Mechanism of the Stille Reaction
J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 120, No. 35, 1998 8979
Scheme 3
one would expect the process to be independent of the
concentration and nature of the stannane, against what is
observed.
Thus, the two plausible mechanisms initiated by a dissociation
of L (whether fast or slow) are inconsistent with the data in the
literature and must be discarded.
Other obscure points reveal that further studies are needed.
In effect, it is not clear that the trans-to-cis isomerizations in
[PdR2L2] complexes are fast. On the contrary, the theoretical
paper usually cited to support this assumption states literally,
“T-shaped trans-[PdR2L], arising from dissociation of L in
[PdR2L2], will encounter a substantial barrier to polytopal
rearrangement to cis-[PdR2L]”.5b Actually, the isomerizations
studied in isolated [PdR2L2] complexes are slow5c or extremely
slow.14 Thus, intermediates of the type trans-[PdR1R2L2] (A)
might be expected to be quite long-lived, but they have never
been detected under catalytic conditions.5g This warns, in our
opinion, against a cursory acceptance of an I-for-R2 substitution
with preserVation of the configuration at the palladium.
Finally, substitution reactions in palladium involving initial
L dissociation are a rarity.15 Since associative models are
perfectly compatible with an eventual neutral ligand dissociation,
they should not be discarded a priori on the basis of the observed
L retarding effect. On the contrary, measurements of activation
parameters, not available so far, seem convenient in order to
better decide which mechanism is more consistent with the
observations.
In the same paper where they proposed the formation of a
three-coordinate intermediate as the general mechanism for the
transmetalation with organotin compounds, Louie and Hartwig
remarked, “Moreover, dissociative ligand substitution typically
occurs by initial loss of the covalent ligand that is being replaced.
It is striking that transmetalation reactions involving organotin
reagents are dissociative and even more unusual that it is a dative
spectator ligand that undergoes dissociation”.10 These puzzling
questions disappear in the light of an associative ligand
substitution of L (which is not an spectator ligand anymore) as
the rate-determining step. Thus, we have considered the
alternative cycle proposed in Scheme 4, which in our opinion
solves all the inconsistencies just analyzed. Differently from
the proposals in the literature, the transmetalation involves an
associative L-for-R2 substitution, which gives directly a cis R1/
R2 rather than a trans R1/R2 arrangement in IV, and therefrom
the cis T-shaped V, from which the coupled product will
immediately be eliminated.
Also, the transmetalation step (framed in Scheme 1) is still
not well understood. Although there is no evidence, it is
generally thought to preserve the trans configuration of complex
II to give a trans-[PdR1R2L2] complex (A), as it occurs in the
case of main-group organometallic transmetalations.9 Since the
reductive elimination of R1-R2 is well established to occur on
cis derivatives,5 a fast isomerization of A to B needs to be
postulated.
Attempts at gaining insight into the transmetalation step have
shown that the addition of neutral ligand L retards the
coupling,1b,10,11 and this has been taken as an indication that L
dissociation from II is a key step in the transmetalation. Thus,
the mechanism in Scheme 3, involving a dissociatiVe X-for-R2
substitution (X ) I, Br) with preservation of the stereochemistry
at the Pd, has been proposed for vinyl- and arylstannanes. It is
assumed that II cannot undergo transmetalation, probably
because it is too electron rich, and a ligand dissociation occurs
previous to the transmetalation; it is the more coordinatively
unsaturated species C (most likely having a coordinated solvent
molecule, S) that is involved in the electrophilic substitution at
tin.
This proposal is qualitatiVely consistent with the observa-
tions: The existence of a (fast) preequilibrium explains the
retarding effect of L, whereas the (slow) transmetalation on C
explains the first-order dependence on the stannane. However,
it is stated in the literature1b that the equilibrium constant for
the dissociation of II in Scheme 3 (for R1 ) C6H5, L ) AsPh3,
THF at 323 K) is Kdis ) (k′1/k′-1) ) 8.6 × 10-4 mol L-1. From
this we calculate 40% dissociation in the experimental condi-
tions,12 a value impossible to accept.13 Thus this mechanism
is inconsistent with the quantitative results.
Our proposal is consistent with the observations in the
literature and is supported by a detailed kinetic study of the
Stille coupling between 1-iodo-3,5-dichlorotrifluorobenzene (C6-
Cl2F3I) and vinyl- or 4-methoxyphenyltributyltin, catalyzed by
trans-[Pd(C6Cl2F3)I(AsPh3)2]. Furthermore, it offers a plausible
picture of the kind of bonding interactions leading from the
reagents to the products (see later) and eliminates the need for
unlikely fast trans-to-cis isomerization after the transmetalation
step.
Alternatively, if the L dependence was attributed to the
dissociation step in Scheme 3 being slow and rate determining,
(5) Studies on reductive eliminations: (a) Ozawa, F.; Fujimori, M.;
Yamamoto, T.; Yamamoto, A. Organometallics 1986, 5, 2144-2149. (b)
Tatsumi, K.; Hoffmann, R.; Yamamoto, A.; Stille, J. K. Bull. Chem. Soc.
Jpn. 1981, 54, 1857-1867. (c) Ozawa, F.; Ito, T.; Nakamura, Y.;
Yamamoto, A. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 1981, 54, 1868-1880. (d) Moravski,
A.; Stille, J. K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1981, 103, 4182-4186. (e) Loar, M. K.;
Stille, J. K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1981, 103, 4174-4181. (f) Ozawa, F.; Ito,
T.; Yamamoto, A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1980, 102, 6457-6463. (g) Gillie,
A.; Stille, J. K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1980, 102, 4933-4941. (h) Komiya, S.;
Albright, T. A.; Hoffmann, R.; Kochi, J. K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1976, 98,
7255-7265.
(12) Reference 1b, p 10, gives a dissociation constant at 50 °C in THF:
Kdis ) 8.6 × 10-4 mol L-1. The catalyst concentration was [Pd]total ) 3.2
(6) Labadie, J. W.; Stille, J. K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983, 105, 6129-
6137.
× 10-3 mol L-1
: The concentration of three-coordinate trans-[PdPhI-
(AsPh3)] can be calculated from Kdis ) [PdPhI(AsPh3)][AsPh3]/[PdPhI-
(AsPh3)2] ) x2/[Pd]total - x. This gives [PdPhI(AsPh3)] ) x ) 1.3 × 10-3
mol L-1, corresponding to 40% dissociation.
(7) For transmetalation with platinum complexes, see: (a) Eaborn, C.;
Odell, K. J.; Pidcock, A. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1978, 357-368. (b)
Eaborn, C.; Odell, K. J.; Pidcock, A. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1979,
758-760. (c) Deacon, G. B.; Gatehouse, B. M.; Nelson-Reed, K. T. J.
Organomet. Chem. 1989, 359, 267-283.
(8) Casado, A. L.; Espinet, P. Organometallics 1998, 17, 954-959.
(9) Parshall, G. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1974, 96, 2360-2366.
(10) Louie, J.; Hartwig J. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 11598-11599.
(11) Farina, V.; Krishnan, B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1991, 113, 9585-9595.
(13) For instance, for complexes cis-[PdR2L2] (R ) C6F5, C6F3Cl2; L )
tetrahydrothiophene, an easily dissociable ligand), we have estimated the
dissociation of L as 0.13% for a solution 8 × 10-4 mol L-1 in the complex.
See ref 14b.
(14) (a) Minniti, D. Inorg. Chem. 1994, 33, 2631-2634. (b) Casado, A.
L.; Casares, J. A.; Espinet, P. Organometallics 1997, 16, 5730-5736.
(15) Cross, R. J. AdV. Inorg. Chem. 1989, 34, 219-292.