Toward a Better Understanding of the Reactivity of Titanium and Zirconium Complexes with an Aryl-Substituted Tripodal Triamido Ligand Derived from <i>cis</i>,<i>cis</i>-1,3,5-Triaminocyclohexane: A Density Functional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tilley and co-workers have shown that titanium and zirconium hydride complexes containing the triamido [ cis, cis -1,3,5-(3,5- t Bu 2 C 6 H 3 N) 3 C 6 H 9 ] 3− ligand ( L ) do not polymerize ethene. To get insight in this observation we have studied these systems and various modifications thereof using density functional theory. The reactivity toward ethene was investigated by computing the energy barriers for ethene insertion in the metal−hydride and metal−alkyl bonds of these compounds with the alkyl chain represented by a methyl or ethyl group. For titanium and zirconium complexes of L, the computational results agree with the experimental observation that insertion is possible in metal−hydride but not in metal−alkyl bonds. The energy barrier for insertion in the metal−alkyl bond can be lowered somewhat by reducing the steric bulk of the triamido ligand; however, even in the absence of any steric hindrance this barrier remains very high and no polymerization activity is expected. The ethene insertion barriers increase when reducing the rigidity of the triamido ligand by the introduction of methylene bridges between the coordinating nitrogen atoms and the cyclohexane backbone or replacing the cyclohexane-based ligand by three NH 2 groups. The effect of changing the four-coordinate ligand environment of titanium to a five-coordinate one by adding an additional donor molecule (NH 3 ) was found to be small. A significant lowering of the ethene insertion barriers in the metal−alkyl bonds was found only when creating a much more unsaturated metal center by removal of one of the −NR groups or replacement of one of these groups by a much weaker coordinating −OR group. Both the cationic d 0 and neutral d 1 variants of the latter compounds may be active polymerization catalysts. The calculated ease of ethene insertion is shown to be dominated by the electrophilicity of the metal center, quantified as the binding energy of the probe molecule ammonia, and roughly parallels the complexation energy of the ethene monomer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".