Charge Effects in PCP Pincer Complexes of Ni<sup>II</sup> bearing Phosphinite and Imidazol(i)ophosphine Coordinating Jaws: From Synthesis to Catalysis through Bonding Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This contribution reports on a new family of Ni(II) pincer complexes featuring phosphinite and functional imidazolyl arms. The proligands (R) PIMC(H) OP(R') react at room temperature with Ni(II) precursors to give the corresponding complexes [((R) PIMCOP(R') )NiBr], where (R) PIMCOP(R) =κ(P) ,κ(C) ,κ(P) -{2-(R'2 PO),6-(R2 PC3 H2 N2 )C6 H3 }, R=iPr, R'=iPr (3 b, 84 %) or Ph (3 c, 45 %). Selective N-methylation of the imidazole imine moiety in 3 b by MeOTf (OTf=OSO2 CF3 ) gave the corresponding imidazoliophosphine [((iPr) PIMIOCOP(iPr) )NiBr][OTf], 4 b, in 89 % yield ((iPr) PIMIOCOP(iPr) =κ(P) ,κ(C) ,κ(P) -{2-(iPr2 PO),6-(iPr2 PC4 H5 N2 )C6 H3 }). Treating 4 b with NaOEt led to the NHC derivative [(NHCCOP(iPr) )NiBr], 5 b, in 47 % yield (NHCCOP(iPr) =κ(P) ,κ(C) ,κ(C) -{2-(iPr2 PO),6-(C4 H5 N2 )C6 H3 )}). The bromo derivatives 3-5 were then treated with AgOTf in acetonitrile to give the corresponding cationic species [((R) PIMCOP(R) )Ni(MeCN)][OTf] [R=Ph, 6 a (89 %) or iPr, 6 b (90 %)], [((R) PIMIOCOP(R) )Ni(MeCN)][OTf]2 [R=Ph, 7 a (79 %) or iPr, 7 b (88 %)], and [(NHCCOP(R) )Ni(MeCN)][OTf] [R=Ph, 8 a (85 %) or iPr, 8 b (84 %)]. All new complexes have been characterized by NMR and IR spectroscopy, whereas 3 b, 3 c, 5 b, 6 b, and 8 a were also subjected to X-ray diffraction studies. The acetonitrile adducts 6-8 were further studied by using various theoretical analysis tools. In the presence of excess nitrile and amine, the cationic acetonitrile adducts 6-8 catalyze hydroamination of nitriles to give unsymmetrical amidines with catalytic turnover numbers of up to 95.
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) | 0.002 | 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".