A series of C1-bridged Cp/amido group 4 metal complexes [(“CpCN”)MX2] was prepared. The starting compound 6-tert-butylfulvene (7) was reacted with LiNHR (R = o-anisyl (a), p-anisyl (b), phenyl (c), or tert-butyl (d)) to yield the Li(C5H4-CH(tBu)-NHR) compounds (8). Subsequent deprotonation with n-butyllithium, followed by transmetalation with Cl2Ti(NMe2)2, yielded the (“CpCN”)Ti(NR2)2 complexes 10 (a−d). A second synthetic series started from 6-(dimethylamino)fulvene (11). The reaction with the LiNHR reagents led to addition followed by HNMe2 elimination to yield the respective imino-substituted cyclopentadienides Li(C5H4-CHNR) (13). Addition of methyllithium to 13 gave the (Li+)2(C5H4-CHMe-NR)2-, (“CpCN”)2-, ligands (14). Transmetalation with Cl2Ti(NMe2)2 subsequently yielded the corresponding μ-CHMe-bridged Cp/amido group 4 complexes 15 (a−c). Treatment with Me2SiCl2 cleanly converted the (“CpCN”)M(NR2)2 complexes to the respective (“CpCN”)MCl2 systems [3a−d, 4a−c (Ti), 5a (Zr)]. These were transformed to the (“CpCN”)M(CH3)2 complexes [μ-CHCMe3: 17a−d (Ti), 19a (Zr), μ-CHMe: 18a−c (Ti)] and the (s-cis-supine-η4-butadiene)(“CpCN”)Ti systems 21a−d and 22b,c. With respect to X-ray structure analyses the (CpCN)MX2 systems must be regarded as more “constrained” than their (“CpSiN”)MX2 analogues. The (“CpCN”)MCl2 and (“CpCN”)M(CH3)2 complexes were used as catalysts for ethene homopolymerization and ethene/1-octene copolymerization. All systems gave active catalysts, but these were quite different in their catalytic performance when compared with the usually applied (“CpSiN”)TiX2-derived catalysts. The (“CpCN”)M catalyst activities and selectivities were very dependent on the specific activator components employed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: