Ethylene Polymerization Using Discrete Nickel(II) Iminophosphonamide Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The syntheses and structures of the discrete (π-allyl)nickel iminophosphonamide (PN 2 ) complexes 2a − d from the reaction of (π-allyl)nickel bromide and the corresponding PN 2 ligands 3a, b or from the reaction of (π-allyl) 2 Ni and phosphorane 1 are reported. Complexes 2a, b are characterized by having long Ni−N distances coupled with an acute bite angle for the PN 2 ligand. The π-allyl ligands in complexes 2a − d are not fluxional on the NMR time scale at room temperature, although chemical exchange between the isomeric complexes 2c, d occurs via PN 2 ligand reorientation. Purified complexes 2a − d are not active for ethylene polymerization; it is only when complexes 2c, d are generated in situ in the presence of monomer that high- M w branched poly(ethylene) is formed. A variety of indirect evidence suggests that the active catalyst arises from the reaction of Ni(0)−alkene complexes with phosphorane 1, either preformed or generated in situ through decomposition of (π-allyl) 2 Ni. A bona fide PN 2 NiPh(PPh 3 ) complex, 5, was prepared from NiPh(PPh 3 ) 2 Br and the PN 2 ligand 3a and was structurally characterized. This complex is active for 1-hexene isomerization in the absence of an activator. During hexene isomerization, variable amounts of the paramagnetic bis(PN 2 ) complex 4 are produced along with ligand 3a . In addition, the fluxional intermediate 6, containing both a PN 2 ligand and coordinated PPh 3, is present during catalysis. Reaction of 5 with an equimolar amount of propene provides α-methylstyrene, the product of 1,2-insertion followed by β-H elimination. Complex 5 is not effective for polymerization or oligomerization of ethylene under a variety of conditions. The reactions of complex 5 with various phosphine scavengers were studied, and of these only Rh(acac)(C 2 H 4 ) 2 is both effective and selective for PPh 3 . Hard Lewis acids, including AlMe 3, B(C 6 F 5 ) 3, and PMAO, have a pronounced tendency toward abstraction of the PN 2 or other anionic ligands in these unhindered complexes. All of the complexes reported in this paper are extremely active for ethylene dimerization in the presence of PMAO. In the presence of stoichiometric Rh(I), complex 5 rapidly isomerizes 1-hexene and in the presence of ethylene produces branched PE oligomers at modest 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.041 | 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".