Combinatorial catalysis with bimetallic complexes: Robust and efficient catalysts for atom-transfer radical additions

Article abstract of DOI:10.1002/anie.200353084

A radical alternative? Two highly efficient catalysts for atom-transfer radical additions were discovered in a parallel screening of bimetallic complexes. Both catalysts contain a rhodium-centered fragment (blue), which is connected through three chloro bridges to a ruthenium-centered fragment (red).

Full text of DOI:10.1002/anie.200353084

Communications
library is generally more difficult. Nevertheless, it would be
interesting to include such compounds in screening assays
because of the potentially superior performance of polynu-
clear catalysts as compared to their mononuclear counter-
parts.[2] In this context, complexes of the late transition metals
in which two different metal fragments are connected by halo
bridges appear to be of interest. The synthesis of such
complexes is easy and can even be performed in situ.[3,4]
Furthermore, due to the high intrinsic reactivity of halo-
bridged complexes, they are well suited as catalyst precursors.
In the following, we describe two chloro-bridged Rh–Ru
complexes, which act as highly active catalyst precursors for
atom-transfer radical additions (ATRAs) of polyhalogenated
compounds to olefins (the “Kharasch reaction”). These
catalysts were discovered in a parallel screening of bimetallic
complexes.
Several transition-metal complexes are able to catalyze
the anti-Markovnikov addition of polyhalogenated com-
pounds to olefins.[5] Among these, RuII–phosphane complexes
play a dominant role. For a long time, [RuCl2(PPh3)3] was
considered to be the most active Ru-based ATRA catalyst,[5,6]
and a variety of synthetically useful reactions were devel-
oped.[7] A drawback of this system, however, is the high
catalyst loading (1–5%) and the harsh reaction conditions
required (T> 1008C). More recently, a number of new RuII
catalysts with superior performance were developed.[8–10] So
far, the pentamethylcyclopentadienyl (Cp*) complex
[Cp*RuCl(PPh3)2][9] and its dicarbollide analogues [(RR’S-
C2B9RH9)RuH(PPH3)2][10] show the highest activity, which
allows the Kharasch addition of CCl4 to styrene to be carried
out at ambient temperature.[9]
The ruthenium-catalyzed Kharasch reaction is believed to
proceed via a radical mechanism in the coordination sphere of
the metal complex.[5] For reactions with [RuCl2(PPh3)3], the
actual catalyst is presumably the fourteen-electron species
{RuCl2(PPh3)2}, which is generated by dissociation of PPh3.
This assumption is in agreement with the fact that the reaction
is inhibited by an excess of PPh3.[6] In a previous publication,
we have reported that the {RuCl2(PPh3)2} fragment can be
stabilized and solubilized using half-sandwich chloro com-
plexes as labile ligands.[11] The resulting complexes [LnM(m-
Cl)3RuCl(PPh3)2] (LnM = (arene)Ru, Cp*Ir, Cp*Rh) can be
obtained in quantitative yield by reaction of the dimeric
acetone adduct [(PPh3)2(CH3COCH3)Ru(m-Cl)3RuCl(PPh3)2]
(1) with chloro-bridged half-sandwich complexes (Scheme 1).
More recently, we have found that structurally related
complexes with chelating 1,4-bis(diphenylphosphanyl)butane
(dppb) or 1,4-bis(dicyclohexylphosphanyl)butane (dcypb)
ligands instead of the two PPh3 ligands can be synthesized
(also in quantitative yield) using the aqua complex
[(dppb)ClRu(m-Cl)2(m-OH2)RuCl(dppb)] (2) or the dinitro-
gen complex [(dcypb)(N2)Ru(m-Cl)3RuCl(dcypb)] (3) instead
of 1.[4]
Bimetallic Catalysts
Combinatorial Catalysis with Bimetallic
Complexes: Robust and Efficient Catalysts for
Atom-Transfer Radical Additions
Laurent Quebatte, Rosario Scopelliti, and Kay Severin*
Methods of combinatorial chemistry such as high-throughput
screenings are increasingly being employed for the discovery
and optimization of homogeneous transition-metal cata-
lysts.[1] So far, most efforts have focused on mononuclear
catalysts with ligands that are preferably built in a modular
fashion. The screening of bi- or oligometallic catalysts
represents a special challenge since the synthesis of a catalyst
[*] L. Quebatte, Dr. R. Scopelliti,+ Prof. K. Severin
Institut des Sciences et IngØnierie Chimiques
École Polytechnique FØdØrale de Lausanne
1015 Lausanne (Switzerland)
Fax: (+41)21-693-9305
E-mail: kay.severin@epfl.ch
[+] X-ray structural analysis.
The reactions depicted in Scheme 1 are general, fast, and
give rise to structurally defined products in quantitative
yields. Therefore, they are ideally suited to generate a library
of homo- and heterobimetallic complexes in a combinatorial
fashion. To investigate whether compounds of this type are
useful catalyst precursors for ATRA reactions, we have tested
[**] X-ray structural analysis.
1520
ꢀ 2004 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
DOI: 10.1002/anie.200353084
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 1520 –1524

Angewandte
Chemie
have employed the addition of CCl4 to styrene,
which was analyzed by gas chromatography
using an autosampler (Figure 1).
For reactions with the {RuCl2(PPh3)2} com-
plex 1, several of the in situ generated homo-
and heterobimetallic complexes display a sub-
stantial catalytic activity (Figure 1, red bars).
The highest activity is observed for reactions
with a mixture of 1 and the RhIII complex
[Cp*RhCl(m-Cl)]2 (Figure 1, entry 9a; a = red,
b = yellow, c = blue). The RhI complex
[{(CO)2Rh(m-Cl)}2], on the other hand, seems
to inhibit the reaction completely (entry 13a).
For mixtures containing the {RuCl2(dppb)}
complex 2 (yellow bars), consistently low con-
versions were observed (1–11%). This points
to an intrinsic advantage of two monodentate
PPh3 ligands as compared to a chelating dppb
Scheme 1. Synthesis of bimetallic complexes containing {RuCl2(PR3)2} fragments.
66 different complexes in a parallel fashion. Assuming that a
reaction similar to that depicted in Scheme 1 would occur
with other chloro-bridged complexes of the late transition
metals, we have prepared mixtures of 1, 2, or 3 with various
dimeric [{LnM(m-Cl)}2] complexes of RuII, RuIII, RuIV, RhI,
RhIII, IrI, IrIII, PdII, and PtII.[12] These reactions were carried
out simultaneously on a small scale and the resulting products
were immediately tested in a parallel fashion for catalytic
activity without purification.[13] As a benchmark reaction we
co-ligand. Similarly, reactions with the {RuCl2(dcypb)} com-
plex 3 gave low or moderate conversions with three notable
exceptions: for mixtures with the cationic complexes
[{(PEt3)2Pd(m-Cl)}2](BF4)2 (entry 18c) and [{(PEt3)2Pt(m-
Cl)}2](BF4)2 (entry 21c) conversions of 67% and 63% were
observed whereas a quantitative conversion was found for
mixtures with the RhI complex [{(tpc)Rh(m-Cl)}2] (entry 14c;
tpc = h4-tetraphenylcyclopentadienone).
In a second set of experiments, we have tested the
catalytic activity of all symmetrical complexes [{LnM(m-Cl)}2]
without the addition of the ruthenium complexes 1–3. None
of the complexes displayed any significant activity (conver-
sion < 1%). This indicates that the ruthenium–phosphane
fragments are responsible for catalysis. The overall activity,
however, is clearly modulated by the second metal fragment
{LnMCl}.
From the parallel screening, two promising catalyst
precursors emerged. The first is formed by reaction of 1
with [{Cp*RhCl(m-Cl)}2] and the second is formed by reaction
of 3 with [{(tpc)Rh(m-Cl)}2]. We have therefore repeated
these reactions on a preparative scale from which we were
able to isolate the heterometallic complexes [Cp*Rh(m-
Cl)3RuCl(PPh3)2] (4) and [{(tcp)Rh(m-Cl)3Ru(dcypb)}2(m-
N2)] (5) in good yield. Both compounds were characterized
by single-crystal X-ray analysis (Figures 2 and 3).[14]
The {Cp*Rh} fragment in 4 is coordinated through three
À
chloro-bridges to the Ru–phosphane fragment. The Ru Cl
bond length of the terminal chloro ligand is smaller than the
Figure 1. Parallel screening of catalyst activity using the addition of
CCl4 to styrene as a benchmark reaction. The catalysts were prepared
in situ my mixing complex 1 (red), 2 (yellow), or 3 (blue) with:
1) [{(C6H6)RuCl(m-Cl)}2], 2) [{(C6H5CO2Et)RuCl(m-Cl)}2], 3) [{(cymene)-
RuCl(m-Cl)}2], 4) [{(C6Me6)RuCl(m-Cl)}2], 5) [{(1,3,5-C6Et3H3)RuCl(m-
Cl)}2], 6) [{(1,3,5-C6H3iPr3)RuCl(m-Cl)}2], 7) [{(C10H16)RuCl(m-Cl)}2],
8) [{Cp*RuCl(m-Cl)}2], 9) [{Cp*RhCl(m-Cl)}2], 10) [{(ppy)2Rh(m-Cl)}2],
11) [{(allyl)2Rh(m-Cl)}2], 12) [{(cod)Rh(m-Cl)}2], 13) [{(CO)2Rh(m-Cl)}2],
14) [{(tpc)Rh(m-Cl)}2], 15) [{(cod)Ir(m-Cl)}2], 16) [{Cp*IrCl(m-Cl)}2],
17) [{(PEt3)PdCl(m-Cl)}2], 18) [{(PEt3)2Pd(m-Cl)}2](BF4)2,
19) [{(C9H12N)Pd(m-Cl)}2], 20) [{(allyl)Pd(m-Cl)}2], 21) [{(PEt3)2Pt(m-
Cl)}2](BF4)2, 22) [{(C11H14NO2)Pd(m-Cl)}2], 23) no additional complex.
Reaction conditions: styrene (1.4 mmol), CCl4 (2.0 mmol), first com-
plex (1, 2, or 3) (2.3 mmol), second complex (4.6 mmol), CHCl3
(600 mL), 608C. The conversion after 2 h is based on the consumption
of styrene as determined by GC. For the reactions 1, 10, and 21, some
precipitation could be observed during the reaction.
À
Ru Cl bond lengths found for the bridging chloro ligands. As
expected, the angle between the sterically demanding PPh3
groups is enlarged resulting in a distorted octahedral geom-
etry around the Ru atom. The plane defined by the Cp*
p ligand is almost parallel to that defined by the bridging
chloro ligands.
Similar to what was found for complex 4, the {(tcp)Rh}
fragment in 5 is coordinated through three chloro bridges to
the Ru–phosphane fragment (Figure 3). Consequently, the
Rh center exhibits a five-coordinate, electronically saturated
configuration. This is in agreement with the known tendency
of cyclopentadienone–rhodium complexes to form piano-
stool-type complexes.[15] The ruthenium atom shows a dis-
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 1520 –1524
www.angewandte.org
ꢀ 2004 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
1521

Communications
Table 1: Addition of CCl4 to styrene, catalyzed by complex 4, 5,
[RuCl2(PPh3)3], or [Cp*RuCl(PPh3)2].[a]
Entry Catalyst
Solvent
Conv. [%]
1
2
3
4
5
6
4
4
5
5
toluene
chloroform
toluene
chloroform
chloroform
23
20
78
94
14
53
[RuCl2(PPh3)3]
[Cp*RuCl(PPh3)2] chloroform
7
4
chloroform (saturated with H2O) 37
8
9
4
5
toluene (saturated with H2O)
toluene (saturated with H2O)
36
76
10
11
12
5
chloroform (saturated with H2O) 95
chloroform (saturated with H2O)
[RuCl2(PPh3)3]
7
[Cp*RuCl(PPh3)2] chloroform (saturated with H2O) 29
[a] Reaction conditions: cat./styrene/CCl4 =1:300:432; [cat.]=4.59 mm,
608C. The conversion is based on the consumption of styrene and was
determined after 1 h by GC.
Figure 2. ORTEP drawing of the molecular structure of 4. The hydro-
gen atoms are not shown for clarity. Selected bond lengths [Š] and
angles [8]: Ru1-Cl4=2.375(2), Ru1-Cl2=2.436(2), Ru1-Cl3=2.399(2);
P1-Ru1-P2=103.71(6), Cl4-Ru1-Cl2=169.42(6).
solvent. The results are summarized in Table 1. The RhI–RuII
complex 5 was found to display a very high activity surpassing
not only that of the RhIII–RuII complex 4 but also that of the
previously described catalyst precursors [RuCl2(PPh3)3] and
[Cp*RuCl(PPh3)2] (entries 1–6). A surprising discovery was
that for catalysts 4 and 5, reactions performed in “wet”
chloroform and toluene gave better results than those
performed in thoroughly dried solvents (entries 7–12). This
is in sharp contrast to reactions catalyzed by [RuCl2(PPh3)3]
or by the very sensitive[17] [Cp*RuCl(PPh3)2], for which traces
of water were found to reduce the catalytic activity signifi-
cantly (entries 11 and 12).
Next, we investigated the influence of the CCl4 concen-
tration on the activity of the new catalysts using “wet”
chloroform as the solvent. Both complexes were found to
display the highest activities for total CCl4 concentrations of
around 5.5m (catalyst/substrate/CCl4 = 1:300:1200). Using
these optimized conditions, the scope of the new heterome-
tallic catalyst precursors 4 and 5 was tested in reactions with
various olefinic substrates (Table 2). For styrene and meth-
ylacrylates, near-total conversion of the substrate is observed
Figure 3. ORTEP drawing of the molecular structure of 5. The hydro-
gen atoms, the cyclohexyl side chains, and the external solvent mole-
cule are not shown for clarity. Selected bond lengths [Š] and angles [8]:
Ru1-N1=1.963(10), Ru2-N2=1.985(9), N1-N2=1.118(12); P1-Ru1-
P2=93.53(9), P3-Ru2-P4=94.14(11), N2-N1-Ru1=164.6(8), N1-N2-
Ru2=164.2(8).
torted octahedral geometry with
one coordination site being occu-
pied by a dinitrogen ligand. The
latter acts as an end-on bridging
ligand that connects two heterobi-
metallic RhI–RuII complexes. The
bond lengths and angles found for
the Ru(m2-N2)Ru moiety (Figure 3)
are comparable to those observed
for other ruthenium complexes
with bridging N2 ligands.[16]
With the isolated complexes 4
and 5, we have performed a more
detailed analysis of the catalytic
performance using again the
benchmark reaction between sty-
rene and CCl4. Apart from chloro-
form, toluene was employed as a
Table 2: Atom-transfer radical additions catalyzed by the heterobimetallic complexes 4 and 5.[a]
Entry
Cat.
Substrate
Product
t [h]
Conv. [%]
Yield [%]
1
2
4
5
4
1
88
99
86
98
3
4
4
5
4
1
99
98
84
93
5
6
4
5
4
1
99
98
79
92
7
8
4
5
10
24
97
80
88
75
9
10
4
5
10
24
98
80
90
74
[a] Reaction conditions: cat./styrene/CCl4 =1:300:1200; [cat.]=4.59 mm; solvent: CHCl3 saturated with
H2O; 608C. The conversion is based on the consumption of the substrate and the yield is based on the
formation of product as determined by GC or by 1H NMR spectroscopy.
1522
ꢀ 2004 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 1520 –1524

Angewandte
Chemie
[{(tpc)Rh(m-Cl)}2]
(tpc = h4-tetraphenylcyclopentadienone),[34]
after only 1 h for catalyst 5 and after 4 h for catalyst 4
(entries 1–6). The yields are slightly lower than the conver-
sions due to the formation of oligomers, a problem generally
encountered for these types of addition reactions.
[{(cod)Ir(m-Cl)}2],[35] [{(PEt3)PdCl(m-Cl)}2],[36] [{(C9H12)Pd(m-Cl)}2]
(C9H12 = ortho-metalated N,N’-dimethylbenzylamine),[37] [{(PEt3)2Pt-
(m-Cl)}2](BF4)2,[38] and [{(PEt3)2Pd(m-Cl)}2](BF4)2
were prepared
[38]
according to literature procedures. The complex [{(allyl)Pd(m-Cl)}2]
was purchased from Fluka. Complex 4 was prepared as described in
ref. [11]. Crystals were obtained by slow diffusion of pentane into a
solution of 4 in THF.
Longer reaction times are required for 1-octene and 1-
decene, two notoriously bad substrates for Kharasch reac-
tions. It is interesting to note that for these substrates it is the
RhIII–RuII complex 4 that gives the better results: after 10 h, a
yield of 88% and 90%, respectively, is found together with a
nearly quantitative conversion (entry 7 and 9). These values
are clearly superior to what is observed for other catalyst
precursors. With [Cp*RuCl(PPh3)2], for example, a yield of
27% and a conversion of 46% was observed after 24 h under
nearly identical conditions.[9]
5: A mixture of [(dcypb)(N2)Ru(m-Cl)3RuCl(dcypb)] (110 mg,
86 mmol) and [{(tpc)Rh(m-Cl)}2] (90 mg, 86 mmol) in CH2Cl2 (10 mL)
was stirred until a homogeneous solution was obtained. The solution
was then poured into hexane (100 mL) to precipitate a red powder,
which was filtered off and washed with pentane (2 ” 20 mL) and dried
under a flow of dinitrogen for at least 5 h (yield: 87%). Single crystals
were obtained by slow diffusion of pentane into a solution of 5 in
CH2Cl2. 1H NMR (400 MHz, CD2Cl2): d = 0.86–2.28 (m, 104H,
dcypb), 7.11–7.82 ppm (m, 40H, C29H20O); 13C NMR (101 MHz,
CD2Cl2): d = 14.24–40.21 (dcypb), 67.71 (d, 1JC-Rh = 11 Hz, tpc), 93.79
(d, 1JC-Rh = 13 Hz, tpc), 127.20–133.18 ppm (tpc); 31P NMR (162 MHz,
CD2Cl2): d = 42.44 ppm; elemental analysis calcd (%) for
C114H144N2O2Cl6P4Rh2Ru2·0.5C6H14: C 59.49, H 6.44, N1.19; found:
C 59.76, H 6.50, N1.09.
The potential of the catalyst precursor 5 is further under-
lined by the high turnover frequencies (TOFs) and numbers
(TONs) that can be achieved. For the addition of CCl4 to
styrene, for example, an initial TOF of 1200 hÀ1 and a total
TONof 4500 has been determined (catalyst/substrate/CCl 4 =
1:6000:12000). These are among the highest values that have
been reported for an ATRA catalyst.[18] The unique tetra-
meric structure of 5 points to a possible explanation for its
exceptionally high catalytic activity: As for the starting
material 3, the dinitrogen ligand is expected to be labile.
Upon liberation of this ligand, an unsaturated 16-electron
ruthenium complex would be generated, which is then
stabilized by the sterically demanding {(tcp)Rh} fragment
and the large dcypb ligand. For complex 4, the mode of
activation is less evident. A plausible mechanism involves the
cleavage of one or several halo bridges, as was suggested for a
chloro-bridged RhIII–RuII metathesis catalyst.[19] It is clear,
however, that both the {Cp*RhIII} and the {RuII(PPh3)2}
fragment are essential constituents of this new catalyst.
Aside from their high catalytic activity, complexes 4 and 5
offer some important advantages. Since they are obtained in
reactions that are fast and quantitative, they can be generated
in situ, prior to catalysis, without isolating the complexes. The
corresponding starting materials are easily accessible, in
particular for complex 4. Of special interest is the fact that
the catalysts display a good performance in organic solvents
of moderate purity (saturated with water). Extensive purifi-
cation of the solvents, as is required for other catalysts for the
Kharasch reaction, is therefore not necessary. Current efforts
in our laboratory are directed towards a deeper understand-
ing of the mechanism of these new types of catalysts.
Furthermore, we are investigating whether complexes 4 and
5 are useful catalysts for the closely related atom-transfer
radical polymerization of olefins.[20]
Received: October 14, 2003 [Z53084]
Published Online: February 16, 2004
Keywords: combinatorial chemistry · heterogeneous catalysis ·
.
Kharasch reaction · rhodium · ruthenium
[1] For recent reviews see: a) P. Chen, Angew. Chem. 2003, 115,
2938 – 2954; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 2832 – 2847; b) C.
Gennari, U. Piarulli, Chem. Rev. 2003, 103, 3071 – 3100; c) J. P.
Stambuli, J. F. Hartwig, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2003, 7, 420 –
426; d) V. Murphy, A. F. Volpe, Jr., W. H. Weinberg, Curr. Opin.
Chem. Biol. 2003, 7, 427 – 433; e) J. G. de Vries, A. H. M.
de Vries, Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 799 – 811; f) A. Hagemeyer,
B. Jandeleit, Y. Liu, D. M. Poojary, H. W. Turner, A. F. Volpe, Jr.,
W. H. Weinberg, Appl. Catal. A 2001, 221, 23 – 43; g) S. R.
Gilbertson, Prog. Inorg. Chem. 2001, 50, 433 – 471; h) M. T.
Reetz, Angew. Chem. 2001, 113, 292 – 320; Angew. Chem. Int.
Ed. 2001, 40, 284 – 310; i) B. Jandeleit, D. J. Schaefer, T. S.
Powers, H. W. Turner, W. H. Weinberg, Angew. Chem. 1999, 111,
2648 – 2689; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 2494 – 2532;
j) R. H. Crabtree, Chem. Commun. 1999, 1611 – 1616; k) K. D.
Shimizu, M. L. Snapper, A. H. Hoveyda, Chem. Eur. J. 1998, 4,
1885 – 1889.
[2] a) G. J. Rowlands, Tetrahedron 2001, 57, 1865 – 1882; b) B.
Bosnich, Inorg. Chem. 1999, 38, 2554 – 2562; c) D. E. Fenton,
Chem. Soc. Rev. 1999, 28, 159 – 168; d) E. K. van den Beuken,
B. L. Feringa, Tetrahedron 1998, 54, 12985 – 13001; e) D. G.
McCollum, B. Bosnich, Inorg. Chim. Acta 1998, 270, 13 – 19;
f) H. Steinhagen, G. Helmchen, Angew. Chem. 1996, 108, 2489 –
2492; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1996, 35, 2339 – 2342.
[3] K. Severin, Chem. Eur. J. 2002, 8, 1515 – 1518, and references
therein.
[4] S. Gauthier, L. Quebatte, R. Scopelliti, K. Severin, Chem. Eur. J.,
in press.
[5] J. Iqbal, B. Bhatia, N. K. Nayyar,Chem. Rev. 1994, 94, 519 – 564.
[6] W. J. Bland, R. Davis, J. L. A. Durrant, J. Organomet. Chem.
1985, 280, 397 – 406.
Experimental Section
The
complexes
[(dppb)ClRu(m-Cl)2(m-OH2)RuCl(dppb)],[21]
[(dcypb)(N2)Ru(m-Cl)3RuCl(dcypb)],[22]
(PPh3)2],[11] [{(C6H5CO2Et)RuCl(m-Cl)}2],[23]
[Cp*Rh(m-Cl)3RuCl-
[{(cymene)RuCl-
(m-Cl)}2],[24] [{(C6H6)RuCl(m-Cl)}2],[25] [{(C6Me6)RuCl(m-Cl)}2],[24]
[{(1,3,5-C6H3Et3)RuCl(m-Cl)}2],[26] [{(1,3,5-C6H3iPr3)RuCl(m-Cl)}2],[26]
[{(h3:h3-C10H16)RuCl(m-Cl)}2],[27] [{Cp*RuCl(m-Cl)}2],[28] [{Cp*RhCl-
(m-Cl)}2],[29] [{Cp*IrCl(m-Cl)}2], [{(ppy)2Rh(m-Cl)}2] (ppy = pyridin-2-
yl-2-phenyl),[30] [{(allyl)2Rh(m-Cl)}2] (allyl = h3-C3H5),[31] [{(cod)Rh-
(m-Cl)}2] (cod = h4-cycloocta-1,5-diene),[32] [{(CO)2Rh(m-Cl)}2],[33]
[7] a) H. Nagashima, H. Wakamatsu, N. Ozaki, T. Ishii, M.
Watanabe, T. Tajima, K. Itoh, J. Org. Chem. 1992, 57, 1682 –
1689; b) G. M. Lee, S. M. Weinreb, J. Org. Chem. 1990, 55, 1281 –
1285; c) H. Nagashima, N. Ozaki, K. Seki, M. Ishii, K. Itoh, J.
Org. Chem. 1989, 54, 4497 – 4499; d) T. K. Hayes, R. Villani,
S. M. Weinreb, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110, 5533 – 5543; e) T. K.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 1520 –1524
www.angewandte.org
ꢀ 2004 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
1523

Communications
Hayes, A. J. Freyer, M. Parvez, S. M. Weinreb, J. Org. Chem.
this paper. These data can be obtained free of charge via
www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/conts/retrieving.html (or from the Cam-
bridge Crystallographic Data Centre, 12 Union Road, Cam-
bridge CB21EZ, UK; fax: (+ 44)1223-336-033; or deposit@
ccdc.cam.ac.uk).
1986, 51, 5503 – 5505; f) H. Nagashima, K.-I. Ara, H. Waka-
matsu, K. Itoh, J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Commun. 1985, 518 – 519.
[8] a) A. Richel, S. Delfosse, C. Cremasco, L. Delaude, A. Demon-
ceau, A. F. Noels, Tetrahedron Lett. 2003, 44, 6011 – 6015; b) B.
De Clercq, F. Verpoort, Tetrahedron Lett. 2002, 43, 4687 – 4690;
c) B. De Clercq, F. Verpoort, Tetrahedron Lett. 2001, 42, 8959 –
8963; d) F. Simal, S. Sebille, A. Demonceau, A. F. Noels, R.
Nuæez, M. Abad, F. Teixidor, C. Viæas, Tetrahedron Lett. 2000,
41, 5347 – 5351; e) F. Simal, A. Demonceau, A. F. Noels,
Tetrahedron Lett. 1999, 40, 5689 – 5693; f) J. A. Tallarico, L. M.
Malnick, M. L. Snapper, J. Org. Chem. 1999, 64, 344 – 345.
[9] F. Simal, L. Wlodarczak, A. Demonceau, A. F. Noels, Eur. J.
Inorg. Chem. 2001, 2689 – 2695; b) F. Simal, L. Wlodarczak, A.
Demonceau, A. F. Noels, Tetrahedron Lett. 2000, 41, 6071 – 6074.
[10] O. Tutusaus, C. Viæas, R. Nfflæez, F. Teixidor, A. Demonceau, S.
Delfosse, A. F. Noels, I. Mata, E. Molins, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003,
125, 11830 – 11831.
[15] a) L. E. Harrington, J. F. Britten, D. W. Hughes, A. D. Bain, J.-Y.
Thꢀpot, M. J. McGlinchey, J. Organomet. Chem. 2002, 656, 243 –
257; b) H. K. Gupta, N. Rampersad, M. Stradiottto, M. J.
McGlinchey, Organometallics 2000, 19, 184 – 191.
[16] a) L. Bonomo, C. Stern, E. Solari, R. Scopelliti, C. Floriani,
Angew. Chem. 2001, 113, 1497 – 1500; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
2001, 40, 1449 – 1452; b) V. Rodriguez, I. Atheaux, B. Donna-
dieu, S. Sabo-Etienne, B. Chaudret, Organometallics 2000, 19,
2916 – 2926; c) D. G. Gusev, F. M. Dolgushin, M. Y. Antipin,
Organometallics 2000, 19, 3429 – 3434; d) K. Abdur-Rashid,
D. G. Gusev, A. J. Lough, R. H. Morris, Organometallics 2000,
19, 1652 – 1660; e) R. A. T. M. Abbenhuis, I. del Rꢁo, M. M.
Bergshoef, J. Boersma, N. Veldman, A. L. Spek, G. van Koten,
Inorg. Chem. 1998, 37, 1749 – 1758;
[11] A. C. da Silva, H. Piotrowski, P. Mayer, K. Polborn, K. Severin,
Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2001, 685 – 691.
[12] For several combinations it is likely that doubly bridged (instead
of triply bridged) complexes are formed.
[17] J. R. Torres-Lubiꢂn, M. E. Sꢂnchez-Castro, P. Juꢂrez-Saavedra, J.
Hernꢂndez-Martꢁnez, B. Gordillo-Romꢂn, M. A. Paz-Sandoval,
J. Organomet. Chem. 2002, 663, 127 – 133.
[18] To the best of our knowledge, there is only one catalyst for which
slightly higher values have been reported (TOF = 1500 hÀ1 and
TON = 9000 for the addition of CCl4 to styrene; see ref. [10]).
[19] T. Weskamp, F. J. Kohl, W. Hieringer, D. Gleich, W. Herrmann,
Angew. Chem. 1999, 111, 2573 – 2576; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
1999, 38, 2416 – 2419.
[20] Quite often, ATRA catalysts are also good catalysts for atom-
transfer radical polymerizations (ATRPs). For some selected
examples see refs. [8a, b, and d].
[21] K. S. MacFarlane, I. S. Thorburn, P. W. Cyr, D. E. K.-Y. Chau,
S. J. Rettig, B. R. James, Inorg. Chim. Acta 1998, 270, 130 – 144.
[22] D. Amoroso, G. P. A. Yap, D. E. Fogg, Can. J. Chem. 2001, 79,
958 – 963.
[23] B. Therrien, T. R. Ward, M. Pilkington, C. Hoffmann, F.
Gilardoni, J. Weber, Organometallics 1998, 17, 330 – 337.
[24] M. A. Bennett, T.-N. Huang, T. W. Matheson, A. K. Smith,
Inorg. Synth. 1982, 21, 74 – 78.
[25] M. A. Bennett, A. K. Smith, J. Chem. Soc. Dalton Trans. 1974,
233 – 241.
[26] J. W. Hull, W. L. Gladfelter, Organometallics 1984, 3, 605 – 613.
[27] D. N. Cox, R. Roulet, Inorg. Chem. 1990, 29, 1360 – 1365.
[28] U. Koelle, J. Kossakowski, J. Organomet. Chem. 1989, 362, 383 –
398.
[29] C. White, A. Yates, P. M. Maitlis, Inorg. Synth. 1992, 29, 1687 –
1692.
[30] J. H. van Diemen, J. G. Haasnoot, R. Hage, J. Reedijk, J. G. Vos,
R. Wang, Inorg. Chem. 1991, 30, 4038 – 4043.
[13] The chloro-bridged complexes [{LnM(m-Cl)}2] were added in
excess (Ru/M = 1:2) to enforce the formation of asymmetric
{M(m-Cl)xRu} complexes.
[14] Crystal data for 4: C46H45Cl4P2RhRu, Mr = 1005.54, triclinic,
¯
space group P1 (No. 2), a = 11.937(2), b = 13.200(2), c =
14.3916(14) Š, a = 81.696(12), b = 77.383(14), g = 71.811(17)8,
V= 2095.2(6) Š3, Z = 2, 1calcd = 1.594 gcmÀ3
, ,
m = 1.119 mmÀ1
F(000) = 1016, crystal dimensions 0.30 ” 0.25 ” 0.21 mm3. Data
collection: mar345 IPDS, T= 140(2) K, MoKa radiation, l =
0.71070 Š, q = 3.54–25.028, À14 ꢀ h ꢀ 14, À15 ꢀ k ꢀ 15, À17 ꢀ
l ꢀ 16, 12667 reflections collected, 6930 independent reflections,
Rint = 0.0619, 5600 observed reflections [I > 2s(I)], empirical
absorption correction, max./min. transmission: 0.563/0.101.
Refinement: Nref = 6930, Npar = 488, R1 [I > 2s(I)] = 0.0637, wR2
(all data) = 0.1948, S = 1.135, the weighting scheme is wÀ1
=
[s2(Fo2) + (0.1112P)2 + 3.8732P] with P = (Fo2 + 2Fc2)/3, max. and
average shift/error= 0.000, 0.000, largest difference peak/mini-
mum: 1.059/À1.173 eŠÀ3. Structure solution and refinement by
SHELX97 (G. M. Sheldrick, SHELX97, Programs for Crystal
Structure Analysis, University of Göttingen, Göttingen (Ger-
many), 1998). H atoms were placed in calculated positions using
the riding model. Crystal data for 5: C114H144Cl6N2O2P4Rh2-
Ru2·CH2Cl2, Mr = 2403.78, monoclinic, space group C2/c
(No. 15), a = 71.244(6), b = 12.9605(11), c = 24.9834(19) Š, b =
94.136(11), V= 23009(3) Š3, Z = 8, 1calcd = 1.388 gcmÀ3
0.829 mmÀ1
F(000) = 9920, crystal dimensions 0.36 ” 0.25 ”
, m =
,
0.13 mm3. Data collection: Oxford Diffraction KM4/Sapphire
CCD, T= 140(2) K, MoKa radiation, l = 0.71073 Š, q = 2.63–
25.038, À84 ꢀ h ꢀ 84, À13 ꢀ k ꢀ 13, À29 ꢀ l ꢀ 29, 65671 reflec-
tions collected, 19222 independent reflections, Rint = 0.1233,
10703 observed reflections [I > 2s(I)], no absorption correction.
Refinement: Nref = 19222, Npar = 1183, R1 [I > 2s(I)] = 0.0933,
[31] J. Powell, B. L. Shaw, J. Chem. Soc. A 1968, 583 – 596.
[32] G. Giordano, R. H. Crabtree, Inorg. Synth. 1990, 28, 88 – 90.
[33] R. Cramer, Inorg. Synth. 1974, 15, 14 – 18.
[34] N. A. Bailey, V. S. Jassal, R. Vefghi, C. White, J. Chem. Soc.
Dalton Trans. 1987, 2815 – 2822.
[35] J. L. Herde, J. C. Lambert, C. V. Senoff, Inorg. Synth. 1974, 15,
18 – 19.
wR2 (all data) = 0.2712, S = 1.055, the weighting scheme is wÀ1
=
[s2(Fo2) + (0.1120P)2 + 391.8266P] with P = (Fo2 + 2F2c)/3, max.
and average shift/error= 0.001, 0.000, largest difference peak/
minimum: 1.821/À1.636 eŠÀ3. Structure solution and refine-
ment by SHELX97. H atoms were placed in calculated positions
using the riding model. Disorder problems dealing with two
phenyl rings and with the CH2Cl2 group have been handled using
the split model for the aromatic rings and keeping the carbon
atoms isotropically defined. DELU and DFIX cards have been
employed to achieve reasonable displacement parameters for
the whole structure and to obtain reasonable geometrical data
for the solvent molecule, respectively. CCDC-221541 and
-221542 contains the supplementary crystallographic data for
[36] F. R. Hartley, Organomet. Chem. Rev. Sect. A 1970, 6, 119 – 137.
[37] A. C. Cope, E. C. Friedrich, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1968, 90, 909 –
913.
[38] P. M. Treichel, K. P. Wagner, W. J. Knebel, Inorg. Chim. Acta
1972, 6, 674 – 676. The Pd complex was prepared in an analogous
fashion.
1524
ꢀ 2004 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 1520 –1524