Iron Complexes for Cyclic Carbonate and Polycarbonate Formation: Selectivity Control from Ligand Design and Metal-Center Geometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A family of 17 iron(III) aminobis(phenolate) complexes possessing different phenolate substituents, coordination geometries, and donor arrangements were used as catalysts for the reaction of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) with epoxides. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry of the iron complexes with a bis(triphenylphosphine)iminium chloride cocatalyst in negative mode revealed the formation of six-coordinate iron “ate” species. Under low catalyst loadings (0.025 mol % Fe and 0.1 mol % chloride cocatalyst), all complexes showed good-to-excellent activity for converting propylene oxide to propylene carbonate under 20 bar of CO 2 . The most active complex possessed electron-withdrawing dichlorophenolate groups and for a 2 h reaction time gave a turnover frequency of 1240 h –1 . Epichlorohydrin, styrene oxide, phenyl glycidyl ether, and allyl glycidyl ether could also be transformed to their respective cyclic carbonates with good-to-excellent conversions. Selectivity for polycarbonate formation was observed using cyclohexene oxide, where the best activity was displayed by trigonal-bipyramidal iron(III) complexes having electron-rich phenolate groups and sterically unencumbering tertiary amino donors. Those containing bulky tertiary amino ligands or those with square-pyramidal geometries around iron showed no activity for polycarbonate formation. While the overall conversions declined with decreasing CO 2 pressure, CO 2 incorporation remained high, giving a completely alternating copolymer. The difference in the optimum catalyst reactivity for cyclic carbonate versus polycarbonate formation is particularly noteworthy; that is, electron-withdrawing-group-containing phenolates give the most active catalysts for propylene carbonate formation, whereas catalysts with electron-donating-group-containing phenolates are the most active for polycyclohexene carbonate formation. This study demonstrates that the highly modifiable aminophenolate ligands can be tailored to yield iron complexes for both CO 2 /epoxide coupling and ring-opening copolymerization activity.
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".