Hydrogenolysis of β-O-4 lignin model dimers by a ruthenium-xantphos catalyst
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogenolysis reactions of so-called lignin model dimers using a Ru-xantphos catalyst are presented (xantphos = 4,5-bis(diphenylphosphino)-9,9-dimethylxanthene). For example, of some nine models studied, the alcohol, 2-(2-methoxyphenoxy)-1-phenylethanol (1), with 5 mol% Ru(H)(2)(CO)(PPh(3))(xantphos) (18) in toluene-d(8) at 135 °C for 20 h under N(2), gives in ~95% yield the C-O cleavage hydrogenolysis products, acetophenone (14) and guaiacol (17), and a small amount (<5%) of the ketone, 2-(2-methoxyphenoxy)-1-phenylethanone (4), as observed by (1)H NMR spectroscopy. The in situ Ru(H)(2)(CO)(PPh(3))(3)/xantphos system gives similar findings, confirming a recent report (J. M. Nichols et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2010, 132, 12554). The active catalyst is formulated 'for convenience' as 'Ru(CO)(xantphos)'. The hydrogenolysis mechanism proceeds by initial dehydrogenation to give the ketone 4, which then undergoes hydrogenolysis of the C-O bond to give 14 and 17. Hydrogenolysis of 4 to 14 and 17 also occurs using the Ru catalyst under 1 atm H(2); in contrast, use of 3-hydroxy-2-(2-methoxyphenoxy)-1-phenyl-1-propanone (7), for example, where the CH(2) of 4 has been changed to CHCH(2)OH, gives a low yield (≤15%) of hydrogenolysis products. Similarly, the diol substrate, 2-(2-methoxyphenoxy)-1-phenyl-1,3-propanediol (9), gives low yields of hydrogenolysis products. These low yields are due to formation of the catalytically inactive complexes Ru(CO)(xantphos)[C(O)C(OC(6)H(4)OMe)=C(Ph)O] (20) and/or Ru(CO)(xantphos)[C(O)CH=C(Ph)O] (21), where the organic fragments result from dehydrogenation of CH(2)OH moieties in 7 and 9. Trace amounts of Ru(CO)(xantphos)(OC(6)H(4)O), a catecholate complex, are isolated from the reaction of 18 with 1. Improved syntheses of 18 and lignin models are also presented.
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".