Qing-Xiang Liu1, Ze-Liang Hu1, Shao-Cong Yu1, Zhi-Xiang Zhao1, Deng-Che Wei1, Hui-Long Li1. 1. Key Laboratory of Inorganic-Organic Hybrid Functional Materials Chemistry (Tianjin Normal University), Ministry of Education, College of Chemistry and Tianjin Key Laboratory of Structure and Performance for Functional Molecules, College of Chemistry, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China.
Abstract
Four bis-benzimidazolium salts, 1,4-bis[1'-(N-R-benzimidazoliumyl)methyl]-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene 2X- (L 1 H 2 ·(PF 6 ) 2 : R = ethyl, X = PF6; L 2 H 2 ·Br 2 : R = picolyl, X = Br; L 3 H 2 ·Br 2 : R = benzyl, X = Br; and L 4 H 2 ·Br 2 : R = allyl, X = Br), and their three N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) Pd(II) and Ag(I) complexes, L 1 Pd 2 Cl 4 (1), L 2 Ag 2 Br 2 (2), and L 4 (AgBr) 2 (3), as well as one anionic complex L 3 H 2 ·(Ag 4 Br 8 ) 0.5 (4), have been synthesized and characterized. Complex 1 adopts a funnel-like type of structure, complex 2 adopts a cyclic structure, and complex 3 is an open structure. In the crystal packing of 1-4, one-dimensional polymeric chains and two-dimensional supramolecular layers are formed via intermolecular weak interactions, including hydrogen bonds, π-π interactions, and C-H···π contacts. The catalytic activities of NHC Pd(II) complex 1 in three types of C-C coupling reactions (Suzuki-Miyaura, Heck-Mizoroki, and Sonogashira reactions) were studied. The results show that this catalytic system is efficient for these C-C coupling reactions.
Four bis-benzimidazolium salts, 1,4-bis[1'-(N-R-benzimidazoliumyl)methyl]-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene 2X- (L 1 H 2 ·(PF 6 ) 2 : R = ethyl, X = PF6; L 2 H 2 ·Br 2 : R = picolyl, X = Br; L 3 H 2 ·Br 2 : R = benzyl, X = Br; and L 4 H 2 ·Br 2 : R = allyl, X = Br), and their three N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) Pd(II) and Ag(I) complexes, L 1 Pd 2 Cl 4 (1), L 2 Ag 2 Br 2 (2), and L 4 (AgBr) 2 (3), as well as one anioniccomplex L 3 H 2 ·(Ag 4 Br 8 ) 0.5 (4), have been synthesized and characterized. Complex 1 adopts a funnel-like type of structure, complex 2 adopts a cyclic structure, and complex 3 is an open structure. In the crystal packing of 1-4, one-dimensional polymericchains and two-dimensional supramolecular layers are formed via intermolecular weak interactions, including hydrogen bonds, π-π interactions, and C-H···π contacts. The catalytic activities of NHCPd(II) complex 1 in three types of C-Ccoupling reactions (Suzuki-Miyaura, Heck-Mizoroki, and Sonogashira reactions) were studied. The results show that this catalytic system is efficient for these C-Ccoupling reactions.
Since the first isolation
of the stable imidazol-2-ylidene in 1991,[1]N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs)
have attracted considerable attention in the fields of organometallicchemistry and catalysis.[2] Over the past
two decades, NHCmetalcomplexes have been favored by facile preparation
methods and possess high efficiency as catalysts.[3] As effective and widely used NHC transfer agents, NHC silver(I)
complexes can be applied to prepare other NHCmetalcomplexes (such
as Ni, Pd, and Pt) with a diverse structure.[4] Besides, biological activities of NHC silver(I) as antimicrobial
and anticancer agents have been confirmed.[5]Many palladium(II)complexes, such as Pd(II) complexes based
on
NHC ligands or phosphine ligands, have catalytic activities.[6] The carbenecarbon atoms of NHC ligands have
a strong coordination ability, and they can form stable coordination
bonds with metals.[7] Therefore, NHCmetalcomplexes have a better stability in air and moisture. One of the
main applications of NHCmetalcomplexes is their use as catalysts
in some organic reactions.[8] In particular,
NHCpalladium(II)complexes have been demonstrated to be excellent
catalysts for some C–Ccoupling reactions, such as Suzuki–Miyaura,
Heck–Mizoroki, and Sonogashira reactions.[3,9]We are interested in the structure of NHCmetalcomplexes and the
catalytic activities of NHCpalladium(II)complexes. In this article,
we reported the preparation of four bis-benzimidazolium salts, 1,4-bis[1′-(N-R-benzimidazoliumyl)methyl]-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene
2X– (LH·(PF): R = ethyl,
X = PF6; LH·Br: R = picolyl, X = Br; LH·Br: R = benzyl, X = Br; and LH·Br: R = allyl, X = Br), and
the preparation and structures of their three NHCPd(II) and Ag(I)
complexes, LPdCl (1), LAgBr (2), and L(AgBr) (3), as well
as one anioniccomplex LH·(AgBr) (4). Particularly, the catalytic
activities of NHCPd(II) complex 1 in Suzuki–Miyaura,
Heck–Mizoroki, and Sonogashira reactions were studied.
Results
and Discussion
Synthesis and Characterization of Bis-benzimidazolium
Salts
As shown in Scheme , 1,4-bis(bromomethyl)-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene as
a starting material
reacted with N-ethyl-benzimidazole to afford 1,4-bis[1′-(N-ethyl-benzimidazoliumyl)methyl]-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzenebromide and subsequent anionic exchange with ammonium hexafluorophosphate
was carried out to give 1,4-bis[1′-(N-ethyl-benzimidazoliumyl)methyl]-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene
hexafluorophosphate (LH·(PF)) (method 1).
The bis-benzimidazolium salts, LH·Br and LH·Br, were prepared similar to that of 1,4-bis[1′-(N-ethyl-benzimidazoliumyl)methyl]-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzenebromide (method 2 in Scheme ). LH·Br was prepared via two-step reactions, as shown in method 3 of Scheme . First, 1,4-bis(bromomethyl)-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene
reacted with benzimidazole in the presence of KOH to yield 1,4-bis(benzimidazol-l-ylmethyl)-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene,
and then the product was treated with allyl bromide to yield 1,4-bis[1′-(N-allyl-benzimidazoliumyl)methyl]-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzenebromide (LH·Br).
Scheme 1
Preparation of Precursors LH·(PF) and LH·Br–LH·Br
These bis-benzimidazolium salts are stable in
air and moisture;
soluble in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), acetonitrile, dichloromethane,
and methanol; and scarcely soluble in benzene, diethyl ether, and
petroleum ether. In the 1HNMR spectra of bis-benzimidazolium
salts, the benzimidazolium proton signals (NCHN)
appear at 9.10–10.02 ppm, which are consistent with the chemical
shifts of reported benzimidazolium (or imidazolium) salts.[10]
Synthesis and Characterization of NHC Pd(II)
and Ag(I) Complexes 1–3 and Anionic
Complex 4
The reaction of LH·(PF) with
Ag2O in CH3CN under nitrogen atmosphere yielded
a pale yellow solution, containing NHC Ag complex. Then, metallic
exchange was carried out through the reaction of this solution with
2.0 equiv of Pd(CH3CN)2Cl2, and the
resulting mixture was filtered and the solvent was removed to generate
a yellow powder of NHCPd(II) complex LPdCl (1) (Scheme -1). LAgBr (2) and L(AgBr) (3) were synthesized by the reactions of LH·Br and LH·Br, respectively, with Ag2O in CH2Cl2 (Scheme -2,3). Anioniccomplex LH·(AgBr) (4) was synthesized
by the reaction of LH·Br with AgBr in CH2Cl2 under refluxing
for 24 h (Scheme -4).
Scheme 2
Preparation of Complexes 1–4
The structures of complexes 1–4 were characterized by 1HNMR, 13CNMR, X-ray
analyses, and elemental analyses. These complexes are stable in air
and moisture, soluble in DMSO, and insoluble in diethyl ether and
petroleum ether. In the 1HNMR spectrum of NHCmetalcomplexes 1–3, the resonances for the benzimidazolium
protons (NCHN) disappear and the chemical shifts
of other protons are similar to those of corresponding precursors.
In 13CNMR spectra of NHCPd(II) complex 1, the signal for the carbenecarbon appears at 170.0 ppm, which is
analogous to that of the known metalcomplexes.[11] The signals for the carbenecarbons in NHC Ag(I) complexes 2 and 3 are invisible. This phenomenon has been
reported also for some Ag(I) carbenecomplexes, which may result from
the fuxional behavior of NHC Ag(I) complexes.[12] The 1HNMR and 13CNMR spectra for anioniccomplex 4 are analogous to those of corresponding precursors.
Crystal Structure of Complexes 1–4
As shown in Figures –4, the internal ring angles
(N–C–N) at the carbenecenters in NHCmetalcomplexes 1–3 are from 105.6(7) to 107.6(5)°
and these values are slightly smaller than the corresponding values
of anioniccomplex 4 (110.6(8) and 110.7(7)°). In
complexes 1–3, the dihedral angles
between two benzimidazole rings are from 3.6(3) to 77.9(8)° and
the two benzimidazole rings and 2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene ring form
the dihedral angles of 82.5(4)–87.8(4)° (Table S2). In complex 2, the dihedral angles
between benzimidazole rings and adjacent pyridine rings are 79.8(4)
and 81.5(5)°. In anioniccomplex 4, two benzimidazole
rings are approximately parallel with the dihedral angle of 5.6(1)°,
and the dihedral angles between the two benzimidazole rings and 2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene
ring are in the range of 77.7(3)–87.8(4)°.
Figure 1
Perspective view of 1. Hydrogen atoms have been omitted
for clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): Pd(1)–C(7),
1.952(5); Pd(1)–Cl(1), 2.322(1); Pd(1)–Cl(2), 2.408(1);
Pd(1)–Cl(4), 2.385(1); C(7)–Pd(1)–Cl(1), 85.2(1);
C(7)–Pd(1)–Cl(4), 94.7(1); Cl(1)–Pd(1)–Cl(4),
175.5(5); C(7)–Pd(1)–Cl(2), 178.6(1); Cl(1)–Pd(1)–Cl(2),
93.9(5); Cl(2)–Pd(1)–Cl(4), 86.1(4); C(28)–Pd(2)–Cl(3),
85.2(1); and N(1)–C(7)–N(2), 107.6(5).
Figure 4
Perspective view of 4. Hydrogen atoms have been omitted
for clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): Ag(1)–Br(1),
2.606(1); Ag(1)–Br(2), 2.830(1); C(14)–H(14), 0.930(0);
Br(1)–Ag(1)–Br(4), 128.5(7); Br(2)–Ag(1)–Br(4),
108.5(6); Ag(1)–Br(4)–Ag(2A), 72.4(5); N(1)–C(14)–N(2),
111.7(7); and N(3)–C(33)–N(4), 110.6(8).
Perspective view of 1. Hydrogen atoms have been omitted
for clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): Pd(1)–C(7),
1.952(5); Pd(1)–Cl(1), 2.322(1); Pd(1)–Cl(2), 2.408(1);
Pd(1)–Cl(4), 2.385(1); C(7)–Pd(1)–Cl(1), 85.2(1);
C(7)–Pd(1)–Cl(4), 94.7(1); Cl(1)–Pd(1)–Cl(4),
175.5(5); C(7)–Pd(1)–Cl(2), 178.6(1); Cl(1)–Pd(1)–Cl(2),
93.9(5); Cl(2)–Pd(1)–Cl(4), 86.1(4); C(28)–Pd(2)–Cl(3),
85.2(1); and N(1)–C(7)–N(2), 107.6(5).Analysis of crystal structure of 1 shows that a funnel-like
conformation is formed by one bidentate carbene ligand and one Pd2Cl4 unit (Figure ). Two ethyl groups on two benzimidazole rings point
to the same direction. Each Pd(II) ion is tetracoordinated with one
carbenecarbon atom and three chloride ions. Two Pd(II) ions are linked
through two bridging chloride ions (Cl(2) and Cl(4)) to form a noncoplanar
Pd2Cl2 pattern, in which the dihedral angle
between Pd(1)–Cl(2)–Pd(2) plane and Pd(1)–Cl(4)–Pd(2)
plane is 31.3(8)°. The Pd(1)···Pd(2) separation
of 3.383(0) Å shows that interactions between two Pd(II) ions
(the van der Waals radius of palladium is 2.02 Å) exist.[13] The bond angles of C(7)–Pd(1)–Cl(2),
Cl(1)–Pd(1)–Cl(4), Pd(1)–Cl(2)–Pd(2),
and Pd(1)–Cl(4)–Pd(2) are 178.6(1), 175.5(5), 89.4(4),
and 89.9(4)°, respectively. The bond distances of C(7)–Pd(1)
and C(28)–Pd(2) are 1.952(5) and 1.941(5) Å, respectively.
The Pd(1)–Cl(2) (bridging chloride) distance of 2.408(1) Å
is slightly longer than Pd(1)–Cl(1) (terminal chloride) distance
of 2.322(1) Å. These values are comparable with those of known
NHCPd(II) complexes.[14]Incomplex 2, one 13-membered macrometallocycle is
formed by one bidentate carbene ligand and one Ag2Br2 unit (Figure ). Each Ag(I) ion is tricoordinated with one carbon atom and two
bridging bromide ions. Two Ag(I) ions are linked by two bridging bromide
ions to form a distorted Ag2Br2 quadrangular
arrangement. The dihedral angle between Ag(1)–Br(1)–Ag(2)
plane and Ag(1)–Br(2)–Ag(2) plane is 51.6(3)°.
The bond distances of Ag(1)–C(32) and Ag(2)–C(13) are
2.109(9) and 2.086(9) Å, respectively. The bond distances of
Ag–Br are in the range of 2.446(1)–3.084(1) Å.
The Ag(1)···Ag(2) separation of 3.256(1) Å shows
that interactions between two Ag(I) ions (the van der Waals radius
of silver is 2.03 Å) exist.[15] The
bond angles of two Ag–Br–Ag are 70.1(3) and 74.9(4)°,
and the bond angles of two Br–Ag–Br are 91.6(4) and
95.0(4)°.
Figure 2
Perspective view of 2. Hydrogen atoms have
been omitted
for clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): Ag(1)–C(32),
2.109(9); Ag(1)–Br(2), 2.526(1); Ag(2)–C(13), 2.086(9);
Ag(2)–Br(1), 2.446(1); Ag(2)–Br(2), 3.084(3); C(32)–Ag(1)–Br(2),
155.2(2); C(32)–Ag(1)–Br(1), 109.3(2); Br(1)–Ag(1)–Br(2),
95.0(4); C(13)–Ag(2)–Br(1), 163.3(2); C(13)–Ag(2)–Br(2),
104.3(2); Br(1)–Ag(2)–Br(2), 91.6(4); Ag(1)–Br(1)–Ag(2),
74.9(4); Ag(1)–Br(2)–Ag(2), 70.1(3); and N(2)–C(13)–N(3),
105.7(7).
Perspective view of 2. Hydrogen atoms have
been omitted
for clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): Ag(1)–C(32),
2.109(9); Ag(1)–Br(2), 2.526(1); Ag(2)–C(13), 2.086(9);
Ag(2)–Br(1), 2.446(1); Ag(2)–Br(2), 3.084(3); C(32)–Ag(1)–Br(2),
155.2(2); C(32)–Ag(1)–Br(1), 109.3(2); Br(1)–Ag(1)–Br(2),
95.0(4); C(13)–Ag(2)–Br(1), 163.3(2); C(13)–Ag(2)–Br(2),
104.3(2); Br(1)–Ag(2)–Br(2), 91.6(4); Ag(1)–Br(1)–Ag(2),
74.9(4); Ag(1)–Br(2)–Ag(2), 70.1(3); and N(2)–C(13)–N(3),
105.7(7).Different from complex 2, each Ag(I) ion in complex 3 possesses a dicoordinated
geometry with one carbenecarbon
atom and one bromide ion (Figure ). The bond distances of Ag(1)–C(29) and Ag(2)–C(10)
are 2.105(4) and 2.092(4) Å, respectively. The arrangements of
C(29)–Ag(1)–Br(1) and C(10)–Ag(2)–Br(2)
are nearly linear with the bond angles of 168.8(1) and 171.7(1)°,
respectively. Two bromide ions point to the opposite directions. The
bond distances of Ag(1)–Br(1) and Ag(2)–Br(2) are 2.463(6)
and 2.430(6) Å, respectively. The separation between Ag(1) and
Ag(2) is 3.273(5) Å, which shows that interactions between two
Ag(I) ions exist.
Figure 3
Perspective view of 3. Hydrogen atoms have
been omitted
for clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): C(29)–Ag(1),
2.105(4); C(10)–Ag(2), 2.092(4); Ag(1)–Br(1), 2.463(6);
Ag(2)–Br(2), 2.430(6); C(29)–Ag(1)–Br(1), 168.8(1);
C(10)–Ag(2)–Br(2), 171.7(1); and N(1)–C(10)–N(2),
106.1(3).
Perspective view of 3. Hydrogen atoms have
been omitted
for clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): C(29)–Ag(1),
2.105(4); C(10)–Ag(2), 2.092(4); Ag(1)–Br(1), 2.463(6);
Ag(2)–Br(2), 2.430(6); C(29)–Ag(1)–Br(1), 168.8(1);
C(10)–Ag(2)–Br(2), 171.7(1); and N(1)–C(10)–N(2),
106.1(3).As shown in Figure , the cationic unit ([LH]2+) and the anionic
unit ([Ag4Br8]0.52–) of complex 4 are connected
together via C–H···Br hydrogen bonds[16] (the data of hydrogen bonds is given in Table S1). In anionic unit [Ag4Br8]0.52–, Br(2), Br(2A), Br(4),
and Br(4A) are bridging bromide ions, and Br(1), Br(1A), Br(3), and
Br(3A) are terminal bromide ions. Ag(1) and Ag(1A) are tetracoordinated
with four bromide ions, and Ag(2) and Ag(2A) are tricoordinated with
three bromide ions. The bond distances of Ag–Br are from 2.542(2)
to 2.849(6) Å. The bond angles of Br(1)–Ag(1)–Br(4),
Ag(1)–Br(4)–Ag(2A), and Br(2)–Ag(2A)–Br(4)
are 128.5(7), 72.4(5), and 96.8(6)°, respectively. The separations
between Ag(1)···Ag(2), Ag(1)···Ag(1A),
and Ag(1)···Ag(2A) are 3.259(1), 2.943(2), and 3.184(1)
Å, respectively, which show that metal–metal interactions
between each pair of Ag(I) ions exist.Perspective view of 4. Hydrogen atoms have been omitted
for clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): Ag(1)–Br(1),
2.606(1); Ag(1)–Br(2), 2.830(1); C(14)–H(14), 0.930(0);
Br(1)–Ag(1)–Br(4), 128.5(7); Br(2)–Ag(1)–Br(4),
108.5(6); Ag(1)–Br(4)–Ag(2A), 72.4(5); N(1)–C(14)–N(2),
111.7(7); and N(3)–C(33)–N(4), 110.6(8).
Catalytic Activity of NHC Pd Complex 1 in Suzuki–Miyaura
Reaction
The Suzuki–Miyaura cross-coupling reaction
of aryl halides and arylboronic acids is of general interest in organic
synthesis. The Suzuki–Miyaura reaction catalyzed by NHCPdcomplexes has become one of the most versatile and powerful tools
for the formation of biaryls.[17] We chose
the cross-coupling reaction of 4-bromotoluene with phenylboronic acid
as a model reaction to test the solvent and base effects in air (Table S4). Using water as a solvent and K3PO4·3H2O as a base gave 11% coupling
yield at 60 °C in 18 h in air (entry 1). Under the same conditions,
use of MeOH as a solvent gave 20% coupling yield (entry 2) and using
MeOH/H2O (1:5) as a solvent gave 50% coupling yield (entry
3). However, using MeOH/H2O (5:1) as a solvent gave an
excellent coupling yield of 99% (entry 4), and the reason was that
the substrates, catalyst, and K3PO4·3H2Ocould be dissolved effectively in the mixed solvent. Other
inorganic bases, like NaHCO3 and KOH, have been tested
to lead to relatively poor yields of 11 and 31%, respectively (entries
5 and 6). On the basis of the extensive screening, MeOH/H2O (5:1) and K3PO4·3H2O were
proved to be the efficient solvent and base, respectively, with 0.2
mol % complex 1 in air at 60 °C, thus giving the
optimal coupling result. The reactions were monitored by gas chromatography
(GC) analysis at the appropriate intervals. To further study the influence
of ligand on catalysis, the control experiment was performed, in which
[PdCl2(CH3CN)2] was added in the
absence of precursor LH·(PF) under the optimized
conditions, and only 49% coupling yield was obtained (entry 7). This
result showed that precursor LH·(PF) had the
preponderant function in the catalytic reactions.We attempted
the cross-coupling reaction of various aryl halides with phenylboronic
acid under the optimal reaction conditions (Table ). In general, complex 1 could
catalyze the cross-coupling of various aryl halides with phenylboronic
acid to give different yields. The activated aryl bromides with an
electron-withdrawing substituent in para-position (such as 4-bromonitrobenzene
and 4-bromoacetophenone) could be transformed to the biaryl products
with the yields of 94 and 96%, respectively (2a(1) and 2b). The deactivated aryl bromides with an electron-donating
substituent (such as 4-bromoanisole) could also be coupled easily
with phenylboronic acid to afford a yield of 95% (2c).
The coupling reaction of 4-bromoaniline with phenylboronic acid gave
a moderate yield of 63% (2d(1)). The coupling reaction
of 1-bromonaphthaline and 1-bromobenzene with phenylboronic acid gave
a good yield of 94 and 96%, respectively (2e and 2l(2)). The couplings of aryl dibromides (such as 1,4-dibromonaphthalene,
9,10-dibromoanthracene, and 4,4′-dibromobiphenyl) also afforded
good yields of 93–95% (2f–h).
Table 1
Suzuki–Miyaura Reaction with
Different Aryl Halides Catalyzed by Complex 1a
Reaction conditions:
aryl halide
(0.5 mmol), phenylboronic acid (0.6 mmol), K3PO4·3H2O (1.2 mmol), complex 1 (0.2 mol
%), MeOH/H2O (5:1, 5 mL), and 60 °C in air.
Reaction conditions:
aryl halide
(0.5 mmol), phenylboronic acid (0.6 mmol), K3PO4·3H2O (1.2 mmol), complex 1 (0.2 mol
%), MeOH/H2O (5:1, 5 mL), and 60 °C in air.The catalyst was also effective
toward the coupling of aryl chlorides
with phenylboronic acid. The coupling reaction of 2-chloropyridine
and 4-chloronitrobenzene with phenylboronic acid gave good yields
of 85 and 92%, respectively (2i and 2l(1)),
whereas the coupling reaction of 4-chloronitrobenzene with phenylboronic
acid gave a moderate yield of 56% (2a(2)). The other
coupling reactions of aryl chlorides (such as 4-chloroaniline, 2-chlorotoluene,
and 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene) with phenylboronic acid gave poor yields
of 26–33% (2d(2), 2j, and 2k). The coupling of iodobenzene with phenylboronic acid gave a quantitative
yield (2l(3)). The above results showed that complex 1 had high stability to air and MeOH/H2O (5:1),
and good tolerance toward various sensitive functional groups, to
make it a valuable precatalyst for thermally sensitive substrates.
Therefore, it provided an effective phosphine-free catalyst system
for facile coupling of aryl halides in MeOH/H2O (5:1) under
mild and aerobicconditions. The favorable reaction conditions of
this catalytic system for Suzuki–Miyaura reaction are important
for the protection of environment and the reduction of cost in the
field of fine chemical and pharmaceutical industries.
Catalytic Activity
of NHC Pd Complex 1 in Heck–Mizoroki
Reaction
The Heck–Mizoroki reaction has evolved significantly
from its original mode as the arylation of olefins with aryl iodides,
and the reaction has been further developed over the years to allow
the coupling of less-reactive bromides, chlorides, and pseudohalides,
such as triflates, tosylates, mesylates, and aryl diazonium salts.[18] We chose the cross-coupling reaction of bromobenzene
with styrene as a model reaction to test the solvent and base effects
in air (Table S5). Using 1,4-dioxane as
a solvent and K2CO3 as a base gave a trace yield
at 110 °C in 12 h (entry 1). Under the same conditions, the addition
of 10 mol % tetrabutylamonium bromide (TBAB) gave 85% coupling yield
in 12 h (entry 2). This result showed that the reaction could be dramatically
improved in the presence of TBAB.[19] Under
the same conditions as entry 2, the coupling yield of 84% in N2 was obtained (entry 3); thus, the atmosphere did not have
an obvious effect on the yield. Other solvents, such as dimethylformamide
(DMF) and 1,2-dimethoxyethane, gave moderate yields of 59 and 77%,
respectively (entries 4 and 5). The other common and cheap inorganic
bases, such as KOH, K3PO4·3H2O, and Na2CO3, were also tested, and led to
relatively poor coupling yields of trace—36% (entries 6–8).
Besides, with a catalyst loading of 0.25 mol % complex 1 at 110 °C in air, the coupling reaction of bromobenzene with
styrene gave a yield of 78%, which showed that the amount of complex 1 had a significant influence on the catalytic activity (entry
9). On the basis of the extensive screening, 1,4-dioxane and K2CO3 were found to be the most efficient solvent
and base, respectively, in the presence of 10 mol % TBAB with a catalyst
loading of 0.5 mol % complex 1 at 110 °C in air,
thus giving the optimal coupling result. To further study the influence
of ligand on catalysis, the control experiment was performed, in which
[PdCl2(CH3CN)2] and TBAB were added
in the absence of LH·(PF) under the optimized
conditions, and only 38% coupling product was observed. This result
showed that ligand LH·(PF) had the preponderant
function in the catalytic reaction.We attempted cross-coupling
reactions of various aryl halides with styrene under the optimal reaction
conditions (Table ). The aryl bromides (such as 4-bromoanisole, 3-bromoanisole, 4-bromoacetophenone,
and 4-bromonitrobenzene) could be coupled easily with styrene to afford
good yields of 81–92% (3a–d(1)). The coupling reaction of 4-bromoaniline and 4-bromotoluene
with styrene gave yields of 56 and 35%, respectively (3e(1) and 3f). The coupling of aryl dibromides (such as
1,4-dibromonaphthalene, 4,4′-disbromobiphenyl, and 9,10-dibromoanthracene)
with styrene afforded excellent yields of 98–99% (3h–j). The coupling of 1-bromonaphthalene and iodobenzene
with styrene afforded yields of 95% in 4 h and 98% in 6 h, respectively
(3g and 3k(1)). The coupling of 4-nitrochlorobenzene
with styrene gave a yield of 38% (3d(2)). Poor yields
(8–38%) were obtained for 4-chloroaniline, 1-chlorobenzene,
and 2-chlorotoluene (3e(2), 3k(2), and 3m). The reactions had high selectivity for the trans products
in this reaction system, and any corresponding cis products were hardly
detected, which could be attributed to trans conformation being a
dominant conformation.
Table 2
Heck–Mizoroki
Reaction of Aryl
Halides with Styrene Catalyzed by Complex 1a
Reaction conditions:
aryl halide
(0.5 mmol), styrene (0.75 mmol), K2CO3 (1.0
mmol), complex 1 (0.5 mol %), dioxane (5 mL), TBAB (10
mol %), and 110 °C in air.
Reaction conditions:
aryl halide
(0.5 mmol), styrene (0.75 mmol), K2CO3 (1.0
mmol), complex 1 (0.5 mol %), dioxane (5 mL), TBAB (10
mol %), and 110 °C in air.
Catalytic Activity of NHC Pd Complex 1 in Sonogashira
Reaction
4-Bromoanisole and phenylacetylene were used as
the coupling partners to test the solvent and base effects under N2 (Table S6). Using DMF as a solvent
and Cs2CO3 as a base gave a trace coupling product
at 80 °C in 8 h (entry 1). Upon inspection of the literature,
we found that Sonogashira reaction needs ancillary catalysts (such
as PPh3 and CuI) to be added.[20] Under the conditions of DMF as a solvent, Cs2CO3 as a base, and 10 mol % PPh3 and 10 mol % CuI as ancillary
catalysts, the yields of 81% in 8 h and 82% in 12 h were obtained
(entries 2 and 3), whereas DMSO as a solvent gave the yield of 64%
(entry 4). With a catalyst loading of 0.25 mol % complex 1, the coupling reaction gave a yield of 39%, which showed that the
amount of complex 1 had a significant influence on the
catalytic activity (entry 5). Under the same conditions as entry 2,
exceptN2 protection, only 7% coupling yield was obtained
(entry 6). Other common bases, such as K3PO4·3H2O, Et3N, and K2CO3, were also tested and led to relatively poor yields of 23, 8, and
7%, respectively (entries 7–9). On the basis of the extensive
screening, DMF and Cs2CO3 were found to be the
most efficient solvent and base, respectively, in the presence of
10 mol % PPh3 and 10 mol % CuI as ancillary catalysts with
a catalyst loading of 0.5 mol % complex 1 at 80 °C
in N2, thus giving the optimal coupling result. To further
study the influence of ligand on catalysis, the control experiment
was performed, in which [PdCl2(CH3CN)2] and 10 mol % PPh3 and 10 mol % CuI were added in the
absence of precursor LH·(PF) under the optimized
conditions, and only 40% coupling product was obtained (entry 10).
This result showed that LH·(PF) had large effects
on reactions.We attempted cross-coupling reactions of various
aryl halides with phenylacetylene under the optimal reaction conditions
(Table ). The coupling
of activated aryl bromides (such as 4-bromoacetophenone and 4-bromonitrobenzene)
with phenylacetylene afforded excellent yields of 96 and 99%, respectively
(4a and 4b(1)). The coupling of aryl dibromides
(such as 1,4-dibromonaphthalene, 4,4′-disbromobiphenyl, and
9,10-dibromoanthracene) with phenylacetylene also afforded good yields
of 93–98% (4f–h). The coupling
of 4-chloronitrobenzene, 3-bromoanisole, and 1-bromonaphthalene with
phenylacetylene gave relatively poor yields of 11–48% (4b(2), 4c, and 4e), whereas the
coupling reactions of 4-bromoaniline, 2-chlorobenzaldehyde, and 2-chloronitrobenzene
with phenylacetylene gave trace products (4d, 4i, and 4j).
Table 3
Sonogashira Reaction
of Aryl Halides
with Phenylacetylene Catalyzed by Complex 1a
Reaction conditions:
aryl halide
(0.5 mmol), phenylacetylene (0.75 mmol), Cs2CO3 (1.0 mmol), complex 1 (0.5 mol %), DMF (5 mL), and
80 °C in N2.
Reaction conditions:
aryl halide
(0.5 mmol), phenylacetylene (0.75 mmol), Cs2CO3 (1.0 mmol), complex 1 (0.5 mol %), DMF (5 mL), and
80 °C in N2.
Kinetic Studies of Suzuki–Miyaura, Heck–Mizoroki,
and Sonogashira Coupling Reactions
To investigate the mechanisms
of reactions, the kinetic experiments of three types of C–Ccoupling reactions were performed under the optimized conditions (entry
4 in Table S4, entry 2 in Table S5, and entry 3 in Table S6). As shown in Figure , no induction periods were observed in these reactions. These reactions
proceeded rapidly from the beginning and gave yields of 86% in 8 h
for the Suzuki reaction, 77% in 6 h for the Heck reaction, and 69%
in 6 h for the Sonogashira reaction. Then, the reactions slowed down
and gave the yields of 99% in 18 h, 85% in 12 h, and 82% in 12 h at
the end of the reactions, respectively. The experimental results indicated
that these reactions were palladacycle reductions during the preactivation
stage.[21]
Figure 5
Kinetic experiments of Suzuki–Miyaura,
Heck–Mizoroki,
and Sonogashira coupling reactions with complex 1 under
the optimized conditions.
Kinetic experiments of Suzuki–Miyaura,
Heck–Mizoroki,
and Sonogashiracoupling reactions with complex 1 under
the optimized conditions.In Hg drop experiments of three types of C–Ccoupling
reactions,
when a drop of mercury was added to the reaction mixture before starting
the model reactions, the suppressions of three types of coupling reactions
were not observed, which further indicated that these reactions are
homogeneous.[21,22]
Conclusions
In
summary, a series of bis-benzimidazolium salts, three NHCPd(II),
silver(I), and one anioniccomplexes have been synthesized and characterized.
Analyses of crystal structures show that NHCPd(II) complex 1 adopts a funnel-like type of structure. NHC Ag(I) complexes 2 and 3 adoptcyclic structure and open structure,
respectively. In crystal packings, one-dimensional polymericchains
and two-dimensional supramolecular layers of 1–4 are formed via intermolecular weak interactions, including
hydrogen bonds, π–π interactions, and C–H···π
contacts. The investigation of catalytic activities of NHCPd(II)complex 1 in Suzuki–Miyaura reactions shows that
complex 1 can catalyze smoothly the Suzuki–Miyaura
coupling reactions of most aryl bromides with phenylboronic acid,
using MeOH/H2O (5:1) as a solvent and K3PO4·3H2O as a base in air. The tests of complex 1 in Heck–Mizoroki reactions gave good to excellent
yields for most aryl bromide derivatives. Likewise, the tests of complex 1 in Sonogashira reactions also gave good yields for most
aryl bromide derivatives. Therefore, NHCPd(II) complex 1 is a valuable precatalyst for the formation of C–C bonds.
Further studies on new organometalliccompounds from ligands LH·(PF), LH·Br–LH·Br as well as analogous ligands are underway.
Experimental
Section
Materials and Methods
1,4-Bis(bromomethyl)-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene[23] and N-R-benzimidazole[24] were prepared according to the methods in literature.
The solvents were purified according to the standard procedures, and
Schlenk techniques were used in all manipulations. All commercially
available chemicals in the experiments were of reagent grade and used
as received. A Boetius Block apparatus was used to determine the melting
points of products. A Varian Mercury Vx 400 spectrometer was used
to record 1H and 13CNMR spectra at 400 and
100 MHz, respectively. Chemical shifts, δ, were reported in
parts per million (ppm) for both 1H and 13CNMR. Coupling constant (J) values were given in hertz
(Hz). The elemental analyses were carried out on a PerkinElmer 2400C
Elemental Analyzer. A Focus DSQI GC–MS was used, which was
equipped with an integrator (C-R8A) with a capillary column (CBP-1
or CBP-5, 0.25 mm i.d. × 40 m).
Preparation of 1,4-Bis[1′-(N-ethyl-benzimidazoliumyl)methyl]-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene
Hexafluorophosphate (LH·(PF))
LH·(PF) was prepared through two steps of reactions.
In step 1, a solution of 1,4-bis(bromomethyl)-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene
(0.960 g, 3.0 mmol) and N-ethyl-benzimidazole (1.053
g, 7.2 mmol) in tetrahydrofuran (THF) (60 mL) was stirred for 5 days
at 50 °C and a white precipitate of 1,4-bis[1′-(N-ethyl-benzimidazoliumyl)methyl]-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzenebromide (LH·Br) was formed. In step 2, NH4PF6 (0.652 g, 4
mmol) was added to a methanol solution (50 mL) of LH·Br (1.225 g, 2 mmol) and the
solution was stirred for 3 days. After filtration, a white precipitate
of LH·(PF) was obtained. Yield: 1.262 g (85%).
mp: 292–294 °C. Anal. Calcd for C30H36P2N4F12: C, 48.52; H, 4.88; N, 7.55%.
Found: C, 48.43; H, 4.75; N, 7.62%. 1HNMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 1.46 (t, J = 7.2
Hz, 6H, CH3), 2.27 (s, 12H, CH3), 4.49 (q, J = 7.0 Hz, 4H, CH2), 5.79 (s, 4H, CH2), 7.74 (m, 4H, PhH), 8.13 (t, J = 4.4 Hz, 2H, PhH), 8.18 (q, J = 2.8 Hz, 2H, PhH), and 9.10 (s, 2H, 2-bimiH).13CNMR (100 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 140.7 (2-bimiC), 135.6 (PhC), 131.5 (PhC), 131.0 (PhC), 130.1 (PhC), 126.8 (PhC), 126.6
(PhC), 113.9 (PhC), 113.8 (PhC), 46.1 (CH2), 42.2 (CH2), 16.5 (CH3),
and 14.6 (CH2CH3) (bimi = benzimidazole).
Preparation of 1,4-Bis[1′-(N-picolyl-benzimidazoliumyl)methyl]-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene
Bromide (LH·Br)
Preparation
of 1,4-Bis[1′-(N-benzyl-benzimidazoliumyl)methyl]-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene
Bromide (LH·Br)
This compouical">nd was prepared in a manner similar to the
step 1 of LH·(PF); however, N-benzylbenzimidazole (1.432 g, 6.9 mmol) was used instead of N-ethyl-benzimidazole. Yield: 1.876 g (81%). mp: 228–230
°C. Anal. Calcd for C40H44N4Br2: C, 64.86; H, 5.98; N, 7.56%. Found: C, 64.78; H,
5.82; N, 7.53%. 1HNMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 2.31 (s, 12H, CH3), 5.86 (d, J = 6.4 Hz, 8H, CH2), 7.35 (d, J = 6.8 Hz, 6H, PhH), 7.50 (d, J = 6.0 Hz, 4H, PhH), 7.68 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 2H, PhH), 7.74 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 2H, PhH), 7.89 (d, J = 8.0 Hz, 2H, PhH), 8.26 (d, J = 8.4 Hz, 2H, PhH), and 10.02 (s, 2H, 2-bimiH). 13CNMR
(100 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 141.2 (2-bimiC), 135.9 (PhC), 134.2 (PhC), 131.7 (PhC), 131.1 (PhC), 129.9
(PhC), 128.8 (PhC), 128.5 (PhC), 127.9 (PhC), 127.0 (PhC), 126.8 (PhC), 114.2 (PhC), 114.0
(PhC), 49.6 (CH2), 46.3
(CH2), and 16.6 (CH3).
Preparation of 1,4-Bis[1′-(N-allyl-benzimidazoliumyl)methyl]-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene
Bromide (LH·Br)
A CH3CN (40 mL) suspension of benzimidazole
(2.770 g, 23.4 mmol), KOH (1.840 g, 32.8 mmol), and TBAB (0.250 g,
0.77 mmol) was stirred for 1 h under refluxing, and then 1,4-bis(bromomethyl)-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene
(3.000 g, 9.8 mmol) was added to the above suspension. The mixture
was stirred for 72 h at 80 °C. A pale yellow powder was obtained
after evaporating the solvent; subsequently, 100 mL of CH2Cl2 was added to the powder. The solution was washed with
water (3 × 100 mL) and dried over anhydrous MgSO4.
After CH2Cl2 was removed, 1,4-bis(benzimidazol-1-ylmethyl)-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene
was obtained as a white powder.A solution of 1,4-bis(benzimidazol-l-ylmethyl)-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzene
(3.000 g, 8.5 mmol) and allyl bromide (2.263 g, 18.7 mmol) in THF
(100 mL) was stirred for 3 days under refluxing, and a white precipitate
was formed. The white powder of 1,4-bis[1′-(N-allyl-benzimidazoliumyl)methyl]-2,3,5,6-tetramethylbenzenebromide
(LH·Br) was obtained
by filtration and recrystallization with methanol/ether. Yield: 4.602
g (91%). mp: 262–264 °C. Anal. Calcd for C32H38N4Br2: C, 60.19; H, 5.99; N,
8.77%. Found: C, 60.25; H, 5.82; N, 8.83%. 1HNMR (400
MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 2.32 (s, 12H, CH3), 5.83 (s, 4H, CH2), 5.91 (s, 4H, CH2), 5.98 (s, 4H, CH2), 6.04 (m, 2H, = CH), 7.76–7.82
(q, J = 8.0 Hz, 4H, PhH), 8.00 (d, J = 8.3 Hz, 2H, PhH), 8.24 (q, J = 8.0 Hz, 2H, PhH), and 9.58 (s, 2H,
2-bimiH). 13CNMR (100 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 141.0 (2-bimiC),
135.7 (PhC), 135.3 (PhC), 134.9
(PhC), 131.5 (PhC), 131.2 (PhC), 129.9 (PhC), 126.8 (PhC), 126.7 (PhC), 119.8 (PhC), 114.0
(PhC), 48.7 (CH2), 46.0
(CH2), and 16.5 (CH3).
Preparation of LPdCl (1)
The CH3CN (30 mL) suspension
of silver oxide (0.151 g, 0.7 mmol) and LH·(PF) (0.200
g, 0.3 mmol) was stirred under refluxing for 12 h in N2. After filtration, PdCl2(CH3CN)2 (0.069 g, 0.3 mmol) was added to the filtrate, which was stirred
under refluxing for 8 h. The reaction mixture was filtered and condensed
to 5 mL. After adding 8 mL of diethyl ether, a yellow powder of L1Pd2Cl4 (1) was obtained
via filtering. Yield: 0.133 g (55%). mp: 234–238 °C. Anal.
Calcd for C30H34Cl4N4Pd2: C, 44.74; H, 4.25; N, 6.95%. Found: C, 44.52; H, 4.37; N,
6.84%. 1HNMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 1.59 (s, 6H, CH3), 2.24 (d, J = 6.4 Hz, 12H, CH3), 4.92
(t, J = 7.4 Hz, 4H, CH2), 6.85 (d, J = 8.0 Hz, 21H, PhH), 6.99 (d, J = 21.6 Hz, 1H, PhH), 7.14 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 2H, PhH), 7.38 (q, J = 9.4 Hz, 2H, PhH), 7.76 (q, J = 4.9 Hz, 1H, PhH), and 7.82 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 1H, PhH). 13CNMR (100 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 170.0 (Ccarbene), 137.9 (PhC), 133.7 (PhC), 129.2 (PhC), 118.8 (PhC), 113.9 (PhC), 53.1
(CH2), 48.0 (CH2), 16.0 (CH3), and 13.5 (CH2CH3).
Synthesis of LAgBr (2)
The suspension of silver oxide (0.065
g, 0.3 mmol) and LH·Br (0.200 g, 0.3 mmol) in dichloromethane (30 mL) was stirred
under refluxing for 12 h in N2. After filtration, the solvent
was condensed to 5 mL. After adding 10 mL of diethyl ether, a yellow
powder of complex 2 was obtained via filtration. Yield:
0.112 g (42%). mp: 288–290 °C. Anal. Calcd for C38H36Ag2Br2N6: C, 47.92;
H, 3.81; N, 8.82%. Found: C, 47.83; H, 3.72; N, 8.75%. 1HNMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 2.15
(s, 12H, CH3), 5.60 (s, 4H, CH2), 5.72 (s, 4H, CH2), 7.27
(q, J = 5.3 Hz, 4H, PhH), 7.42 (d, J = 7.6 Hz, 2H, PhH), 7.48 (t, J = 7.4 Hz, 2H, PyH), 7.64 (d, J = 8.0 Hz, 2H, PhH), 7.70 (q, J = 3.0 Hz, 2H, PyH), 8.07 (d, J = 8.4 Hz, 2H, PyH), and 8.47 (d, J = 7.2 Hz, 2H, PyH). 13CNMR
(100 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ 155.4 (PhC), 149.3 (PhC), 137.1 (PhC), 135.1 (PhC), 133.4 (PhC), 131.7
(PhC), 124.0 (PhC), 123.6 (PhC), 123.0 (PyC), 121.8 (PyC), 112.1 (PhC), 111.7 (PhC), 54.8
(CH2), 54.4 (CH2), 46.0 (CH2), and 17.1 (CH3).
Synthesis of L(AgBr) (3)
LH·Br (0.200 g, 0.3 mmol) and
silver oxide (0.065 g, 0.3 mmol) were added to 30 mL of dichloromethane
and stirred under refluxing for 24 h in N2. After filtration,
the solvent condensed to 5 mL. After adding 10 mL of diethyl ether,
a pale yellow powder of complex 3 was obtained via filtration.
Yield: 0.131 g (48.9%). mp: 241–242 °C. Anal. Calcd for
C32H34Ag2Br2N4: C, 45.20; H, 4.03; N, 6.59%. Found: C, 45.32; H, 4.12; N, 6.43%. 1HNMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6): δ
2.19 (s, 12H, CH3), 4.05 (s, 4H, CH2), 6.38 (s, 4H, CH2), 7.45 (s, 2H, = CH), 7.66 (m, 6H, = CH2 or PhH), 8.22 (d, J = 10.8 Hz, 2H, PhH), 8.37 (d, J = 11.6 Hz, 2H, PhH), and 8.85 (d, J = 12.4 Hz, 2H, PhH). 13CNMR (100 MHz,
DMSO-d6): δ 135.0 (PhC), 134.2 (PhC), 133.1 (PhC), 133.0
(PhC), 131.7 (PhC), 123.9 (PhC), 123.6 (PhC), 118.6 (PhC), 111.9 (PhC), 111.7 (PhC), 51.7
(CH2), 45.9 (CH2), and 17.2 (CH3).
In a typical reaction, a mixture of aryl halide
(0.5 mmol), phenylboronic
acid (0.6 mmol), K3PO4·3H2O
(1.2 mmol), complex 1 (0.2 mol %), solvent (5 mL), and
4.2 mL of water was added to a 20 mL flask and stirred at 60 °C
in air for the desired time until complete consumption of aryl halide
as analyzed by thin-layer chromatography (TLC) or GC analysis. After
the mixture was cooled to ambient temperature, it was extracted by
diethyl ether (8 mL × 3). The organic layer was washed with water
(8 mL × 3) and dried over anhydrous MgSO4. Then, the
solution was filtered and concentrated to 2 mL. The solution was analyzed
by GC or separated by a column in silica (400 mesh) using n-hexane or n-hexane/dichloromethane (v/v
= 10/1) as an eluent. All compounds were subjected to 1H and 13CNMR analyses.
General Method for Heck–Mizoroki
Reactions
In
a typical reaction, a mixture of aryl halide (0.5 mmol), styrene (0.75
mmol), K2CO3 (1.0 mmol), TBAB (10 mol %), complex 1 (0.5 mol %), and solvent (5 mL) was added to a 20 mL flask.
The mixture was stirred at 110 °C in air for the desired time
until complete consumption of aryl halide as analyzed by TLC. After
the removal of the solvent, water (5 mL) was added to the residue
and the mixture was extracted by diethyl ether (10 mL × 3). Organic
layer was dried over anhydrous MgSO4. The solvent was removed,
and the crude product was purified by flash chromatography on silica
gel (400 mesh) using n-hexane or n-hexane/dichloromethane (v/v = 10/1) as an eluent. All compounds
were subjected to 1H and 13CNMR analyses.
General Method for Sonogashira Reactions
In a typical
reaction, a mixture of aryl halide (0.5 mmol), phenylacetylene (0.75
mmol), Cs2CO3 (1.0 mmol), PPh3 (10
mol %) and CuI (10 mol %), complex 1 (0.5 mol %), and
solvent (5 mL) was added to a 20 mL flask. The mixture was stirred
at 80 °C under N2 for the desired time until complete
consumption of aryl halide as analyzed by TLC. After the removal of
the solvent, water (5 mL) was added to the residue and the mixture
was extracted by diethyl ether (10 mL 3 × 3). Organic layer was
dried over anhydrous MgSO4. The solvent was removed, and
the crude product was purified by flash chromatography on silica gel
(400 mesh) using n-hexane or n-hexane/dichloromethane
(v/v = 10/1) as an eluent. All compounds were subjected to 1H and 13CNMR analyses.
Hg Drop Test
We
chose the cross-coupling reaction of
4-bromotoluene with phenylboronic acid for Suzuki–Miyaura reactions,
bromobenzene with styrene for Heck–Mizoroki reactions, and
4-bromoanisole with phenylacetylene for Sonogashira reactions as the
model reactions, and then the Hg drop tests were carried out under
the optimal conditions for three types of coupling reactions (entry
4 in Table S4, entry 2 in Table S5, and entry 3 in Table S6). When a drop of mercury (300 equiv of mercury to the complex 1) was added to the reaction mixture before starting the model
reactions, the suppressions of three types of coupling reactions were
not observed.
X-ray Data Collection and Structure Determination
X-ray
single-crystal diffraction data for complex 1 were collected
by using a Bruker Apex II CCD diffractometer at 296(2) K with Mo Kα
radiation (λ = 0.71073 Å) by ω scan mode. There was
no evidence of crystal decay during data collection in all cases.
Semiempirical absorption corrections were applied by using SADABS,
and the program SAINT was used for the integration of the diffraction
profiles.[25] All structures were solved
by direct methods using the SHELXS program of the SHELXTL package
and refined with SHELXL[26] by the full-matrix
least-squares methods with anisotropic thermal parameters for all
nonhydrogen atoms on F2. Hydrogen atoms
bonded to C atoms were placed geometrically, and presumably solvent
H atoms were first located in different Fourier maps and then fixed
on the calculated sites. Further details of crystallographic data
and structural analyses are listed in Tables S1–S3, 4, and 5. Figures
were generated using CrystalMaker.[27]
Table 4
Crystal Data and Structure Refinements
for 1 and 2
1
2·CH2Cl2
chemical formula
C30H34Cl4N4Pd2
C38H36Ag2Br2N6·CH2Cl2
Fw
805.21
1037.21
cryst syst
monoclinic
monoclinic
space group
P21/c
P21/c
a/Å
20.068(1)
8.418(6)
b/Å
8.950(6)
29.944(2)
c/Å
18.140(1)
15.685(9)
α/deg
90
90
β/deg
106.4(1)
108.0(3)
γ/deg
90
90
V/Å3
3124.8(4)
3759.8(4)
Z
4
4
Dcalcd, mg/m3
1.712
1.832
abs coeff, mm–1
1.520
3.348
F(000)
1608
2048
cryst size, mm
0.28 × 0.25 × 0.18
0.15 × 0.14 × 0.13
θmin, θmax, deg
2.12, 25.00
1.93, 25.01
T/K
296(2)
173(2)
no. of data collected
15 329
18 959
no. of unique data
5460
6595
no. of refined parameters
366
474
goodness-of-fit on F2 a
1.039
1.034
final R indicesb [I > 2σ(I)]
R1
0.0400
0.0748
wR2
0.1128
0.1795
R indices (all data)
R1
0.0451
0.0795
wR2
0.1166
0.1822
Goof = [∑ω(Fo2 – Fc2)2/(n – p)]1/2, where n is the number
of reflections and p is the number of parameters
refined.
R1 =
∑(||Fo| – |Fc||)/∑|Fo|; wR2 = 1/[σ2(Fo2) + (0.0691P) + 1.4100P], where P = (Fo2 + 2Fc2)/3.
Table 5
Summary of Crystallographic
Data for 3 and 4
3
4
chemical formula
C32H34Ag2Br2N4
C40H40Ag2Br4N4
Fw
850.19
1112.14
cryst syst
monoclinic
triclinic
space group
P21/c
P1̅
a/Å
13.047(1)
11.398(3)
b/Å
12.577(1)
13.023(3)
c/Å
18.214(1)
18.513(4)
α/deg
90
100.1(4)
β/deg
90.5(1)
103.8(4)
γ/deg
90
110.9(4)
V/Å3
2988.8(4)
2385.5(1)
Z
4
2
Dcalcd, mg/m3
1.889
1.548
abs coeff, mm–1
4.013
4.199
F(000)
1672
1084
cryst size, mm
0.15 × 0.14 × 0.13
0.25 × 0.22 × 0.20
θmin, θmax, deg
1.97, 25.01
1.75, 25.03
T/K
173(2)
296(2)
no. of data collected
14 879
12 321
no. of unique data
5263
8359
no. of refined parameters
365
454
goodness-of-fit on F2a
1.040
1.043
final R indicesb [I > 2σ(I)]
R1
0.0314
0.0853
wR2
0.0733
0.2532
R indices (all data)
R1
0.0423
0.1235
wR2
0.0782
0.2919
Goof = [∑ω(Fo2 – Fc2)2/(n – p)]1/2, where n is the number
of reflections and p is the number of parameters
refined.
R1 =
∑(||Fo| – |Fc||)/∑|Fo|; wR2 = 1/[σ2(Fo2) + (0.0691P) + 1.4100P], where P = (Fo2 + 2Fc2)/3.
Goof = [∑ω(Fo2 – Fc2)2/(n – p)]1/2, where n is the number
of reflections and p is the number of parameters
refined.R1 =
∑(||Fo| – |Fc||)/∑|Fo|; wR2 = 1/[σ2(Fo2) + (0.0691P) + 1.4100P], where P = (Fo2 + 2Fc2)/3.Goof = [∑ω(Fo2 – Fc2)2/(n – p)]1/2, where n is the number
of reflections and p is the number of parameters
refined.R1 =
∑(||Fo| – |Fc||)/∑|Fo|; wR2 = 1/[σ2(Fo2) + (0.0691P) + 1.4100P], where P = (Fo2 + 2Fc2)/3.