Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The synthesis and characterization of two neutrally charged Ni(II) ethylene polymerization catalysts, 2-tert-butyl-6-((2,6-(3,5-dimethylphenyl)phenylimino)methyl)phenolatonickel(II) methyl trimethylphosphine ((CH3)FI-Ni) and 2-tert-butyl-6-((2,6-(3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)phenylimino)methyl)phenolatonickel(II) methyl trimethylphosphine ((CF3)FI-Ni) are reported. In the presence of a Ni(COD)2 cocatalyst, these catalysts produce markedly different polyethylenes: densely branched oligomers with Mw = 1.4 × 103 g mol–1 for (CH3)FI-Ni vs lightly branched polyethylenes with Mw = 92 × 103 g mol–1 for (CF3)FI-Ni and with ∼6.5× the polymerization activity and with much greater performance thermal stability. HOESY 2D 19F,1H NMR spectra of a model Ni-ethyl compound, 2-tert-butyl-6-((2,6-(3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)phenylimino)methyl)phenolatonickel(II) ethyl 2,4-lutidine ((CF3)FI-Ni-Et), indicate non-negligible Cβ–Hβ···F3C through-space dipolar interactions, and molecular modeling reveals that Cβ–Hβ···F(C) distances can be as small as ∼2.61 Å during the polymerization process. Furthermore, there is no structural or spectroscopic evidence for fluorocarbon inductive effects on the structure, bonding, and reactivity of these complexes, and a catalyst with CF3 introduced β to the imino N produces only low-Mw oligomers with low activity. These results argue that weak (ligand)C–F···H–C(polymer) interactions can significantly influence the chain transfer characteristics of these catalysts.
Weberski et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: