The Effects of Activators on Zirconium Phosphinimide Ethylene Polymerization Catalysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthetic routes to the species CpZr(NP t- Bu 3 ) 2 Cl, 7, Cp 2 Zr(NP t- Bu 3 )Cl, 8, CpZr(NP t -Bu 3 ) 2 Me, 9, Cp 2 Zr(NP t- Bu 3 )Me, 10, and CpZr(NP t -Bu 3 ) 2 Bn, 11, were developed in a manner similar to that previously reported for zirconium phosphinimide complexes. Rather than employing metathesis routes, transamination was considered to synthesize bis-phosphinimide zirconium complexes. At ambient temperature, Zr(NP t -Bu 3 ) 3 (NMe 2 ), 15, was isolated in less than 5% yield, but could be obtained cleanly via reaction of Zr(NP t -Bu 3 ) 3 Cl, 14, with LiNMe 2 . However, thermolysis of Zr(NEt 2 ) 4 with HNP t -Bu 3 afforded Zr(NP t -Bu 3 ) 2 (NEt 2 ) 2, 12, which was subsequently converted to Zr(NP t -Bu 3 ) 2 Cl 2, 13, upon reaction with trimethylsilyl chloride. Cationic products were generated from the reaction of Lewis acids in the presence of a donor to provide the salts [CpZr(NP t -Bu 3 )Me(THF)][MeB(C 6 F 5 ) 3 ], 16, [Cp*Zr(NP t- Bu 3 )(( i -PrN) 2 CMe)][MeB(C 6 F 5 ) 3 ], 17, and [CpZr(NP t- Bu 3 )(( i -PrN) 2 CMe)][MeB(C 6 F 5 ) 3 ], 18 . Similarly, reaction of [HNMe 2 Ph][B(C 6 F 5 ) 4 ] with 4 generated the salt [CpZr(NP t -Bu 3 )Me(NMe 2 Ph)][B(C 6 F 5 ) 4 ], 19, while reaction of 11 with B(C 6 F 5 ) 3 gave the base-free product [CpZr(NP t -Bu 3 ) 2 ][BnB(C 6 F 5 ) 3 ], 20 . Structural considerations and preliminary MO calculations support the reactivity studies that augur well for olefin polymerization activity. Experimentally, previously reported screening using MAO as a solvent scrubber/activator with 1 − 4 showed only moderate polymerization activities. However, use of 20 equiv of Al( i -Bu) 3 as scavenger and 2 equiv of B(C 6 F 5 ) 3 as cocatalyst resulted in a significant increase in activity relative to that observed upon activation with MAO. Use of [Ph 3 C][B(C 6 F 5 ) 4 ] as the cocatalyst led to even higher ethylene polymerization activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".