Scheibel; Bjorn Askevold; Frank W Heinemann; Edward J Reijerse; Bas de Bruin; Sven Schneider Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2012-06-03 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: Markus G Scheibel; Yanlin Wu; A Claudia Stückl; Lennard Krause; Elena Carl; Dietmar Stalke; Bas de Bruin; Sven Schneider Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Megan E Reesbeck; Meghan M Rodriguez; William W Brennessel; Brandon Q Mercado; David Vinyard; Patrick L Holland Journal: J Biol Inorg Chem Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 3.358
Authors: Megan E Reesbeck; Katarzyna Grubel; Daniel Kim; William W Brennessel; Brandon Q Mercado; Patrick L Holland Journal: Inorg Chem Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 5.165
Authors: Teresa Corona; Lídia Ribas; Mireia Rovira; Erik R Farquhar; Xavi Ribas; Kallol Ray; Anna Company Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 15.336