Theoretical Study of the Interactions between Cations and Anions in Group IV Transition-Metal Catalysts for Single-Site Homogeneous Olefin Polymerization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density functional theory has been used to investigate the interaction between a series of cationic polymerization catalysts and their anionic counterions. The catalyst systems include (NPR 3 ) 2 TiMe +, (Cp)(NCR 2 )TiMe +, (CpSiR 2 NR‘)TiMe +, (Cp)OSiR 3 TiMe +, and (Cp)NPR 3 TiMe + . The counterions studied are B(C 6 F 5 ) 4 -, MeB(C 6 F 5 ) 3 -, TMA-MAOMe -, and MAOMe -, where TMA = trimethylaluminum and MAO = methylalumoxane. Two simplified model structures, which have been proposed as the counterions for the active (TMA-MAOMe - ) and dormant (MAOMe - ) ion pairs in single-site catalysts activated by MAO, were used for the last two counterions. The interaction between the cation and anion will be discussed in terms of ion-pair formation and separation energies. Full quantum-mechanical (QM) calculations demonstrate that, for the same catalyst system but different anions, the ion-pair separation energies increase in the order B(C 6 F 5 ) 4 - < MeB(C 6 F 5 ) 3 - < TMA-MAOMe - < MAOMe - . For the same counterion but different cations, the (NPR 3 ) 2 TiMe + system has the lowest separation energy. Increasing the size of the R group decreases the ion-pair separation energy. Combined quantum-mechanical (QM) and molecular-mechanical (MM) models (QM/MM) for MeB(C 6 F 5 ) 3 - and TMA-MAOMe - have also been developed and examined by comparing the ion-pair formation and separation energies to the full QM results. The QM parts of MeB(C 6 F 5 ) 3 - and TMA-MAOMe - are represented by MeBCl 3 - and MeBMe 2 Cl -, respectively. The other parts of the anions are replaced by MM atoms. Preliminary studies on olefin insertion reactions for the (NPH 3 ) 2 TiMe−μMe−A (A = B(C 6 F 5 ) 3 and TMA-MAO) systems suggest that the QM/MM models satisfactorily reproduce the behavior of the ion-pair system in the insertion process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".