The N,N,O‐cobalt(II), [2,3‐{C4H8C(NAr)}:5,6‐{C4H8C(O)}C5HN]CoCl2 (Ar = 2,6‐(CHPh2)2‐4‐MeC6H2 Co1, 2,6‐(CHPh2)2‐4‐EtC6H2 Co2, 2,6‐(CHPh2)2‐4‐ClC6H2 Co3, 2,6‐(CHPh2)2‐4‐FC6H2 Co4) and N,N,O‐iron(II) complexes, [2,3‐{C4H8C(NAr)}:5,6‐{C4H8C(O)}C5HN]FeCl2 (Ar = 2,6‐(CHPh2)2‐4‐MeC6H2 Fe1, 2,6‐(CHPh2)2‐4‐EtC6H2 Fe2, 2,6‐(CHPh2)2‐4‐ClC6H2 Fe3, 2,6‐(CHPh2)2‐4‐FC6H2 Fe4), each containing one sterically enhanced but electronically modifiable N‐2,6‐dibenzhydryl‐4‐R2‐phenyl group, have been prepared by a one‐pot template approach using α,α′‐dioxo‐2,3:5,6‐bis(pentamethylene)pyridine, the corresponding aniline along with the respective cobalt or iron salt in acetic acid. Distorted square pyramidal geometries are a feature of the molecular structures of Co1–Co4. Upon activation with MAO or MMAO, Co1–Co4 show good activities (up to 2.2 × 105 g mol−1(Co) h−1) affording short chain oligomers (C4–C30) with good α‐olefin selectivity. By contrast, Fe1–Fe4, in the presence of MMAO, displayed moderate activities (up 10.9 × 104 g(PE) mol−1(Fe) h−1) for ethylene polymerization forming low‐molecular‐weight linear polymers (up to 13.0 kg mol−1) incorporating saturated n‐propyl and i‐butyl chain ends. For both cobalt and iron, the precatalysts incorporating the more electron withdrawing 4‐R2‐substituents [Cl (Co3/Fe3), F (Co4/Fe4)] deliver the best catalytic activities, while with cobalt, these types of substituents additionally broaden the oligomeric distribution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bariashir et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: