Selective Synthesis of Secondary and Tertiary Amines by Reductive <i>N‐</i>Alkylation of Nitriles and <i>N‐</i>Alkylation of Amines and Ammonium Formate Catalyzed by Ruthenium Complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new ruthenium catalytic system for the syntheses of secondary and tertiary amines via reductive N ‐alkylation of nitriles and N ‐alkylation of primary amines is proposed. Isomeric complexes 8 catalyze transfer hydrogenation and N ‐alkylation of nitriles in ethanol to give secondary amines. Unsymmetrical secondary amines can be produced by N ‐alkylation of primary amines with alcohols via the borrowing hydrogen methodology. Aliphatic amines were obtained with excellent yields, while only moderate conversions were observed for anilines. Based on kinetic and mechanistic studies, it is suggested that the rate determining step is the hydrogenation of intermediate imine to amine. Finally, ammonium formate was applied as the amination reagent for alcohols in the presence of ruthenium catalyst 8 . Secondary amines were obtained from primary alcohols within 24 hours at 100 °C, and tertiary amines can be produced after prolonged heating. Secondary alcohols can only be converted to secondary amines with moderate yield. Based on mechanistic studies, the process is suggested to proceed through an ammonium alkoxy carbonate intermediate, where carbonate acts as an efficient leaving group.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".