首页> 外文期刊>American Chemical Society >Why Did Incorporation of Acrylonitrile to a Linear Polyethylene Become Possible? Comparison of Phosphine−Sulfonate Ligand with Diphosphine and Imine−Phenolate Ligands in the Pd-Catalyzed Ethylene/Acrylonitrile Copolymerization
【24h】

Why Did Incorporation of Acrylonitrile to a Linear Polyethylene Become Possible? Comparison of Phosphine−Sulfonate Ligand with Diphosphine and Imine−Phenolate Ligands in the Pd-Catalyzed Ethylene/Acrylonitrile Copolymerization

机译:为什么将丙烯腈掺入线性聚乙烯成为可能? Pd催化乙烯/丙烯腈共聚中膦磺酸盐配体与二膦和亚胺膦酸酯配体的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Palladium-catalyzed coordination−insertion copolymerization of ethylene with acrylonitrile (AN) proceeded only by using phosphine−sulfonate (P−SO3) as a ligand among the neutral and anionic ligands we examined, those are phosphine−sulfonate (P−SO3), diphosphine (P−P), and imine−phenolate (N−O). In order to answer a question that is unique for P−SO3, theoretical and experimental studies were carried out for the three catalyst systems. By comparing P−SO3 and P−P, it was elucidated that (i) the π-acrylonitrile complex [(L−L′)PdPr(π-AN)] is less stable than the corresponding σ-complex [(L−L′)PdPr(σ-AN)] in both the phosphine−sulfonato complex (L−L′ = P−SO3) and the diphosphine complex (L−L′ = P−P) and (ii) the energetic difference between the π-complex and the σ-complex is smaller in the P−SO3 complexes than in the P−P complexes. Thus, the energies of the transition states for both AN insertion and its subsequent ethylene insertion relative to the most stable species [(L−L′)PdPr(σ-AN)] are lower for P−SO3 than for P−P. The results nicely explain the difference between these two types of ligands. That is, ethylene insertion subsequent to AN insertion was detected for P−SO3, while aggregate formation was reported for cationic [(L−L)Pd(CHCNCH2CH3)] complex. Aggregate formation with the cationic complex can be considered as a result of the retarded ethylene insertion to [(L−L)Pd(CHCNCH2CH3)]. In contrast, theoretical comparison between P−SO3 and N−O did not show a significant energetic difference in both AN insertion and its subsequent ethylene insertion, implying that ethylene/AN copolymerization might be possible. However, our experiment using [(N−O)PdMe(lutidine)] complex revealed that β-hydride elimination terminated the ethylene oligomerization and, more importantly, that the resulting Pd−H species lead to formation of free N−OH and Pd(0) particles. The β-hydride elimination process was further studied theoretically to clarify the difference between the two anionic ligands, P−SO3 and N−O.
机译:乙烯与丙烯腈(AN)的钯催化配位插入共聚仅通过使用膦磺酸盐(P-SO 3 )作为我们研究的中性和阴离子配体中的配体进行,这些是膦-磺酸盐(P-SO 3 ),二膦(P-P)和亚胺酚盐(N-O)。为了回答P-SO 3 特有的问题,对三种催化剂体系进行了理论和实验研究。通过比较P-SO 3 和P-P,可以看出(i)π-丙烯腈络合物[(L-L')PdPr(π-AN)]的稳定性较差。膦-磺酸盐络合物(L-L'= P-SO 3 )和二膦络合物(L-L)中的σ络合物[(L-L')PdPr(σ-AN)] ′= P-P),(ii)在P-SO 3 络合物中,π络合物和σ络合物之间的能量差小于P-P络合物。因此,对于P-SO 3 而不是P-P。结果很好地解释了这两种类型的配体之间的差异。即,检测到P-SO 3 在AN插入后乙烯插入,而阳离子[[L-L] Pd(CHCNCH 2 CH < sub> 3 )]复杂。阳离子配合物形成的聚集体可以认为是乙烯向[(L-L)Pd(CHCNCH 2 CH 3 )]插入的延迟的结果。相反,P-SO 3 和N-O之间的理论比较在AN插入及其随后的乙烯插入中均未显示出明显的能量差异,这暗示乙烯/ AN共聚是可能的。然而,我们使用[(N-O)PdMe(lutidine)]配合物的实验表明,β-氢化物的消除终止了乙烯的低聚反应,更重要的是,所得的Pd-H物质导致形成游离的N-OH和Pd( 0)粒子。从理论上进一步研究了β-氢化物的消除过程,以阐明两种阴离子配体P-SO 3 和N-O之间的差异。

著录项

  • 来源
    《American Chemical Society》 |2010年第45期|p.16030-16042|共13页
  • 作者单位

    Department of Chemistry and Biotechnology, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan, and Fukui Institute for Fundamental Chemistry, Kyoto University, Takano-Nishishiraki-cho, 34-4, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8103, Japan;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《工程索引》(EI);美国《生物学医学文摘》(MEDLINE);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 00:50:24

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号