An electrochemical study of frustrated lewis pairs: A metal-free route to hydrogen oxidation

Article abstract of DOI:10.1021/ja500477g

Frustrated Lewis pairs have found many applications in the heterolytic activation of H₂ and subsequent hydrogenation of small molecules through delivery of the resulting proton and hydride equivalents. Herein, we describe how H₂ can be preactivated using classical frustrated Lewis pair chemistry and combined with in situ nonaqueous electrochemical oxidation of the resulting borohydride. Our approach allows hydrogen to be cleanly converted into two protons and two electrons in situ, and reduces the potential (the required energetic driving force) for nonaqueous H₂ oxidation by 610 mV (117.7 kJ mol^-1). This significant energy reduction opens routes to the development of nonaqueous hydrogen energy technology.

Full text of DOI:10.1021/ja500477g

Article
pubs.acs.org/JACS
An Electrochemical Study of Frustrated Lewis Pairs: A Metal-Free
Route to Hydrogen Oxidation
Elliot J. Lawrence,† Vasily S. Oganesyan,† David L. Hughes,† Andrew E. Ashley,*,‡
and Gregory G. Wildgoose*,†
†School of Chemistry, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
‡Department of Chemistry, Imperial College London, South Kensington, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom
S
* Supporting Information
ABSTRACT: Frustrated Lewis pairs have found many
applications in the heterolytic activation of H2 and subsequent
hydrogenation of small molecules through delivery of the
resulting proton and hydride equivalents. Herein, we describe
how H2 can be preactivated using classical frustrated Lewis pair
chemistry and combined with in situ nonaqueous electro-
chemical oxidation of the resulting borohydride. Our approach
allows hydrogen to be cleanly converted into two protons and
two electrons in situ, and reduces the potential (the required
energetic driving force) for nonaqueous H2 oxidation by 610
mV (117.7 kJ mol−1). This significant energy reduction opens
routes to the development of nonaqueous hydrogen energy
technology.
role of hydrogenases. Rauchfuss and co-workers took an
INTRODUCTION
■
alternative approach to H2 oxidation electrocatalysis, using
unsaturated iridium complexes with redox-active noninnocent
amidophenolate ligands.18,19 They were able to induce Lewis
acidity on the metal center through a ligand-centered oxidation,
allowing the formation of a H2 adduct that is susceptible to
deprotonation by a weakly coordinating base. All of these
approaches still use metal-containing catalysts, and there are a
greater number of literature reports that focus on biomimetic
electrocatalysts for the reverse process, H2 production via
proton reduction, than for H2 oxidation.9 The greatest
challenges in developing H2 energy technologies still remain,
to find systems that are catalytic in terms of hydrogen bond
cleavage, that operate at low overpotentials (i.e., that are
“electrocatalytic”), that are metal-free and/or employ inex-
pensive, readily available electrode materials such as carbon,
and that are facile and economic to synthesize.
In this Article, we build on our recent studies of the
electrochemistry of electron-deficient Lewis acid boranes,20−22
and introduce a new approach that combines classical frustrated
Lewis pair (FLP) chemistry to “pre-activate” H2 with
nonaqueous electrochemical oxidation of the resulting borohy-
dride. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that
FLPs have been directly used for the electrochemical activation
of small molecules. Aqueous-phase borohydride ([BH4]−)
electrooxidation has been reviewed extensively because of its
potential for fuel cell applications;3−5 however, in this respect,
H2 is attractive as a “clean” fuel source, leading to a vast body of
literature concerned with fuel cell technology.1,2 In the absence
of an appropriate electrocatalyst (defined as a system that
reduces the overpotential, the required energetic driving force,
and/or increases the rate of electron transfer), the nonaqueous
oxidation of H2 to liberate two protons and two electrons is
slow, requiring large overpotentials (often in excess of 1000 mV
vs Cp2Fe0/+ at carbon electrodes) and producing broad, ill-
defined oxidation waves. Conventional, predominantly aque-
ous, fuel cells surmount this problem by using precious metals
such as Pt as a catalytic electrode material.3−5 Because Pt
electrodes are often used for both half-reactions of the fuel cell
(H2 oxidation and O2 reduction), the high costs of these metals
and limited availability present significant problems for large-
scale use. Of course, this is true for a multitude of catalyzed
processes, and, as a result, huge efforts have been made to find
inexpensive and abundant alternatives to precious metals.6
The majority of molecular electrocatalysts for H2 oxidation
or production have taken inspiration from the hydrogenase
enzymes that are found in nature.7−9 The active site of
hydrogenase enzymes features a coordinatively unsaturated
[FeFe] or [NiFe] metal center with pendant Lewis base groups
in close proximity. These enzymes are able to overcome the
high energy cost that is required to heterolytically cleave H2
(318.0 kJ mol−1 in MeCN)10,11 by virtue of the strong hydricity
of the metal center and the strong proton acceptor ability of the
pendant base. Several groups, notably DuBois and co-workers,
have reported bioinspired molecular electrocatalysts for H2
oxidation using nickel12−14 and iron15−17 metals that mimic the
Received: January 16, 2014
Published: April 2, 2014
© 2014 American Chemical Society
6031
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja500477g | J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 6031−6036

Journal of the American Chemical Society
Article
the field has so far been devoid of nonaqueous applications.
Since the pioneering work of Stephan’s group in 2006,23
research involving FLP chemistry has grown rapidly. The
“unquenched” reactivity, arising from a suitable combination of
a sterically bulky Lewis acid and a Lewis base, has been shown
to heterolytically cleave H2 resulting in a hydride adduct of the
Lewis acid and a protonated Lewis base.6,23−28 Boranes are
typically, but not exclusively, employed as the Lewis acid
component.26,27,29−35 Following the heterolytic cleavage of H2,
using an FLP system, the majority of literature reports focus on
delivering the resulting hydride via heterolytic B−H bond
cleavage to activate/reduce other small molecules such as
imines, enamines, nitriles,36,37 and even CO2.38,39 The only
prior report that indirectly combines electrochemistry with FLP
systems, that we are aware of, is by Stephan and co-workers,
who used mono- and bis-ferrocenylphosphines in an FLP
system, to observe the quasi-reversible oxidation of the
ferrocene redox “label” and the reduction of the proton on
the phosphonium moiety.40
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
■
Initial Electrochemical Studies. An authentic sample of
[nBu4N][HB(C6F5)3] ([nBu4N]1), containing the hydridic
component (1−) of the FLP H2-cleavage step, was prepared
and its structure established by X-ray crystallography and
spectroscopic methods (see Supporting Information sections
S1.2, S2, and S3). The authentic borohydride sample allowed a
detailed electrochemical study into the redox behavior of 1− to
be undertaken. The direct voltammetric oxidation of [nBu4N]1,
at varying concentrations, was performed at a macrodisk glassy
carbon electrode (GCE) using cyclic voltammetry (Figures 2
and 3).
We begin by exploring the electrochemical properties of
29
t
Stephan’s paradigm Bu3P/B(C6F5)3 FLP system and seek to
use this approach to demonstrate the conversion of H2 into two
protons and two electrons (Figure 1a). After elucidating the
Figure 2. Cyclic voltammograms of a 4.9 mM solution of [nBu4N]1 in
CH2Cl2 recorded at voltage scan rates of 1000 mV s−1 over the full
scan range on a glassy carbon electrode (GCE). Solid lines are
○
experimental data; “ ” are best fit simulated data. The oxidation wave
corresponds to the oxidation of 1−, while the reduction wave
corresponds to reduction of regenerated B(C6F5)3.21,22
A weakly coordinating electrolyte system comprising 0.05 M
[nBu4N][B(C6F5)4] in CH2Cl2 was selected for all electro-
chemical studies to minimize the decomposition of B-
(C6F5)3.20,41 On sweeping the potential anodically at a scan
Figure 1. Proposed electrooxidation of the H2-activated tBu3P/
B(C6F5)3 frustrated Lewis pair (FLP) results in (a) the generation of
two protons and two electrons, and (b) an effective diminution in the
potential required for H2 oxidation by 610 mV (117.7 kJ mol−1) in
CH2Cl2.
kinetic and mechanistic electrochemical behavior of this
classical FLP system, we report that our approach reduces
the oxidation potential of H2 in nonaqueous solvents by 610
mV (117.7 kJ mol−1) on carbon electrodes, a significant and
large reduction in the required energetic driving force (Figure
1b). This new route to H2 oxidation is metal-free, operating on
inexpensive, ubiquitous, carbon electrodes. While this initial
finding proffers a significant enabling step toward economically
viable energy technologies, we can also identify some areas for
improvement in this pioneering study of a classical FLP system.
Fortunately, FLPs are versatile and inherently tunable systems,
with evermore-improved H2-activating FLPs reported apace. It
is envisaged that the introduction of our innovative electro-
chemical frustrated Lewis pair approach, herein, will open new
avenues to researchers for further development in small
molecule activation and clean energy technologies.
Figure 3. Cyclic voltammograms of a 4.9 mM solution of [nBu4N]1 in
CH2Cl2 recorded at voltage scan rates of 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500,
750, and 1000 mV s−1 on a glassy carbon electrode (GCE). Solid lines
○
are experimental data; “ ” are best fit simulated data (see text).
6032
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja500477g | J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 6031−6036

Journal of the American Chemical Society
Article
n
rate of 100 mV s−1, an oxidative wave was initially observed
with a peak potential of (Ep) +0.88 0.01 V vs Cp2Fe0/+, and
no corresponding (quasi-reversible) reduction peak was
observed upon reversing the scan direction. However, a small
irreversible reduction wave was observed at −1.59 V vs
Cp2Fe0/+ (Figure 2) that we assign to the reduction of some
catalytically regenerated parent Lewis acid, B(C6F5)3, from our
previous studies.21,22 The small size of this reduction wave is
likely as a result of subsequent protonolysis of the parent
B(C6F5)3 (see below). The observed voltammetry can be
explained by the mechanism proposed in Figure 4, which is
control experiment using an authentic H•-donor, Bu3SnH,
which was mixed with 4-bromobenzophenone in equimolar
quantities in a sealed NMR tube and allowed to react under UV
1
light. H NMR characterization of the products revealed the
formation of benzophenone via the radical dehalogenation of 4-
bromobenzophenone by H•. However, when [nBu4N]1 is
stoichiometrically oxidized in the presence of [NO][PF6] and
an equimolar amount of 4-bromobenzophenone, the latter is
recovered in quantitative yield by NMR; no benzophenone is
detected in the reaction mixture. Furthermore, effervescence is
observed when 1 and a stoichiometric amount of Jutzi’s strong
oxonium acid, [H(OEt2)2][B(C6F5)4],42 are combined in
CH2Cl2. H2 gas is once again detected in the reaction
headspace, supporting the proposed proton-mediated H2
evolution mechanism. Note that in either case 11B NMR
characterization of the product mixture reveals a number of
peaks in the range −0.5 to −7.0 ppm consistent with our
previous characterization of the complex products of B-
•−
(C6F5)3
decomposition (such as [(C6F5)3BCl]−,
[(C6F5)2BCl2]−, [(C6F5)2BHCl]−, and [(C6F5)3BH]− and F−
abstraction products from the [PF6]− anion in the former case;
see ref 21 for details).21
Conclusively, when a sample of deuterated [nBu4N][DB-
(C6F5)3] ([nBu4N]1D) is subjected to bulk electrolytic
oxidation at a glassy carbon electrode in the presence of
tBu3P, an intense triplet resonance is seen in the 31P{1H} NMR
spectrum at 59.6 ppm (J = 65.8 Hz), which corresponds to
[tBu3P−D]+. Because the only possible source of D+ is from the
oxidation of 1D−, this strongly supports the proposed
mechanism in Figure 4, wherein B−D/B−H bond cleavage in
Figure 4. Proposed mechanism and associated thermodynamic and
kinetic parameters used in simulation of the voltammetric oxidation of
1− at a GCE (standard reduction potential, E0/V; standard electron
transfer rate constant, k0/cm s−1; chemical rate constant, k/s−1).
supported by a good fit between simulation and experiment
(Figures 2 and 3) and detailed chemical and density functional
theory (DFT) studies described below. The globally optimized
parameters describing the oxidation of 1− were obtained from
digital simulation of the CVs and are given in Table 1, while the
parameters describing the reduction of B(C6F5)3 are taken from
our previous work.21
1
D• results in the formation of a deuteron/proton, respectively.
Further support for the proposed mechanism is obtained from
DFT computational calculations (Supporting Information
section S5). The calculated bond energies for parent 1− and
1• reveal that bond scission is significantly enhanced upon
electrooxidation.
Stoichiometric Reactions. When [nBu4N]1 is subjected to
chemical oxidation using a stoichiometric amount of the single-
electron oxidant [NO][PF6] in CH2Cl2, effervescence is
observed. Analysis of the reaction mixture headspace using
gas chromatography with a thermal conductivity detector (GC-
TCD) revealed that H2 gas was evolved.
In Situ Electrochemical Studies during the Heterolytic
Cleavage of H2 by a Frustrated Lewis Pair. With a detailed
understanding of the redox chemistry of 1−, we proceeded
t
toward in situ electrochemical studies of the archetypal Bu3P/
B(C6F5)3 system during the FLP cleavage of H2. The kinetics of
heterolytic H2 cleavage by this FLP system are much slower
than the rate of electrooxidation when monitored using 11B,
19F, and 31P NMR spectroscopy (see Supporting Information
Figures S8−10). The heterolytic cleavage of H2 by the FLP was
complete after 12 h, but even within 1 h evidence of H2
cleavage by the FLP could be observed in the NMR spectra.
Two mechanisms for H2 production are possible: (i) the
reaction of electrogenerated H+ with the parent 1−, as we
propose (Figure 4), or (ii) by a reaction between transient
[(C6F5)3BH]• (1•) intermediates acting as H• donors. To
exclude the possibility of the latter pathway, we conducted a
Table 1. Globally Optimized Best-Fit Thermodynamic and Kinetic Parameters Obtained from Digital Simulation of
Voltammetric Data for [nBu4N]1 at a GCE, Following the Mechanism Proposed in Figure 4
redox parameters
redox process
E0/V vs Cp2Fe0/+
k0/10−3 cm s−1
13
1.3 0.3
charge transfer coefficient
·
1− ⇌ 1 + e−
+1.13 0.05
2
0.74 0.1
a
a
a
·−
B(C6F )3 ⇌ B(C6F )3 + e−
−1.79 0.01
0.50 0.05
5
5
chemical step
rate constant
k1 > 1 × 1013 s−1
·
·−
1 → B(C6F ) + H+
5 3
a
k2 > 6.1 s−1
·−
B(C6F ) → decomposition products
1− + H+ → B(C6F ) + H2
5 3
k3 = (1.50 0.25) × 107 M−1 s−1
5 3
a
Parameters taken from our previous studies of B(C6F5)3.21
6033
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja500477g | J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 6031−6036

Journal of the American Chemical Society
Article
•−
Figure 5 shows the resulting voltammetry recorded after a 1:1
solution of tBu3P:B(C6F5)3 (containing ferrocene as an internal
reference) was sparged with H2 gas for 1 h.
the B(C6F5)3 intermediate produced upon oxidation under-
goes significant side reactions with the solvent, and any
B(C6F5)3 generated is susceptible to protonolysis by the H+,
which is liberated alongside the formation of B(C6F5)3•−. Note
that “buffering” the electrolyte using excess phosphine Lewis
base to prevent unwanted protonolysis reactions is not possible
in this system as the Lewis base is itself redox active at
potentials similar to that of 1−.
Given that this is the first study of the electrochemistry of
FLPs toward H2 activation, and choosing the archetypal
B(C6F5)3/tBu3P seems a logical starting point for these
investigations, it is perhaps not surprising that this system is
not optimal. However, these findings are important as they
demonstrate that the electrochemical FLP approach has
genuine promise for metal-free H2 oxidation at significantly
lower oxidative potentials, with obvious synthetic and energy
applications. This study also allows us to immediately identify
areas for future improvement in electrochemical FLP systems:
(i) Competing protonation of 1− regenerates H2 and reduces
the overall efficiency of the process (although the H2 may be
subsequently recycled in future systems), but protonolysis also
leads to unwanted decomposition of the Lewis acidic borane.
Lewis acids that are resistant to protonolysis are required. (ii)
t
•−
Figure 5. Cyclic voltammogram of a 5 mM solution of Bu3P and
The B(C6F5)3 radical anion intermediate generated during
B(C6F5)3 in CH2Cl2 solution, at a GCE, after being exposed to a 1 h
sparge with H2 (black line). Addition of authentic [nBu4N]1 (dotted
line) to the sample confirms that the observed oxidation wave
corresponds to the H2-activated product. The cyclic voltammograms
were taken in the presence of a Cp2Fe internal reference at a voltage
scan rate of 100 mV s−1.
oxidation of the parent borohydride is susceptible to reaction
with the solvent, again preventing the system from being
recycled. Steric and/or electronic protection of any radical
anion intermediates is required. (iii) The kinetics of H2 splitting
by the FLP are rate determining versus rapid electron transfer
in this classical FLP system. Fortunately, improved combina-
tions of novel Lewis acids and bases continue to develop rapidly
in conventional FLP chemistry. The inherent “tuneability” of
FLP properties thus offers enormous potential for the further
development of electrochemical FLP systems, and promising
candidates that may overcome all of these obstacles are
currently under investigation.
Reassuringly, we observe the characteristic oxidation wave of
1−, which is identical to that of [nBu4N]1. Confirmation of this
was shown by a proportional increase in the oxidation current
at +0.88 V vs Cp2Fe0/+ when the solution was spiked with an
authentic sample of [nBu4N]1 (Figure 5). H2 is itself oxidized
sluggishly, with a broad, ill-defined wave at ca. +1.49 V vs
Cp2Fe0/+ in CH2Cl2 on a glassy carbon electrode (see
Supporting Information Figure S13). Hence, by employing
combined electrochemical FLP approach, the oxidation of H2
now occurs with a ca. 610 mV (117.7 kJ mol−1) diminution in
the required driving force. Note that [tBu3PH]+ is not redox
active at the potentials studied. However, some oxidation of
CONCLUSIONS
■
We have characterized the complex nonaqueous redox
chemistry of 1− for the first time. By combining FLP
preactivation of H2 with electrochemical oxidation of the
resultant Lewis acid hydride, we have reduced the potential that
is required for nonaqueous H2 oxidation by 610 mV (117.7 kJ
mol−1) at readily available carbon electrodes. This is a
significant energy reduction without the use of metals (precious
or otherwise), which opens hitherto unexplored routes to the
development of economically viable H2-based energy tech-
nologies and H2-activation chemistries. We have also
demonstrated that our electrochemical FLP approach is
possible with in situ H2 activation using a classical FLP system.
Our work has identified specific areas for future development to
further extend the scope and possibilities of this electrochemical
FLP chemistry. Patent protection for the intellectual property
described herein has been sought.
t
unreacted Bu3P is apparent as a small oxidation wave at +0.44
V vs Cp2Fe0/+
.
To investigate whether this electrochemical FLP system can
be recycled, that is, is catalytic in the Lewis acid, the following
experiments were performed: A CH2Cl2 solution containing a 5
mM 1:1 mixture of B(C6F5)3:tBu3P and 0.1 M [nBu4N][B-
(C6F5)4] electrolyte was sealed under an atmosphere of H2 for
12 h at room temperature to ensure that the FLP heterolytic
cleavage of H2 was complete. This solution was then subjected
to bulk electrolysis using a glassy carbon felt electrode until all
of the 1− had been oxidized. The solution was again sealed
under H2 with the addition of another equimolar amount of
tBu3P, for a further 12 h, and the electrolysis was repeated.
Disappointingly, upon a second and third electrolytic cycle, no
evidence for the regeneration of the parent borane, B(C6F5),
and subsequent reformation of 1− could be observed,
consistent with the 11B NMR characterization of the products
of chemical oxidation of 1− and the fact that we only observe a
small reductive peak corresponding to B(C6F5)3 upon cyclic
voltammetric oxidation of [nBu4N]1, described above. Clearly,
EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
■
General Considerations. Commercially available reagents were
purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Gillingham, UK) and used without
further purification unless stated otherwise. All synthetic reactions and
manipulations were performed under a rigorously dry N2 atmosphere
(BOC Gases) using standard Schlenk-line techniques on a dual
manifold vacuum/inert gas line or either a Saffron or an MBraun
glovebox. All glassware was flame-dried under vacuum before use.
6034
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja500477g | J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 6031−6036

Journal of the American Chemical Society
Article
Anhydrous solvents were dried via distillation over appropriate drying
agents. All solvents were sparged with nitrogen gas to remove any
trace of dissolved oxygen and stored in ampules over activated 4 Å
molecular sieves. nBu4NCl and NOPF6 were purchased from Alfa
(2) Turner, J.; Sverdrup, G.; Mann, M. K.; Maness, P.-C.; Kroposki,
B.; Ghirardi, M.; Evans, R. J.; Blake, D. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008, 32,
379−407.
(3) Santos, D. M. F.; Sequeira, C. A. C. Renewable Sustainable Energy
Rev. 2011, 15, 3980−4001.
n
Aesar. Bu4NCl was recrystallized from acetone prior to use. H2 gas
(99.995%) was purchased from BOC gases and passed through drying
columns containing P4O10 and 4 Å molecular sieves. D2 gas was
generated in situ from the reaction of Na with degassed D2O (99.9%,
Cambridge Isotope Laboratories Inc.); it was passed through a drying
column containing P4O10. Deuterated NMR solvents ([D6]DMSO,
99.9%; CDCl3, 99.8%; C6D6, 99.5%) were purchased from Cambridge
Isotope Laboratories Inc. and were dried over P4O10, degassed using a
triple freeze−pump−thaw cycle, and stored over activated 4 Å
molecular sieves. B(C6F5)3,43 [nBu4N][B(C6F5)4],44,45 [H(OEt2)2][B-
(C6F5)4],42 and tBu3P46 were prepared according to literature
methods. [TMP−D][D−B(C6F5)3] was prepared using an adapted
literature method,47 which is detailed in the Supporting Information.
Synthesis and characterization of compounds [nBu4N]1 and [nBu4N]
1D are detailed in the Supporting Information.
NMR spectra were recorded using either a Bruker Avance DPX-300
MHz or a Bruker Avance DPX-500 MHz spectrometer. Chemical
shifts are reported in ppm and are referenced relative to appropriate
standards: 19F (CFCl3); 11B (Et2O·BF3); 31P (85% H3PO4). IR spectra
were recorded using a PerkinElmer μ-ATR Spectrum II spectrometer.
Sample headspace analysis was performed using a PerkinElmer Clarus
580 gas chromatograph coupled with a thermal conductivity detector
(GC-TCD). Retention time for H2 gas was calibrated using a standard
sample. Electrochemical measurements were performed in CH2Cl2
containing 0.05−0.10 M [nBu4N][B(C6F5)4] as a weakly coordinating
electrolyte salt using either a PGSTAT 302N or a PGSTAT 30
computer-controlled potentiostat (Autolab, Utrecht, The Nether-
lands) in an inert atmosphere three-electrode cell that was designed in-
house (see the Supporting Information for further details). Digital
simulation of voltammetric data was performed using the commercially
available DigiElch Pro software package (v.7). Diffraction intensities of
[nBu4N]1 were recorded using a AFC12 Kappa 3 CCD diffractometer
(at the EPSRC UK National Crystallography Service) equipped with
Mo Kα radiation and confocal mirrors monochromator (for further
details, see the Supporting Information).
(4) Merino-Jimen
J. Power Sources 2012, 219, 339−357.
́ ́
ez, I.; Ponce de Leon, C.; Shah, A. A.; Walsh, F. C.
(5) Ma, J.; Choudhury, N. A.; Sahai, Y. Renewable Sustainable Energy
Rev. 2010, 14, 183−199.
(6) Catalysis Without Precious Metals; Bullock, R. M., Ed.; Wiley: New
York, 2010.
(7) Vignais, P. M.; Billoud, B. Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 4206−4272.
(8) Tard, C.; Pickett, C. J. Chem. Rev. 2009, 109, 2245−2274.
(9) DuBois, D. L.; Bullock, R. M. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2011, 2011,
1017−1027.
(10) Curtis, C. J.; Miedaner, A.; Ellis, W. W.; DuBois, D. L. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 1918−1925.
(11) Wayner, D. D.; Parker, V. D. Acc. Chem. Res. 1993, 26, 287−294.
(12) Yang, J. Y.; Bullock, R. M.; Shaw, W. J.; Twamley, B.; Fraze, K.;
Rakowski DuBois, M.; DuBois, D. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131,
5935−5945.
(13) Goff, A. L.; Artero, V.; Jousselme, B.; Tran, P. D.; Guillet, N.;
Metaye, R.; Fihri, A.; Palacin, S.; Fontecave, M. Science 2009, 326,
́ ́
1384−1387.
(14) Yang, J. Y.; Chen, S.; Dougherty, W. G.; Kassel, W. S.; Bullock,
R. M.; DuBois, D. L.; Raugei, S.; Rousseau, R.; Dupuis, M.; Rakowski
DuBois, M. Chem. Commun. 2010, 46, 8618−8620.
(15) Camara, J. M.; Rauchfuss, T. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133,
8098−8101.
(16) Camara, J. M.; Rauchfuss, T. B. Nat. Chem. 2012, 4, 26−30.
(17) Liu, T.; DuBois, D. L.; Bullock, R. M. Nat. Chem. 2013, 5, 228−
233.
(18) Ringenberg, M. R.; Kokatam, S. L.; Heiden, Z. M.; Rauchfuss, T.
B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 788−789.
(19) Ringenberg, M. R.; Nilges, M. J.; Rauchfuss, T. B.; Wilson, S. R.
Organometallics 2010, 29, 1956−1965.
(20) Ashley, A. E.; Herrington, T. J.; Wildgoose, G. G.; Zaher, H.;
Thompson, A. L.; Rees, N. H.; Kraemer, T.; O’Hare, D. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2011, 133, 14727−14740.
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
* Supporting Information
(21) Lawrence, E. J.; Oganesyan, V. S.; Wildgoose, G. G.; Ashley, A.
E. Dalton Trans. 2013, 42, 782−789.
(22) Cummings, S. A.; Iimura, M.; Harlan, C. J.; Kwaan, R. J.; Trieu,
I. V.; Norton, J. R.; Bridgewater, B. M.; Jaekle, F.; Sundararaman, A.;
Tilset, M. Organometallics 2006, 25, 1565−1568.
(23) Welch, G. C.; Juan, R. R. S.; Masuda, J. D.; Stephan, D. W.
Science 2006, 314, 1124−1126.
(24) Stephan, D. W. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2012, 10, 5740−5746.
(25) Stephan, D. W. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2008, 6, 1535.
(26) Stephan, D. W. Dalton Trans. 2009, 3129.
(27) Stephan, D. W.; Erker, G. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 46−
76.
(28) Erker, G. Dalton Trans. 2011, 40, 7475−7483.
(29) Welch, G. C.; Stephan, D. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129,
1880−1881.
(30) Jiang, C.; Blacque, O.; Fox, T.; Berke, H. Dalton Trans. 2011, 40,
1091.
(31) Lu, Z.; Cheng, Z.; Chen, Z.; Weng, L.; Li, Z. H.; Wang, H.
Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 12227−12231.
(32) Herrington, T. J.; Thom, A. J. W.; White, A. J. P.; Ashley, A. E.
Dalton Trans. 2012, 41, 9019.
■
S
Synthetic details, NMR characterization, X-ray crystallography,
electrochemistry, and DFT calculations. This material is
available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
■
Corresponding Authors
a.ashley@imperial.ac.uk
g.wildgoose@uea.ac.uk
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
■
The research leading to these results has received funding from
the European Research Council under the ERC Grant
Agreement no. 307061 (ERC-St-G-PiHOMER). We thank
the EPSRC UK National Crystallography Service at the
University of Southampton for the collection of the crystallo-
graphic data for [nBu4N]1.48 G.G.W. and A.E.A. thank the
Royal Society for financial support via University Research
Fellowships. E.J.L. thanks the EPSRC for financial support via a
DTA studentship under the grant code EP/J500409.
(33) Voss, T.; Mahdi, T.; Otten, E.; Frohlich, R.; Kehr, G.; Stephan,
̈
D. W.; Erker, G. Organometallics 2012, 31, 2367−2378.
(34) Binding, S. C.; Zaher, H.; Chadwick, F. M.; O’Hare, D. Dalton
Trans. 2012, 41, 9061−9066.
(35) Travis, A. L.; Binding, S. C.; Zaher, H.; Arnold, T. A. Q.; Buffet,
J.-C.; O’Hare, D. Dalton Trans. 2013, 42, 2431.
(36) Chase, P. A.; Jurca, T.; Stephan, D. W. Chem. Commun. 2008,
1701.
REFERENCES
(1) Dunn, S. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2002, 27, 235−264.
■
6035
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja500477g | J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 6031−6036

Journal of the American Chemical Society
Article
(37) Stephan, D. W.; Greenberg, S.; Graham, T. W.; Chase, P.;
Hastie, J. J.; Geier, S. J.; Farrell, J. M.; Brown, C. C.; Heiden, Z. M.;
Welch, G. C.; Ullrich, M. Inorg. Chem. 2011, 50, 12338−12348.
(38) Tran, S. D.; Tronic, T. A.; Kaminsky, W.; Michael Heinekey, D.;
Mayer, J. M. Inorg. Chim. Acta 2011, 369, 126−132.
(39) Ashley, A. E.; Thompson, A. L.; O’Hare, D. Angew. Chem., Int.
Ed. 2009, 48, 9839−9843.
(40) Ramos, A.; Lough, A. J.; Stephan, D. W. Chem. Commun. 2009,
1118−1120.
(41) Geiger, W. E.; Barrier
̀
e, F. Acc. Chem. Res. 2010, 43, 1030−1039.
(42) Jutzi, P.; Muller, C.; Stammler, A.; Stammler, H.-G. Organo-
̈
metallics 2000, 19, 1442−1444.
(43) Lancaster, S. J. ChemSpider Synthetic Pages 2003, DOI: 10.1039/
SP215.
(44) Martin, E.; Hughes, D. L.; Lancaster, S. J. Inorg. Chim. Acta
2010, 363, 275−278.
(45) LeSuer, R. J.; Buttolph, C.; Geiger, W. E. Anal. Chem. 2004, 76,
6395−6401.
(46) Srivastava, R. C. J. Chem. Res., Synop. 1985, 330−331.
(47) Sumerin, V.; Schulz, F.; Nieger, M.; Leskela, M.; Repo, T.;
̈
Rieger, B. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 6001−6003.
(48) Gale, P. A.; Coles, S. Chem. Sci. 2012, 683.
6036
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja500477g | J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 6031−6036