Copper-catalyzed trifluoromethylation of unactivated olefins

Article abstract of DOI:10.1002/anie.201104053

Activating the inactive: A copper-catalyzed allylic trifluoromethylation of unactivated terminal olefins proceeds under mild conditions to produce linear allylic trifluoromethylated products with high E/Z selectivity (see scheme). The reaction can be applied to a range of substrates bearing numerous functional groups. Furthermore, the reaction is scalable and amenable to a benchtop setup. Copyright

Full text of DOI:10.1002/anie.201104053

Communications
DOI: 10.1002/anie.201104053
Trifluoromethylation
Copper-Catalyzed Trifluoromethylation of Unactivated Olefins**
Andrew T. Parsons and Stephen L. Buchwald*
The inclusion of fluorinated functional groups in small
molecules has had a profound impact on the pharmaceutical,
material, and agrochemical industries.[1,2] In particular, the
trifluoromethyl (CF3) substituent has emerged as an impor-
tant functional group for the modulation of the physical
properties in new pharmaceutical candidates as it has
excellent metabolic stability and lipophilicity, and is elec-
tron-withdrawing in nature.[3] A myriad of fluorinated bio-
Scheme 1. CuI-catalyzed oxidative trifluoromethylation of olefins.
logically active pharmaceutical compounds have been iden-
tified,[4] with an estimated 20% of drugs on the market
containing fluorine.[1] On this basis, there has been a recent
surge in the number of reports describing the formation of
but also require harsh reaction conditions, superstoichiomet-
ric quantities of transition metal promoters, and toxic or
expensive reagents.[17] An additional disadvantage of the
reported methods is the required use of pre-functionalized
starting materials such as allyl bromides or fluorosulfones.
We sought to develop a direct trifluoromethylation of
unactivated olefins as a more convenient method to access 2.
We hypothesized that this transformation might be achieved
using a copper-based strategy involving the generation of an
allylic radical and a subsequent CF3· transfer (Scheme 2,
Path A).[18] Alternatively, if reagent 1 could be used as an
electrophilic CF3· equivalent, 2 may be generated through an
atom transfer radical addition type pathway (Scheme 2,
Path B).[19] Finally, an electrophilic trifluoromethylation pro-
ceeding via a cationic intermediate may also be viable
(Scheme 2, Path C).
À
À
carbon trifluoromethyl (C CF3) bonds, thus demonstrating
the continuing need for the development of efficient methods
to incorporate these groups.
À
Early research into C CF3 bond formation primarily
focused on the exploration of nucleophilic and radical sources
of the CF3 group.[5] These efforts resulted in the development
of many trifluoromethylation reactions, including nucleo-
philic addition to carbonyl electrophiles,[6,7] halotrifluorome-
thylation of olefins,[8] enolate addition to the CF3 radical,[9]
and formation of aryl CF3 bonds.[10,11] While less extensively
À
explored, the use of electrophilic trifluoromethylating
reagents enabled the trifluoromethylation of a range of
nucleophiles.[12,13] In particular, the development of hyper-
valent iodine based trifluoromethylating reagents by Togni
and co-workers has significantly broadened the scope of
electrophilic trifluoromethylation methods.[14] Herein, we
report our efforts in developing a new catalytic allylic
trifluoromethylation of terminal olefins using the Togni
electrophilic trifluoromethylating reagent 1 (Scheme 1).[15]
Currently, only a limited number of methods are available
to construct allylic CF3 bonds from olefins. Research in this
area has typically focused on perfluoroalkylations using
iodonium salts, of which the trifluoromethyl variant is
unstable and not synthetically viable.[16] The few methods
that describe the preparation of molecules containing allylic
CF3 functional groups (e.g., 2) are not only limited in scope,
Scheme 2. Plausible allylic trifluoromethylation mechanisms: allylic
oxidation (Path A) and radical trifluoromethylation (a), atom transfer
radical addition (Path B) and oxidation/elimination (b), electrophilic
trifluoromethylation (Path C) and elimination (c).
[*] Dr. A. T. Parsons, Prof. Dr. S. L. Buchwald
Department of Chemistry, Room 18-490
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139 (USA)
We examined the ability of various CuI/II salts to catalyze
the trifluoromethylation of 4-phenyl-1-butene using electro-
philic trifluoromethylating reagents.[12] Our most promising
result was obtained using reagent 1 and CuCl as a catalyst to
provide the corresponding linear allylic trifluoromethylation
product 2a in good yield and high E/Z selectivity (Scheme 3).
We found the use of 1 to be convenient as it is easily prepared
from inexpensive and recyclable starting materials in three
steps that do not require chromatography.[14d] Mass spectral
analysis indicated that the desired product 2a was accom-
panied by chlorinated and other mono- and bis(trifluorome-
E-mail: sbuchwal@mit.edu
[**] We thank the National Institutes of Health (GM46059) for financial
support of this project and for a postdoctoral fellowship to A.T.P.
(F32GM093532). The Varian 300 MHz and Bruker 400 MHz NMR
spectrometers used in this work were supported by grants from the
National Science Foundation (ACHE-9808061 and DBI-9729592)
and the National Institutes of Health (1S10RR13886-01), respec-
tively.
Supporting information for this article is available on the WWW
under http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.201104053.
9120
ꢀ 2011 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 9120 –9123

Interestingly, the E/Z ratio varied substantially depending on
the identity of the alcoholic solvent examined (Table 1,
entries 5–9). Methanol provided the best yield and E/Z ratio
of the conditions studied (Table 1, entry 5). An additional
increase in the alkene/1 ratio to 1.25:1.0 provided more
consistent results and marginally higher yields (Table 1,
entry 6).
Scheme 3. CuCl-catalyzed trifluoromethylation of 4-phenyl-1-butene.
We next examined the scope of this reaction using our
optimized protocol (Table 2). The mild reaction conditions
employed allowed for the trifluoromethylation of molecules
containing a range of functional groups, including unpro-
tected alcohols, protected amines, esters, amides, and alkyl
bromides. Terminal epoxide containing substrates required
the use of a catalyst with lower Lewis acidity in order to avoid
nucleophilic ring-opening by methanol; thus copper(I) thio-
thylated) side products, which complicated purification.
Unfortunately, conducting the reaction at 08C only sup-
pressed the formation of side products to a minimal extent.
With promising results obtained in our preliminary
studies, we continued our efforts toward improving the
efficiency of this reaction. Noting that the major side products
contained two trifluoromethyl groups, we surmised that
suppression of the bis(trifluoromethylation) may be accom-
plished by the use of an excess of olefin. Thus, we evaluated
various CuI/II catalysts in the trifluoromethylation of 4-phenyl-
1-butene using an altered reaction stoichiometry of alkene/1
of 1.05:1 (Table 1). Gratifyingly, the use of an excess of olefin
reduced the amount of bis(trifluoromethylated) side products
to approximately 5%, independent of the identity of the CuI
catalyst employed. The yields of these transformations were
moderately lower than when 1 was used in excess, presumably
because of the Lewis acid catalyzed decomposition of 1.[20]
The modestly superior results obtained with [(MeCN)4Cu]PF6
prompted us to continue optimization using this copper
source. We found that reactions carried out in a range of
solvents yielded a significant amount of desired product 2a.
Table 2: Scope of the CuI-catalyzed trifluoromethylation of terminal
olefins with 1.[a]
Entry Product
Yield [%][b] E/Z[c]
1
2
2b[d]
2c[e]
54
67
97:3
97:3
3
2d[e]
69
95:5
4
5
2e
2 f
72
67
94:6
97:3
Table 1: Selected optimization studies for the CuI-catalyzed trifluoro-
methylation of 4-phenyl-1-butene with 1.[a]
6
7
2g[f]
2h
70
78
93:7
96:4
8
2i
2j
2k
79
75
73
95:5
94:6
94:6
Entry CuI Source
Solvent Conv. [%][b] Yield [%][b] E/Z[c]
9
1
2
3
CuCl
CuTC
MeOH
MeOH
MeOH
CH2Cl2
100
100
93
63
68
61
0
68
71
63
43
50
52
0
96:4
97:3
86:14
–
98:2
98:2
96:4
95:5
83:17
90:10
–
10
[Cu(OTf)]2PhH
Cu(OTf)2
[(MeCN)4Cu]PF6 MeOH
[(MeCN)4Cu]PF6 MeOH
[(MeCN)4Cu]PF6 EtOH
[(MeCN)4Cu]PF6 iPrOH
[(MeCN)4Cu]PF6 tBuOH 100
[(MeCN)4Cu]PF6 Me2CO 100
[(MeCN)4Cu]PF6 MeCN
[(MeCN)4Cu]PF6 C6H6
[(MeCN)4Cu]PF6 CH2Cl2
4[d]
5
81
11
12
13
2l[e]
2m
2n[e]
72
75
80
97:3
100
100
100
100
6[d,e]
7
89:11
95:5
8
9
10
11
12
13
24
100
100
27
57
89:11
90:10
[a] Reaction conditions: alkene (1.25 equiv), 1 (1.0 equiv), CuI
[a] Reaction conditions: alkene (0.205 mmol, 1.05 equiv), 1 (0.20 mmol,
1.0 equiv), CuI (0.030 mmol, 0.15 equiv) in MeOH (1.0 mL) at 08C for
15 min, then RT for 23 h. [b] Determined by 19F NMR spectroscopy using
(trifluoromethoxy)benzene as an internal standard. [c] Determined by
19F NMR spectroscopy. [d] 1.25 equiv of the alkene was used. [e] Average
yield of isolated product of two independent runs on a 1.0 mmol scale
(relative to 1). CuTC=copper(I) thiophene-2-carboxylate. Entry in bold
represents the optimized reaction conditions.
(0.15 equiv) in MeOH (0.5 mL/0.10 mmol 1) at 08C for 15 min, then RT
for 23 h. Reactions were carried out on a 0.50–1.00 mmol scale of 1.
[b] Average yield of isolated product of two independent runs. 19F NMR
spectroscopy showed that products contained approximately ꢀ5%
other mono- and bis(trifluoromethylated) side products. [c] Determined
by 19F NMR spectroscopy. [d] 1.0 equiv of the alkene was used.
[e] [(MeCN)4Cu]PF6 (0.25 equiv) was used. [f] CuTC (0.15 equiv) was
used.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 9120 –9123
ꢀ 2011 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org
9121

Communications
phene-2-carboxylate (CuTC) was used for 2-(hex-5-en-1-
yl)oxirane (Table 2, entry 6). In most cases, the E/Z selectivity
was excellent, with an average ratio of 94:6 for the substrates
examined. We found branched terminal olefins and 1,2-
disubstituted olefins to be unsuitable substrates because of
the formation of complex regioisomeric product mixtures.
Furthermore, cyclic substrates furnished only trace amounts
of product.[21]
Scheme 4. Examination of a diallylmalonate cyclization radical clock.
À
5-exo-trig cyclization that proceeds after the C CF3 bond-
In order to demonstrate the robustness of this trans-
formation, we conducted the trifluoromethylation of 4-
phenyl-1-butene on a 10 mmol scale [Eq. (1)]. All reagents
were weighed on the benchtop, open to the air, and the setup
was conducted using standard Schlenk techniques. The results
from this experiment indicate that the method described
herein can be set up on the benchtop without an accompany-
ing sacrifice of the reaction efficiency.
forming event. It is unclear if the trifluoromethylation results
in the generation a free-radical intermediate (5a) or an
alkylcopper species (5b). After cyclization, termination
occurs by a second trifluoromethylation or elimination to
generate products 4a or 4b, respectively. Of note, we found
that conducting the trifluoromethylation reaction in the
presence of selected radical scavengers provided variable
results that did not aid our understanding of the reaction
mechanism.[22] Further analysis will be necessary to elucidate
the nature of this transformation more accurately.
In conclusion, we have developed an allylic trifluorome-
thylation of unactivated terminal olefins. This method allows
À
for the preparation of allyl CF3 products that were previously
difficult to access in a straightforward and efficient manner.
The mild conditions for this transformation enable the
trifluoromethylation of a range of substrates that bear
numerous functional groups. A preliminary analysis suggests
that the reaction mechanism is complex and multiple path-
Similar to the proposed mechanism of the Kharasch–
Sosnovsky CuI/II-catalyzed oxidation of olefins to generate
allyl esters,[18] we wanted to probe whether this transforma-
tion proceeded via an allylic radical intermediate. We were
intrigued, however, by the high selectivity for the linear
trifluoromethylated products obtained by using the method
described herein. This result is in contrast to most reports of
Kharasch–Sosnovsky-type oxidative alkene functionaliza-
tions, and therefore suggests a possible divergence from this
mechanistic pathway. In order to determine whether this
transformation did indeed proceed via a free allylic radical,
we conducted the trifluoromethylation of cyclopropane
radical clock 3a [Eq. (2)]. Subjecting this substrate to our
standard conditions provided the trifluoromethylated cyclo-
propane 2o in moderate yield; this result suggests that a
mechanism involving the formation of an allylic radical is
unlikely. However, we note that other trifluoromethylated
side products were present but unidentifiable (ꢀ 3% yield
each), thus precluding us from conclusively stating that no
ring-opened product was formed.
The results with cyclopropane 3a prompted us to consider
an alternative mechanistic possibility, wherein the trifluoro-
methylation event occurs through an atom transfer radical
addition type pathway by homolytic cleavage of the alkene.[19]
Data to support or refute this mechanism was sought by
examining diethyl diallylmalonate as a cyclization radical
clock (Scheme 4). The major products obtained under these
conditions were cyclopentane derivatives 4a and 4b. The
presence of these species is explained by the occurrence of a
À
ways leading to the desired allyl CF3 products may be
operating.[23] Future efforts will focus on examining the
mechanistic details more extensively on the way to expanding
the generality and increasing the efficiency of this trans-
formation.
Experimental Section
(E)-(5,5,5-trifluoropent-2-en-1-yl)benzene (2a) on a 10.0 mmol scale:
A 100 mL Schlenk flask was flame-dried under high vacuum and
backfilled with argon. On the benchtop, open to air, [(MeCN)4Cu]PF6
(0.559 g, 1.50 mmol, 0.15 equiv) and 1 (3.16 g, 10.0 mmol, 1.0 equiv)
were weighed and added to the Schlenk flask. The flask was then
sealed with a rubber septum, evacuated, and backfilled with argon
(this process was repeated a total of three times) and cooled to 08C in
an ice–water bath. The flask was charged successively with anhydrous
methanol (50 mL) and 4-phenyl-1-butene (1.65 g, 1.88 mL,
12.50 mmol, 1.25 equiv) by syringe (a bright green-blue color was
observed upon solvent addition). The reaction mixture was stirred for
30 min at 08C, after which the ice-water bath was removed and
stirring was continued for an additional 23 h. The reaction mixture
was partitioned between CH2Cl2 (75 mL) and sat. aq. NaHCO3
(75 mL). The aqueous layer was separated and extracted with
CH2Cl2 (2 ꢀ 50 mL). The combined organic extracts were washed
with saturated aqueous NaHCO3 (75 mL), dried over Na2SO4, and
concentrated in vacuo. The resultant oil was purified by column
chromatography (pentane) on silica gel to afford 2a (1.503 g, 75%) as
a clear colorless oil (E/Z = 97:3) contaminated with 2.5 mol% of a
9122
www.angewandte.org
ꢀ 2011 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 9120 –9123

bis(trifluoromethylated)
side
product.
[13] L. M. Yagupolskii, N. V. Kondratenko, G. N. Timofeeva, J. Org.
Chem. 1984, 20, 103.
3.5 mol% of
a mono(trifluoromethylated)
side product with a 19F NMR chemical shift
value consistent with the vinyl trifluoromethy-
[14] a) I. Kieltsch, P. Eisenberger, A. Togni, Angew. Chem. 2007, 119,
768; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 754; b) P. Eisenberger, I.
Kieltsch, N. Armanino, A. Togni, Chem. Commun. 2008, 1575;
c) I. Kieltsch, P. Eisenberger, K. Stanek, A. Togni, Chimia 2008,
62, 260; d) K. Stanek, R. Koller, A. Togni, J. Org. Chem. 2008, 73,
7678; e) R. Koller, Q. Huchet, P. Battaglia, J. M. Welch, A.
Togni, Chem. Commun. 2009, 5993; f) R. Koller, K. Stanek, D.
Stolz, R. Aardoom, K. Niedermann, A. Togni, Angew. Chem.
2009, 121, 4396; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 4332; g) K.
Niedermann, N. Frꢁh, E. Vinogradova, M. S. Wiehn, A. Moreno,
A. Togni, Angew. Chem. 2011, 123, 5; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
2011, 50, 1059; h) R. Shimizu, H. Egami, T. Nagi, J. Chae, Y.
Hamashima, M. Sodeoka, Tetrahedron Lett. 2010, 51, 5947; i) T.
Liu, Q. Shen, Org. Lett. 2011, 13, 2342; j) A. E. Allen, D. W. C.
MacMillan, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 4260.
[15] P. Eisenberger, S. Gischig, A. Togni, Chem. Eur. J. 2006, 12, 2579.
[16] a) T. Umemoto, Y. Kuriu, S.-i. Nakayama, Tetrahedron Lett.
1982, 23, 1169; b) T. Umemoto, Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 1757; c) T.
Umemoto, Y. Kuriu, H. Shuyama, O. Miyano, S.-I. Nakayama,
J. Fluorine Chem. 1982, 20, 695.
[17] a) Y. Kobayashi, K. Yamamoto, I. Kumadaki, Tetrahedron Lett.
1979, 20, 4071; b) J.-X. Duan, Q.-Y. Chen, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin
Trans. 1 1994, 725; c) T. Konno, T. Takehana, M. Mishima, T.
Ishihara, J. Org. Chem. 2006, 71, 3545; d) J. Kim, J. M. Shreeve,
Org. Biomol. Chem. 2004, 2, 2728.
lation product (6) was also identified.
Note: Reactions carried out on a 0.50–1.0 mmol scale of 1
(Table 2) were set up in a glove box under a nitrogen atmosphere.
Received: June 13, 2011
Published online: August 25, 2011
Keywords: copper · fluorine · homogeneous catalysis · radicals ·
.
trifluoromethylation
[1] K. Mꢁller, C. Faeh, F. Diederich, Science 2007, 317, 1881.
[2] T. Hiyama, Fluorine Compounds: Chemistry and Applications,
Springer, Berlin, 2000.
[3] T. Yamazaki, T. Taguchi, I. Ojima in Fluorine in Medicinal
Chemistry and Chemical Biology (Ed.: I. Ojima), Wiley-Black-
well, Chichester, 2009, p. 3.
[4] J. T. Welch, Tetrahedron 1987, 43, 3123.
[5] W. R. Dolbier, Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 1557.
[6] For reviews, see: a) G. K. S. Prakash, A. K. Yudin, Chem. Rev.
1997, 97, 757; b) J.-A. Ma, D. Cahard, Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, PR1.
[7] a) T. Billard, S. Bruns, B. R. Langlois, Org. Lett. 2000, 2, 2101;
b) T. Billard, Bernard R. Langlois, G. Blond, Eur. J. Org. Chem.
2001, 1467; c) C. Pooput, W. R. Dolbier, M. Mꢂdebielle, J. Org.
Chem. 2006, 71, 3564.
[8] a) N. Kamigata, T. Fukushima, M. Yoshida, J. Chem. Soc. Chem.
Commun. 1989, 1559; b) N. Kamigata, T. Fukushima, Y.
Terakawa, M. Yoshida, H. Sawada, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans.
1 1991, 627; c) J. Ignatowska, W. Dmowski, J. Fluorine Chem.
2007, 128, 997.
[18] a) M. S. Kharasch, G. Sosnovsky, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1958, 80,
756; b) M. S. Kharasch, G. Sosnovsky, N. C. Yang, J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1959, 81, 5819; For a review see: c) D. J. Rawlinson, G.
Sosnovsky, Synthesis 1972, 1.
[19] a) T. Davies, R. N. Haszeldine, A. E. Tipping, J. Chem. Soc.
Perkin Trans. 1 1980, 927; For a review, see b) W. T. Eckenhoff, T.
Pintauer, Catal. Rev. 2010, 52, 1.
[20] S. Fantasia, J. M. Welch, A. Togni, J. Org. Chem. 2010, 75, 1779.
[21] Subjecting cis-cyclodecene to the standard reaction conditions
(Table 2) furnished only trace amounts of the expected allylic
CF3-substituted product despite complete consumption of 1, as
determined by 19F NMR spectroscopy. Use of hex-4-en-1-ol
produced a complex mixture of mono- and bis(trifluoromethy-
lated) products in approximately 30% combined yield.
[22] We conducted the trifluoromethylation of 4-phenyl-1-butene
under the standard reaction conditions (Table 2) in the presence
of varying amounts of several radical scavengers: galvinoxyl
(0.30 equiv), 1,4-dinitrobenzene (0.30 equiv), hydroquinone
(0.30 equiv), 4-methoxyphenol (1.0 equiv), and butylated
hydroxytoluene (1.0 equiv). The conversion of 1 and the yield
of 2a varied considerably depending on the identity of the
scavenger that was employed.
[9] a) D. Cantacuzꢃne, R. Dorme, Tetrahedron Lett. 1975, 16, 2031;
b) K. Iseki, T. Nagai, Y. Kobayashi, Tetrahedron Lett. 1993, 34,
2169; c) K. Miura, M. Taniguchi, K. Nozaki, K. Oshima, K.
Utimoto, Tetrahedron Lett. 1990, 31, 6391; d) Y. Itoh, K. Mikami,
Org. Lett. 2005, 7, 649; e) D. A. Nagib, M. E. Scott, D. W. C.
MacMillan, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 10875.
[10] For a recent review, see: O. A. Tomashenko, V. V. Grushin,
Chem. Rev. 2011, 111, 4475.
[11] a) V. V. Grushin, W. J. Marshall, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128,
12644; b) N. D. Ball, J. W. Kampf, M. S. Sanford, J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2010, 132, 2878; c) X. Wang, L. Truesdale, J.-Q. Yu, J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 3648; d) E. J. Cho, T. D. Senecal, T. Kinzel,
Y. Zhang, D. A. Watson, S. L. Buchwald, Science 2010, 328, 1679;
e) L. Chu, F.-L. Qing, Org. Lett. 2010, 12, 5060; f) T. D. Senecal,
A. T. Parsons, S. L. Buchwald, J. Org. Chem. 2011, 76, 1174; g) T.
Knauber, F. Arikan, G.-V. Rçschenthaler, L. J. Gooßen, Chem.
Eur. J. 2011, 17, 2689.
[23] a) F. M. Beringer, E. J. Geering, I. Kuntz, M. Mausner, J. Phys.
Chem. 1956, 60, 141; b) M. C. Caserio, D. L. Glusker, J. D.
Roberts, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1959, 81, 336; c) T. P. Lockhart,
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983, 105, 1940.
[12] For a recent review, see: N. Shibata, A. Matsnev, D. Cahard,
Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2010, 6, 65.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 9120 –9123
ꢀ 2011 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org
9123