Density functional calculations are used to revisit the reaction mechanism of water oxidation catalyzed by the Cp*Ir(bpy)Cl (Cp* = pentamethylcyclopentadienyl, bpy = 2,2′-bipyridine) complex. One of the experimentally suggested active species [(bpy)Ir(H 2 O) 2 (HCOO)Cl] + can undergo very facile intramolecular formate oxidation at higher oxidation state even though it can also promote O–O bond formation. Therefore, [(bpy)Ir(H 2 O) 2 (CH 3 COO)Cl] + is here proposed to be the most likely precatalyst as acetate was also experimentally observed after Cp* oxidation. O–O bond formation takes place at the high formal oxidation states of Ir VI and Ir VII, rather than that of Ir V, as suggested before. Three sequential proton-coupled electron transfer oxidations result in the formation of a highly oxidized intermediate, [(bpy)Ir VI O(OH)(CH 3 COO)Cl] + . From this formal Ir VI intermediate, O–O bond formation takes place by a water attack on the Ir VI =O moiety assisted by the acetate ligand, which abstracts a proton during the attack. The barrier was calculated to be very facile, being 14.7 kcal/mol, in good agreement with experimental kinetic results, which gave a barrier of around 18 kcal/mol. The attack leads to the formation of an Ir IV -peroxide intermediate, which undergoes proton-coupled electron transfer to form an Ir III –O 2 intermediate. Finally, O 2 can be released, coupled with the binding of another water molecule, to regenerate the catalytic Ir III species. Water oxidation at Ir VII has a slightly higher barrier, but it may also contribute to the activity. However, water oxidation at Ir V has a significantly higher barrier. Acetate oxidation by C–H activation was found to have a much higher barrier, suggesting that [(bpy)Ir(H 2 O) 2 (CH 3 COO)Cl] + is a remarkably stable catalyst. The possible catalytic species [(bpy-dc)Ir III (H 2 O) 3 Cl] 2+ without acetate coordination has also been considered and also gave a reasonably feasible barrier for the water oxidation. O–O bond formation at Ir VII is slightly preferred compared with at Ir VI, which is different from the case with acetate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liao et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: