Mechanism of the Hydrogenation of Ketones Catalyzed by <i>trans-</i>Dihydrido(diamine)ruthenium(II) Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complexes trans-RuH(Cl)(tmen)(R-binap) (1) and (OC-6-43)-RuH(Cl)(tmen)(PPh(3))(2) (2) are prepared by the reaction of the diamine NH(2)CMe(2)CMe(2)NH(2) (tmen) with RuH(Cl)(PPh(3))(R-binap) and RuH(Cl)(PPh(3))(3), respectively. Reaction of KHB(sec)Bu(3) with 1 yields trans-Ru(H)(2)(R-binap)(tmen) (5) while reaction of KHB(sec)Bu(3) or KO(t)Bu with 2 under Ar yields the new hydridoamido complex RuH(PPh(3))(2)(NH(2)CMe(2)CMe(2)NH) (4). Complex 4 has a distorted trigonal bipyramidal geometry with the amido nitrogen in the equatorial plane. Loss of H(2) from 5 results in the related complex RuH(R-binap)(NH(2)CMe(2)CMe(2)NH) (3). Reaction of H(2) with 4 yields the trans-dihydride (OC-6-22)-Ru(H)(2)(PPh(3))(2)(tmen)(6). Calculations support the assignment of the structures. The hydrogenation of acetophenone is catalyzed by 5 or 4 in benzene or 2-propanol without the need for added base. For 5 in benzene at 293 K over the ranges of concentrations [5] = 10(-)(4) to 10(-)(3) M, [ketone] = 0.1 to 0.5 M, and of pressures of H(2) = 8 to 23 atm, the rate law is rate = k[5][H(2)] with k = 3.3 M(-1) s(1), DeltaH++ = 8.5 +/- 0.5 kcal mol(-1), DeltaS++ = -28 +/- 2 cal mol(-1) K(-1). For 4 in benzene at 293 K over the ranges of concentrations [4] = 10(-4) to 10(-3) M, [ketone] 0.1 to 0.7 M, and of pressures of H(2) = 1 to 6 atm, the preliminary rate law is rate = k[4][H(2)] with k = 1.1 x 10(2) M(-1) s(-1), DeltaH++ = 7.6 +/- 0.3 kcal mol(-1), DeltaS++ = -23 +/- 1 cal mol(-1) K(-1). Both theory and experiment suggest that the intramolecular heterolytic splitting of dihydrogen across the polar Ru=N bond of the amido complexes 3 and 4 is the turn-over limiting step. A transition state structure and reaction energy profile is calculated. The transfer of H(delta+)/H(delta-) to the ketone from the RuH and NH groups of 5 in a Noyori metal-ligand bifunctional mechanism is a fast process and it sets the chirality as (R)-1-phenylethanol (62-68% ee) in the hydrogenation of acetophenone. The rate of hydrogenation of acetophenone catalyzed by 5 is slower and the ee of the product is low (14% S) when 2-propanol is used as the solvent, but both the rate and ee (up to 55% R) increase when excess KO(t)Bu is added. The formation of ruthenium alkoxide complexes in 2-propanol might explain these observations. Alkoxide complexes [RuP(2)]H(OR)(tmen), [RuP(2)] = Ru(R-binap) or Ru(PPh(3))(2), R= (i) Pr, CHPhMe, (t)Bu, are observed by reacting the alcohols (i)PrOH, phenylethanol, and (t)BuOH with the dihydrides 5 and 6, respectively, under Ar. In the absence of H(2), the amido complexes 3 and 4 react with acetophenone to give the ketone adducts [RuP(2)]H(O=CPhMe)(NH(2)CMe(2)CMe(2)NH) in equilibrium with the enolate complexes trans- [RuP(2)](H)(OCPh=CH(2))(tmen) and eventually the decomposition products [RuP(2)]H(eta(5)-CH(2)CPhCHCPhO), with the binap complex characterized crystallographically. In general, proton transfer from the weakly acidic molecules dihydrogen, alcohol, or acetophenone to the amido nitrogen of complexes 3 and 4 is favored in two ways when the molecule coordinates to ruthenium: (1) an increase in acidity of the molecule by the Lewis acidic metal and (2) an increase in the basicity of the amido nitrogen caused by its pyramidalization. The formato complexes trans-[RuP(2)]H(OCHO)(tmen) were prepared by reacting the respective complex 4 or 5 with formic acid. The crystal structure of RuH(OCHO)(PPh(3))(2)(tmen) displays similar features to the calculated transition state for H(delta+)/H(delta-) transfer to the ketone in the catalytic cycle.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".