Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A theoretical study of the oxidative addition of C−C vs C−H bonds to a rhodium(I) complex with PCP-type ligands has been carried out. Special attention has been paid to the effect of different bulky substituents at the phosphorus atoms of the chelate ligand. Therefore, B3LYP/lanl2dz+p//B3LYP/lanl2dz and ONIOM(B3LYP/lanl2dz+p:B3LYP/lanl2dz)//ONIOM(B3LYP/lanl2dz:HF/lanl1mb) methods have been utilized. According to the calculations, C−H activation is always the kinetically favored process (ΔΔ E ⧧ 20 kJ·mol - 1 ), though the C−C activation product is more stable (ΔΔ E 20 kJ·mol - 1 ). C−H addition is a reversible process; the product of the C−H activation can interconvert to the C−C activation product via an intermediate structure. Bulky substituents are found to increase the barrier for C−H activation relative to that for C−C activation. With additional ligands (e.g., phosphines), hexacoordinate complexes are formed. This is more favorable for the C−C activation products. Our calculations show that the activation reaction proceeds via complexes with a pentacoordinated rhodium atom. Thus, in the presence of donor ligands, the activation reaction is inhibited.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sundermann et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: