Thermal Activation of Hydrocarbon C−H Bonds by Tungsten Alkylidene Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermal activation of CpW(NO)(CH(2)CMe(3))(2) (1) in neat hydrocarbon solutions transiently generates the neopentylidene complex, CpW(NO)(=CHCMe(3)) (A), which subsequently activates solvent C-H bonds. For example, the thermolysis of 1 in tetramethylsilane and perdeuteriotetramethylsilane results in the clean formation of CpW(NO)(CH(2)CMe(3))(CH(2)SiMe(3)) (2) and CpW(NO)(CHDCMe(3))[CD(2)Si(CD(3))(3)] (2-d(12)), respectively, in virtually quantitative yields. The neopentylidene intermediate A can be trapped by PMe(3) to obtain CpW(NO)(=CHCMe(3))(PMe(3)) in two isomeric forms (4a-b), and in benzene, 1 cleanly forms the phenyl complex CpW(NO)(CH(2)CMe(3))(C(6)H(5)) (5). Kinetic and mechanistic studies indicate that the C-H activation chemistry derived from 1 proceeds through two distinct steps, namely, (1) rate-determining intramolecular alpha-H elimination of neopentane from 1 to form A and (2) 1,2-cis addition of a substrate C-H bond across the W=C linkage in A. The thermolysis of 1 in cyclohexane in the presence of PMe(3) yields 4a-b as well as the olefin complex CpW(NO)(eta(2)-cyclohexene)(PMe(3)) (6). In contrast, methylcyclohexane and ethylcyclohexane afford principally the allyl hydride complexes CpW(NO)(eta(3)-C(7)H(11))(H) (7a-b) and CpW(NO)(eta(3)-C(8)H(13))(H) (8a-b), respectively, under identical experimental conditions. The thermolysis of 1 in toluene affords a surprisingly complex mixture of six products. The two major products are the neopentyl aryl complexes, CpW(NO)(CH(2)CMe(3))(C(6)H(4)-3-Me) (9a) and CpW(NO)(CH(2)CMe(3))(C(6)H(4)-4-Me) (9b), in approximately 47 and 33% yields. Of the other four products, one is the aryl isomer of 9a-b, namely, CpW(NO)(CH(2)CMe(3))(C(6)H(4)-2-Me) (9c) ( approximately 1%). The remaining three products all arise from the incorporation of two molecules of toluene; namely, CpW(NO)(CH(2)C(6)H(5))(C(6)H(4)-3-Me) (11a; approximately 12%), CpW(NO)(CH(2)C(6)H(5))(C(6)H(4)-4-Me) (11b; approximately 6%), and CpW(NO)(CH(2)C(6)H(5))(2) (10; approximately 1%). It has been demonstrated that the formation of complexes 10 and 11a-b involves the transient formation of CpW(NO)(CH(2)CMe(3))(CH(2)C(6)H(5)) (12), the product of toluene activation at the methyl position, which reductively eliminates neopentane to generate the C-H activating benzylidene complex CpW(NO)(=CHC(6)H(5)) (B). Consistently, the thermolysis of independently prepared 12 in benzene and benzene-d(6) affords CpW(NO)(CH(2)C(6)H(5))(C(6)H(5)) (13) and CpW(NO)(CHDC(6)H(5))(C(6)D(5)) (13-d(6)), respectively, in addition to free neopentane. Intermediate B can also be trapped by PMe(3) to obtain the adducts CpW(NO)(=CHC(6)H(5))(PMe(3)) (14a-b) in two rotameric forms. From their reactions with toluene, it can be deduced that both alkylidene intermediates A and B exhibit a preference for activating the stronger aryl sp(2) C-H bonds. The C-H activating ability of B also encompasses aliphatic substrates as well as it reacts with tetramethylsilane and cyclohexanes in a manner similar to that summarized above for A. All new complexes have been characterized by conventional spectroscopic methods, and the solid-state molecular structures of 4a, 6, 7a, 8a, and 14a have been established by X-ray diffraction methods.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".