Homogeneous Catalytic Dehydrogenation/Dehydrocoupling of Amine-Borane Adducts by the Rh(I) Wilkinson’s Complex Analogue RhCl(PHCy<sub>2</sub>)<sub>3</sub>(Cy = cyclohexyl)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rh(I) complex RhCl(PHCy(2))(3) (1) (Cy = cyclohexyl, C(6)H(11)) has been investigated as a catalyst for the dehydrogenation/dehydrocoupling of dimethylamine-borane adduct Me(2)NH.BH(3) (3) at 20 degrees C to afford the cyclic dimer [Me(2)N-BH(2)](2) (4). Unlike previously studied neutral and cationic Rh(I) precatalysts such as [{Rh(mu-Cl)(1,5-cod)}(2)] and [Rh(1,5-cod)(2)]OTf (1,5-cod = 1,5-cyclooctadiene, C(8)H(12), OTf = OSO(2)CF(3)) with weakly electron-donating ligands at the metal center, which are reduced to catalytically active Rh(0) species, catalytic dehydrogenation of 3 using 1 was found to occur in a homogeneous manner according to nanofiltration experiments, Hg(0) poisoning and kinetic studies. Moreover, the presence of the sterically bulky ligand PHCy(2) in complex 1 has been found to significantly increase the rate of reaction previously reported for Wilkinson's catalyst RhCl(PPh(3))(3). The catalytic activity of 1 toward a range of other amine-borane adducts RR'NH.BH(3) (e.g., RR' = (i)Pr(2), MeBz, MeH) at 20 degrees C was also investigated. The third row transition metal analogue of 1, the Ir(I) complex IrCl(PHCy(2))(3) (2), was also explored as a catalyst for the dehydrocoupling of 3 and was found to exhibit much reduced catalytic activity compared to 1 but proved significantly more active for sterically encumbered substrates. Addition of the strong Lewis acid B(C(6)F(5))(3) as a co-catalyst to both 1 and 2 has been found to significantly increase the rate of the dehydrocoupling reactions in all cases. The Rh(I) complex 1 (but not the Ir(I) analogue 2) was also found to be active for the catalytic dehydrocoupling of the phosphine-borane adduct Ph(2)PH.BH(3) (14) at 60-90 degrees C to afford linear dimer Ph(2)PH-BH(2)-PPh(2)-BH(3) (15).
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".