The Origins of the Differences between Alkyne Hydroalkoxylations Catalyzed by 8‐Quinolinolato‐ and Dipyrrinato‐Ligated Rh
<sup>I</sup>
Complexes: A DFT Mechanistic Study
Zheyuan Liu,Jiandong Guo,Chunyu Song,Wenping Hu,Yanfeng Dang,Zhi‐Xiang Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejic.201700181
IF: 2.551
2017-01-01
European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry
Abstract:Hydroalkoxylations of terminal alkynes with methanol, catalyzed by 8‐quinolinolato‐ and dipyrrinato‐ligated Rh I complexes, afford anti‐Markovnikov ( Z )‐ and ( E )‐enol ethers, respectively. Herein we performed a DFT study to gain insight into the mechanisms of the two reactions, aiming at understanding why and how the two ligands differ. Of the two possible mechanisms, namely, C β ‐HT and Rh‐HT, characterized by a Rh I Fisher carbene and vinyl Rh III –H hydride complex, respectively, the hydroalkoxylation with 8‐quinolinolato prefers the C β ‐HT mechanism, while that with dipyrrinato favors the Rh‐HT mechanism. The root cause for the mechanistic difference is that the O atom in 8‐quinolinolato, due to its large electronegativity and exposure, is more favorable than the N atom in dipyrrinato in stabilizing the protic hydrogen as methanol undergoes a 1,3‐addition, thus the addition in the former is much easier than that in the latter. Consequently, the addition in the hydroalkoxylation with dipyrrinato controls the reaction selectivity, giving the ( E )‐enol ether. In contrast, the selectivity of the hydroalkoxylation with 8‐quinolinolato is determined by the Rh I Fisher carbene to undergo a 1,2‐hydrogen transfer, leading to the ( Z )‐enol ether. Furthermore, a DMA solvent molecule substantially facilitates the methanol addition in the reaction with dipyrrinato but not in the reaction with 8‐quinolinolato.