A new methodology for the oxidation of sulfides with Fe(III) catalysts

Article abstract of DOI:10.1002/aoc.1859

A variety of sulfides were converted to the corresponding sulfoxide derivatives with 70% t-BuOOH (water) as the oxidant in the presence of catalytic quantity of Fe₂(SO₄)₃. The method described has a wide range of applicati

Full text of DOI:10.1002/aoc.1859

Full Paper
Received: 25 August 2011
Revised: 10 October 2011
Accepted: 6 November 2011
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/aoc.1859
A new methodology for the oxidation of
sulfides with Fe(III) catalysts
Debashis Chakraborty*, Payal Malik and Vinod Kumar Goda
A variety of sulfides were converted to the corresponding sulfoxide derivatives with 70% t-BuOOH (water) as the oxidant in
the presence of catalytic quantity of Fe2(SO4)3. The method described has a wide range of applications, involves simple
work-up, exhibits chemoselectivity/enantioselectivity and proceeds under mild reaction conditions. The resulting products
are obtained in good yield within a reasonable time. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Supporting information may be found in the online version of this article.
Keywords: oxidation; sulfides; Fe2(SO4)3; t-BuOOH; enantioselectivity
In 2004 Bryliakov and Talsi reported that the iodosylbenzene
Introduction
(salen)–iron(III) complex [FeIIICl–(salen*)] (OIPh) is an efficient
catalyst for the asymmetric oxidation of sulfides.[32]
Oxidation reactions are of fundamental importance in nature, and
are key transformations in organic synthesis. Sulfides are regarded
as vital intermediates in organic chemistry owing to their versatile
usage in fundamental research.[1–3] Optically pure sulfoxides
represent valuable compounds in asymmetric synthesis, being
frequently used as chiral auxiliaries[2] and in the pharmaceutical
industry due to their important biological activities.[4–9] The most
investigated approach for the synthesis of enantiomerically
enriched sulfoxides is the asymmetric oxidation of prochiral sul-
fides by chemical and enzymatic systems.[10,11] Enantioselective
oxidation of sulfides with titanium, manganese, and vanadium
complexes has been widely studied in detail.[12,13]
In particular, Bolm found that 30% H2O2 is an effective and
environmentally friendly oxidant for sulfoxidation catalyzed by
the in situ vanadium Schiff base complexes derived from chiral
amino alcohols,[14–28] and found that the more sterically hin-
dered Schiff base ligand gave higher ee values than the less
crowded ligands.[14–18]
Water as a reaction medium has been applied to a variety of
oxidation reactions.[33,34] With regard to asymmetric oxidation
of sulfides to sulfoxides in water, only a few examples including
the use of cyclodextrin derivatives,[35] chiral micelles,[36–39] or
biological catalysts[40] exist. Although both biological catalysts
and the use of cyclodextrins sometimes give sulfoxides with high
enantioselectivities in water, these methods lack practicality and
generality due to their low to moderate optical yields and high
substrate specificity. Recently, Katsuki and Egami investigated
a highly enantioselective Fe(salan) complex/aqueous hydro-
gen peroxide system in water for the asymmetric oxidation
of sulfides.[41]
A careful review of the literature[42–45] suggests that simple
Fe(III) salts have not been evaluated so far for the process of sul-
foxidation and issues related to enantioselectivity.[46] With this
goal in mind, the following objectives of study were summarized:
(1) to evaluate the catalytic activity of simple iron salts like FeCl3,
Fe2(SO4)3 and Fe2O3 towards sulfoxidation; (2) optimization of
reaction parameters; (3) application of optimized reaction condi-
tions to a variety of sulfide substrates; (4) determination of enan-
tioselectivity; and (5) possibility of devising an environmentally
friendly process.
Herein we report a new methodology for asymmetric oxidation
of sulfides, by using 70% t-BuOOH as the oxidant, with Fe2(SO4)3
as catalyst and (R,R)-(À)-N,N′-bis(3,5-di-t-butylsalicylidene)-1,
2-cyclohexanediamine (salen) as a chiral ligand in water at
100ꢀC. The over-oxidized product was not observed in our system
as compared to the literature.[41]
Iron is one of the most abundant metals in the universe.[19] It is
inexpensive, environmentally benign, and relatively non-toxic in
comparison to other metals. Conversely, iron is relatively underrep-
resented in this field, and the few systems developed so far fail in
terms of efficiency and practicability.[20–22] Most involve structur-
ally complex iron porphyrins and iodosylbenzene[23–27] or alkyl
hydroperoxides[27] as terminal oxidant, and the enantioselectivities
are only moderate (<55% ee).[24,25] The iron complex [Fe2O(pb)4
(H2O)2](ClO4)4] (where pb is (À)-4,5-pinene-2,2′-bipyridine) as a cat-
alyst for sulfide oxidations with H2O2 was reported by Fontecave
and coworkers, but the enantioselectivity remained rather low
(max. 40% ee).[28,29] Asymmetric oxidations could then be
achieved by the use of chiral iron complexes. Recently Bolm
and Legros reported a new enantioselective sulfide oxidation,
which provides optically active sulfoxides with up to 90% ee
by using an iron catalyst formed in situ from [Fe(acac)3] and a
Schiff base.[30] In general, the product was isolated after 16 h
of reaction time and the isolated yield of the various products
varied from low to moderate. In fact, in the presence of substi-
tuted benzoic acids as additive the ee increased remarkably.[31]
*
Correspondence to: Debashis Chakraborty, Department of Chemistry, Indian
Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai-600 036, Tamil Nadu, India. E-mail:
dchakraborty@iitm.ac.in
Department of Chemistry, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai-
600 036, Tamil Nadu, India
Appl. Organometal. Chem. 2012, 26 21–26
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

D. Chakraborty et al.
The kinetic studies of the sulfoxidation with methyl(4-tolyl)
sulfane and (4-chlorophenyl)(methyl)sulfane were explored in
detail. High-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) was used
to determine the various starting materials and products pres-
ent as a function of time. The concentration of reactant and
product for the oxidation of methyl(4-tolyl)sulfane is shown in
Fig. 1. The concentration of the sulfide decreases steadily while
that of the sulfoxide increases and we have calculated the rate
of such reactions. As an example let us consider the conversion
of methyl(4-tolyl)sulfane to the corresponding sulfoxides. The
Van’t Hoff differential method was used to determine the order
(n) and rate constant (k) (Fig. 2). From Fig. 2, the rate of the
reaction at different concentrations can be estimated by evalu-
ating the slope of the tangent at each point on the curve
corresponding to that of methyl phenyl sulfide. With these data,
log10(rate) vs. log10(concentration) is plotted. The order (n) and
rate constant (k) are given by the slope of the line and its intercept
on the log10(rate) axis. From Fig. 2, it is clear that this reaction pro-
ceeds with second-order kinetics (n = 2 with second-order kinetics
(n = 2.01) and the rate constant k = 0.1089 L molÀ1 minÀ1. For the
other substrate, the order of the reaction is n = 2.16 with rate
Results and Discussion
Oxidation of Sulfide
The reaction conditions for the oxidation of sulfides were optimized
using methyl(4-tolyl)sulfane as a suitable substrate in the presence
of different solvents, oxidants, and 5 mol% of different Fe(III) salts.
Iron sulfate was found to be the best catalyst among the various
Fe(III) salts (Table 1, entry 3 vs. 6 and 7). The catalyst and ligand
were optimized by using different concentrations. The results show
that 1 mol% salen with 5 mol% iron sulfate were the best concen-
trations for transformation to occur within a reasonable time
period. When 2 mol% of salen was used, no appreciable change
with respect to yield and ee was found. In fact, in the case of
0.5mol%, the ee dropped with low yield. Low catalyst loading did
not produce better results.
The results are summarized in Table 1. The oxidation of methyl
(4-tolyl)sulfane to 1-methyl-4-(methylsulfinyl)benzene was found
to be extremely facile in the presence of 5 mol% Fe2(SO4)3, salen
(1 mol%) as ligand and 1 equiv. of 70% t-BuOOH solution in wa-
ter. The same reaction took 6 h in the presence of 1 equiv. of
5 M t-BuOOH solution in decane with lower isolated yield (80%)
of the product. Water was found to be the best solvent (Table 1,
entry 3). The reaction was found to be extremely sluggish under
ambient conditions or with lower mol% of Fe(III) salts. With 1
equiv. of 30% H2O2 solution, the reaction went to completion in
a much longer period of time (Table 1, entry 5 vs. entry 2). With
higher amounts of oxidant the reaction mixture contains some
sulfone in addition to the required sulfoxide. It is important to dis-
close here that the reaction fails completely when performed with
Fe(II) sources like FeCl2 and Mohr’s salt. Gas chromatography–mass
spectrometry (GC-MS) of the crude reaction mixtures did not
reveal the presence of any sulfone, making this methodology
100% selective. This developed method was used to convert differ-
ent aromatic sulfides to the corresponding sulfoxides. The results
have been depicted in Table 2.
constants k = 0.2324 L molÀ1 minÀ1
.
The postulated mechanism of oxidation (Scheme 1) catalyzed
by Fe(III) may be written based upon reports available in the
literature.[44]
The role of Fe(III) is to form the active oxidant–substrate com-
plex. With Fe(II) this intermediate is Fe(III), which is a stable
oxidation state of Fe. This explains why FeCl2 and Mohr’s salt
do not catalyze this reaction. Thereafter, transfer of oxygen to
sulfur leads to the formation of product. The metal first binds
with t-BuOOH and forms Fe(IV) active oxidant. This species
reacts with the sulfide and forms oxidant–substrate complex
and the transfer of oxygen takes place. The reaction rate is
dependent on the concentrations of the Fe(IV) active oxidant
and sulfide substrate. This is supported by the kinetic studies
suggesting second order of reaction.
A variety of different aromatic sulfides were successfully converted
to the corresponding sulfoxides and these were isolated in high
yields after subsequent work-up and column chromatography.
Again, no sulfone product was seen in the crude reaction mixtures.
The catalytic system did not show any selectivity (Table 2, entries 3,
5, 8, 19 and 20). Only racemic mixtures were obtained in these cases.
The work-up for these coupling reactions involves extraction of
the aqueous reaction mixture with ethyl acetate, subsequent
removal of solvent, followed by flash chromatography of the
crude product. We are pleased to disclose that the aqueous
phase containing Fe2(SO4)3 can be recycled repeatedly without
much loss in activity of the reaction or yield (Table 3).
Table 1. Optimization of reaction conditions for the conversion of methyl(4-tolyl)sulfane to 1-methyl-4-(methylsulfinyl)benzene with different sol-
vents, oxidants and iron saltsa
O
S
oxidant, catalyst
S
solvent, reflux
salen
Entry
Catalyst
Solvent
Oxidant
Time (h)b
Yield (%)c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fe2(SO4)3
Fe2(SO4)3
Fe2(SO4)3
Fe2(SO4)3
Fe2(SO4)3
FeCl3
CH2Cl2
MeCN
H2O
t-BuOOH
t-BuOOH
t-BuOOH
t-BuOOH
H2O2
14
12
2
85
85
93
78
88
85
80
MeNO2
H2O
18
14
16
12
H2O
t-BuOOH
t-BuOOH
Fe2O3
H2O
aMethyl(4-tolyl)sulfane (1 mmol), salen (1 mol%), 70 % t-BuOOH (water) (1 equiv.) and Fe(III) salts (5 mol%) refluxed in water.
bMonitored using TLC until all the sulfide was consumed.
cIsolated yield after column chromatography of the crude product.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aoc
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Organometal. Chem. 2012, 26 21–26

Sulfoxidation with Fe(III) catalysts
Table 2. Fe2(SO4)3-catalyzed selective oxidation of sulfides to sulfoxidesa
O
S
Fe2(SO4)3 (5 mol %)
R1
R2
S
t-BuOOH (1 equiv)
salen (1 mol %)
H2O, reflux
R1
R2
(1 equiv)
R1 = aromatic/aliphatic
R2 = aromatic/aliphatic
salen =
OH
N
N
OH
Entry
1
Substrate
Time (h)b
2.00
Yield (%)c
93
ee (%)d
Config.e
(S)-(À)
98.1
S
2
3
2.00
2.00
81
90
98.7
(S)-(À)
S
—
—
S
4
5
6
7
2.30
2.10
2.30
2.50
89
91
90
91
97.9
—
(S)-(À)
—
Br
CI
S
S
S
S
97.7
(S)-(À)
Br
S
8
9
4.00
2.00
90
92
—
—
O2N
99.4
(S)-(À)
S
10
11
12
2.00
2.30
2.00
90
90
88
81.5
97.7
98.8
(S)-(À)
(S)-(À)
(S)-(À)
S
CI
S
S
13
14
2.00
2.20
91
90
—
—
S
Br
98.2
(S)-(À)
S
S
15
16
0.30
0.10
92
91
—
—
—
—
S
17
1.50
89
95.7
(R)-(À)
S
Appl. Organometal. Chem. 2012, 26 21–26
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aoc

D. Chakraborty et al.
Table 2. (Continued)
O
S
S
Fe2(SO4)3 (5 mol %)
R1
R2
t-BuOOH (1 equiv)
salen (1 mol %)
H2O, reflux
R1
R2
(1 equiv)
R1 = aromatic/aliphatic
R2 = aromatic/aliphatic
salen =
OH
N
N
OH
Entry
18
Substrate
Time (h)b
2.30
Yield (%)c
87
ee (%)d
Config.e
(S)-(À)
83.1
S
19
20
3.00
3.20
85
86
—
—
—
—
S
S
aReactions performed in water with sulfide (1 mmol), salen (1 mol %), Fe2(SO4)3 (5 mol %) and 70 % t-BuOOH (1 equiv) under reflux condition.
bMonitored using TLC until all sulfide was found consumed.
cIsolated yield after column chromatography of the crude reaction mixture.
dEnantiomeric excess were determined by HPLC with a chiral stationary phase.
eAbsolute configurations were assigned by comparing the optical rotations and HPLC retention times with the literature.
Figure 2. Van’t Hoff differential plot for the oxidation of methyl(4-tolyl)sul-
fane with 5 mol% (Fe)2(SO4)3, salen (1 mol%) and 1 equiv. 70 % t-BuOOH in
Figure 1. Concentration versus time in the oxidation of methyl(4-tolyl)sul-
H2O at 100ꢀC.
fane with 5 mol% (Fe)2(SO4)3, salen (1 mol%) and 1 equiv. 70% t-BuOOH in
H2O at 100ꢀC.
quantity of Fe2(SO4)3. The method described has a wide range of
applications, does not involve cumbersome work-up, exhibits
chemoselectivity/enantioselectivity and proceeds under mild re-
Conclusions
A
variety of aromatic sulfides were converted to the
action conditions, and the resulting products are obtained in
good yields within a reasonable time. The over-oxidized product
sulfone was not observed.
corresponding sulfoxide derivatives with 70% t-BuOOH (water)
as the oxidant in the presence of salen as the ligand and catalytic
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aoc
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Organometal. Chem. 2012, 26 21–26

Sulfoxidation with Fe(III) catalysts
The product was extracted from water by washing with ethyl ace-
tate and purified by column chromatography using ethyl acetate
and hexane as eluent. The spectral data of the various sulfoxides
were found to be satisfactory, in accordance with the literature.
Determination of Enantioselectivity
The enantiomeric excesses of purified sulfoxide products were
determined by using HPLC fitted with a chiralcel OJ-H column
with 0.8 ml minÀ1 flow rate of hexane and isopropanol (8:2) on
the basis of retention time reported in the literature.[47]
Kinetic Studies
Scheme 1. Mechanism of oxidation.
To the stirred solution of sulfide (1 mmol), salen (1 mol%) and Fe2
(SO4)3 (5 mol%) in 2.5 ml water, 70% t-BuOOH (1 mmol) was
added. The reaction mixture was set to reflux. 0.2 ml of reaction
mixture was taken after regular time intervals. The reaction
mixture was treated with 10% Na2S2O3 to quench the excess
t-BuOOH. The crude product was extracted from water by wash-
ing with ethyl acetate. All the volatiles were removed to yield the
crude product. HPLC (C-18 column, methanol as eluent with
0.5 ml minÀ1 flow rate) was used for kinetic studies.
Table 3. Results for the oxidation of methyl(4-tolyl)sulfane in different
cyclesa
Cycle No.
Time (h)b
Yield (%)c
1
2
3
4
2
93
2
93
2.05
2.05
92.8
92.8
aReactions performed in water with Fe2(SO4)3 (5 mol%) and 70 % t-
BuOOH (1 equiv.) under reflux condition.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
bMonitored using TLC until all sulfide was consumed.
Supporting information may be found in the online version of
this article.
cIsolated yield after column chromatography of the crude product.
Acknowledgments
Experimental
This work was supported from the funds allocated from the
Department of Chemistry, Indian Institute of Technology Madras.
Instruments
High-resolution H NMR and 13C NMR (100 MHz) were recorded
1
References
on a Bruker Avance 400 MHz spectrometer and the chemical
shifts are reported in units of ppm relative to trimethylsilane
(0.00 ppm) for 1H and 13C NMR, where CDCl3 is used as a solvent.
Mass spectra of the sample were recorded on a Micro mass
quadrupole time-of-flight QToF instrument, low-resolution
electrospray ionization (ESI) mass spectrometer using methanol
solvent. GC–mass spectra were recorded using a Jeol JMS GC-
Mate II instrument. HPLC analysis was carried out using a Waters
instrument fitted with a Waters 515 pump and 2487 dual l
absorbance detector. Suitable methods were developed with
different proportions of MeCN and alcohol.
[1] R. J. Cremlyn, An Introduction to Organosulfur Chemistry, Wiley,
Chichester, 1996.
[2] J. Drabowski, P. Kielbasinski, M. Mikolajczyk, Synthesis of Sulfoxides,
Wiley, New York, 1994.
[3] S. Pati, Z. Rappoport, The Synthesis of Sulphones, Sulphoxides, and
Cyclic Sulphides, Wiley, New York, 1994.
[4] M. C. Carreno, Chem. Rev. 1995, 95, 1717.
[5] I. Fernández, N. Khiar, Chem. Rev. 2003, 103, 3651.
[6] A. M. Rouhi, Chem. Eng. News 2003, 81, 56.
[7] J. Legros, J. R. Dehli, C. Bolm, Adv. Synth. Catal. 2005, 347, 19.
[8] K. D. Wing, A. H. Glickman, J. E. Casida, Science 1983, 219, 63.
[9] A. H. Glickman, K. D. Wing, J. E. Casida, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.
1984, 73, 16.
[10] F. A. Davis, R. T. Reddy, W. Han, P. J. Carroll, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992,
114, 1428.
[11] D. R. Boyd, N. D. Sharma, S. A. Haughey, M. A. Kennedy, B. T.
McMurry, G. N. Sheldrake, C. C. R. Allen, H. Dalton, K. Sproule, J.
Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans. 1 1998, 1929.
Materials
All the substrates used in this study were purchased from
Aldrich and used as received. The solvents, along with H2O2
and t-BuOOH, were purchased from Ranchem, India. Solvents
were purified using standard methods. The iron salts used for
this study were purchased from Aldrich.
[12] T. Miyazaki, T. Katsuki, Synlett 2003, 1046.
[13] W. V. V. Takur, A. Sudalai, Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2003, 14, 407.
[14] C. Bolm, F. Bienewald, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed Engl. 1995, 34, 2640.
[15] A. H. Vetter, A. Berkessel, Tetrahedron Lett. 1998, 39, 1741.
[16] C. Ohta, H. Shimizu, A. Kondo, T. Katsuki, Synlett 2002, 161.
[17] R. F. W. Jackson, R. Pelotier, M. S. Anson, I. B. Campbell, S. J. F.
Macdonald, G. Priem, Synlett 2002, 1055.
[18] Y. C. Jeong, S. Choi, Y. D. Hwang, Tetrahedron Lett. 2004, 45, 9249.
[19] F. A. Cotton, G. Wilkinson, Anorganische Chemie, 4th edn, Verlag Chemie,
Weinheim, 1982, pp. 767.
[20] H. B. Kagan, T. Luukas in Transition Metals for Organic Synthesis (Eds.:
M. Beller, C. Bolm), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 1998, pp. 361.
[21] H. B. Kagan in Catalytic Asymmetric Synthesis, 2nd edn (Ed.: I. Ojima),
Wiley-VCH, New York, 2000, pp. 327.
Typical Procedure for Sulfoxidation
To a stirred solution of sulfide (1 mmol), salen (1 mol%) and Fe2
(SO4)3 (5 mol%) in 2.5ml water, 70% t-BuOOH (water) (0.90 ml,
1 mmol) was added. The reaction mixture was set to reflux. The
progress of the reaction was monitored using thin-layer chroma-
tography (TLC) periodically until all sulfide was found to consumed.
Appl. Organometal. Chem. 2012, 26 21–26
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aoc

D. Chakraborty et al.
[22] C. Bolm, K. Mujiz, J. Hildebrand in Comprehensive Asymmetric Cataly-
sis (Eds.: E. N. Jacobsen, A. Pfaltz, H. Yamamoto), Springer, Berlin,
1999, pp. 697.
[33] P. A. Grieco, Organic Synthesis in Water, Blackie Academic, London, 1998.
[34] B. Cornils, W. A. Herrmann, Aqueous-Phase Organometallic Catalysis,
Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 1998.
[23] J. T. Groves, P. Viski, J. Org. Chem. 1990, 55, 3628.
[24] Y. Naruta, F. Tani, K. Maruyama, J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Comm. 1990,
1378.
[25] Y. Naruta, F. Tani, K. Maruyama, Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 1991, 2, 533.
[26] L.-C. Chiang, K. Konishi, T. Aida, S. Inoue, J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Comm.
1992, 254.
[27] Q. L. Zhou, K. C. Z. Chen, H. Zhu, J. Mol. Catal. 1992, 72, 59.
[28] C. Duboc-Toia, S. Ménage, C. Lambeaux, M. Fontecave, Tetrahedron
Lett. 1997, 38, 3727.
[29] Y. Mekmouche, H. Hummel, R. Y. N. Ho, L. Que, V. Schünemann, F.
Thomas, A. X. Trautwein, C. Lebrun, K. Gorgy, J.-C. Leprêtre, M.-N.
Collomb, A. Deronzier, Fontecave, S. Ménage, Chem. Eur. J. 2002,
8, 1196.
[35] C. J. Li, T. H. Chan, Organic Reactions in Aqueous Media, Wiley, New
York, 1997.
[36] M. Mikolajczyk, J. Drabowicz, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1978, 100, 2510.
[37] A. W. Czarnik, J. Org. Chem. 1984, 49, 924.
[38] H. Sakuraba, K. Natori, Y. Tanaka, J. Org. Chem. 1995, 56, 4124.
[39] M. Bonchio, T. Carofiglio, F. D. Furia, R. Fornasier, J. Org. Chem. 1995,
60, 5986.
[40] Y. M. Zhang, C. L. Fu, W. Q. Fan, Chin. J. Chem. 1990, 1, 89.
[41] T. Katsuki, H. Egami, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 8940.
[42] S. Enthaler, K. Junge, M. Beller, Angew. Chem. 2008, 120, 3363.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 3317.
[43] A. Correa, O. G. Mancheño, C. Bolm, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2008, 37, 1108.
[44] B. D. Sherry, A. Fürstner, Acc. Chem. Res. 2008, 41, 1500.
[45] W. M. Czaplik, M. Mayer, J. Cvengroš, A. Jacobi von Wangelin,
ChemSusChem 2009, 2, 396.
[30] C. Bolm, J. Legros, Angew. Chem. 2003, 115, 5645. Angew. Chem. Int.
Ed. 2003, 42, 5487.
[31] C. Bolm, J. Legros, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 4225.
[32] K. P. Bryliakov, E. P. Talsi, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 5228.
[46] E. Wojaczyńska, J. Wojaczyński, Chem. Rev. 2010, 110, 4303.
[47] A. Lattanzi, S. Piccirillo, A. Scettria, Adv. Synth. Catal. 2007, 349, 357.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aoc
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Appl. Organometal. Chem. 2012, 26 21–26