The relative rates of the migratory insertions of alkenes into the M-X bonds of (PMe(3))(2)Rh(eta(2)-CH(2) horizontal lineCHR)(X) (R = H, Me; X = CH(3), NH(2), OH) have been analyzed by DFT calculations. These insertions are computed to form metallacycles containing a metal-carbon bond and either an agostic interaction, a dative metal-nitrogen bond, or a dative metal-oxygen bond. The computed barriers for migratory insertion into the metal-hydroxo and metal-amido bonds are lower than those for insertion into the metal-methyl bond. Application of Bader's atoms-in-molecules analysis and natural localized molecular orbital analysis implies that the barriers for alkene insertion into M-X bonds are controlled by the degree of M-X bonding in the transition state, which correlates with the degree of M-X bonding in the initial product. The Rh-X bond orders in the transition states for migratory insertion of ethylene into the Rh-NH(2) and Rh-OH bonds in (PH(3))(2)Rh(eta(2)-C(2)H(4))(NH(2)) and (PH(3))(2)Rh(eta(2)-C(2)H(4))(OH) are much larger than that in the transition state for insertion into the Rh-C bond of (PH(3))(2)Rh(eta(2)-C(2)H(4))(CH(3)). The free energy barriers for 1,2- and 2,1-insertions of propene into the rhodium complexes were also calculated, and the barrier for 1,2-insertion was found to be lower than that for 2,1-insertion. Most striking, the DeltaDeltaG(double dagger) values for 1,2- versus 2,1-insertion of propene into these rhodium complexes were calculated to increase in the order X = CH(3) < NH(2) < OH. The increasing stability of the 1,2-insertion product with increasing polarity of the C-X bonds parallels the relative stabilities of linear versus branched alkanes, amines, and alcohols.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tye et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: