Synthesis and coordination chemistry of tridentate (PNN) amine enamido phosphine ligands with ruthenium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tridentate amine-imine-phosphine ligands, R2PC5H7NC2H4NEt2 [(R)PNN(H)], where R = Pr(i) or Bu(t) are synthesized using a straightforward protocol of condensation, deprotonation, and addition of a chlorodialkylphosphine. Multinuclear NMR spectroscopy shows the ligands exist exclusively in the enamine tautomeric form in solution. Treating these ligands with RuHCl(PPr(i)3)2(CO) forms the desired coordination compounds, RuHCl[(R)PNN(H)](CO), where the imine tautomeric form of the ligands coordinates to ruthenium. Deuterium labelling experiments show Ru-H/N-D scrambling occurs during ligand coordination. Treating the RuHCl[(R)PNN(H)](CO) precursors with potassium tert-butoxide allows for the synthesis of two new ruthenium enamido-phosphine complexes, RuH[(R)PNN](CO), which were fully characterized. The structure of one of the derivatives was confirmed by X-ray crystallography (R = Pr(i)). The reactivity of the enamido-phosphine complexes with H2 and benzyl alcohol is also reported. For the enamido phosphine complex where R = Pr(i), the reaction with H2 is reversible and forms (RuH(CO)[(Pri)PNN(H)])2(μ-H)2, a hydride-bridged dimer that results from cooperative activation of H2. The reactivity of both amine-enamido-phosphine ruthenium compounds with benzyl alcohol establishes that the complexes are catalyst precursors for acceptorless dehydrogenation (AD), although the turnover frequencies measured using both catalyst precursors are modest.
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 | 0.001 |
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".