Mendeleev Commun., 2009, 19, 260–262
spectroscopy (Table 1). Conversion of 4–8% of anion 1 was
achieved in the presence of NiCl ·2bpy for 8 h and anion 2
2
F
F
Ni(0)
was the only product of the reaction (Table 1, runs 1–3). The
–
Zn, NMP–H2O
80 °C
anion [2,3,4,5-C HF BF ] 2 possesses five signals in the
6
4
3
F
F
F
1
9
F NMR spectrum attributed to four aromatic fluorine and
–BF ] group whose chemical shifts and multiplicities agree
F
F
–
‡
[
3
3
5
with those for an authentic sample and earlier described salt
1
6
Scheme 3
K[2,3,4,5-C HF BF ].
6
4
3
The course of the hydrodefluorination depends on the nature
of the solvent used as the reaction medium. Among a series of
aprotic dipolar solvents, such as DMF, DMA and NMP, the
most appropriate is the latter (Table 1, run 3). The nature of
the catalytic complex is another factor, which determines the
conversion of starting compound 1 in analogy to pentafluoro-
acetanilide.14 For instance, no transformations of 1 were detected
the hydrodeboration product of pentafluorophenylboronic acid
(Table 1, run 16).18 The increase in the LiCl and catalyst
concentration leads to consumption of the initial compound.
¶
However, significant amounts of 1,2,3-trifluorobenzene 5 were
–
observed along with [2,3,4,5-C6HF4BF3] 2 and 1,2,3,4-tetra-
fluorobenzene 3 (Table 1, runs 14, 15 and 17). There are two
main pathways for the formation of fluorobenzene 5. Compound
5 can be a product of tetrafluorobenzene 3 hydrodeboration
(Scheme 3).19 The other way includes a stepwise transforma-
in the presence of NiCl ·1bpy (10 mol%) and Zn (in excess)
2
(
Table 1, run 4). At the same time, the increase in a number of
the ligands up to 3 relatively to nickel leads to a remarkable rise
of the catalytic activity of the nickel complex (Table 1, run 5).
Nevertheless, the maximum conversion of 24% was achieved
only when 20 mol% of the catalyst was applied (Table 1, run 6).
All efforts to raise the reactivity of 1 by means of the increase
of the amount of zinc or change of the order of its addition
–
tion of anion 2 into [3,4,5-C6H2F3BF3] 6 followed by its trans-
formation into 3,4,5-trifluorophenylboronic acid 7 and hydro-
deboration of the latter (Scheme 2).
Thus, we observed the first example of ortho-directing effect
–
of a weakly coordinating substituent [–BF3] in the transition
–
allowed to rise the conversion of [C F BF ] only up to 25%
metal catalysed hydrodefluorination of the polyfluoroaryltrifluoro-
borate anion. We can assume that the most plausible reason of
the ortho-directing effect is the interaction of the Ni atom with
the negatively charged fluorine atom bonded to boron.
6
5
3
(
Table 1, runs 7–10). Surprisingly, the complete conversion of
anion 1 was not obtained even in the presence of 100 mol%
of nickel complex (Table 1, run 11). In the absence of a
–
catalyst, [C F BF ] does not react with Zn in aqueous NMP
6
5
3
(
Table 1, run 12).
During investigation of impact of different additives on the
References
1
(a) J. L. Kiplinger, T. G. Richmond and C. E. Osterberg, Chem. Rev.,
1994, 94, 373; (b) F. Alonso, I. P. Beletskaya and M. Yus, Chem. Rev.,
conversion of anion 1, we observed that the reactivity of 1
increases substantially in the presence of lithium chloride
(
2
002, 102, 4009.
2
3
M. I. Bruce, B. L. Goodall, G. L. Sheppard and F. G. A. Stone, J. Chem.
Soc., Dalton Trans., 1975, 591.
(a) M. I. Bruce, R. C. F. Gardner, B. L. Goodall, F. G. A. Stone, R. J.
Doedens and J. A. Moreland, J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun., 1974,
Table 1, runs 13–15). However, in runs 13–15, we disclosed
§
the formation of 1,2,3,4-tetrafluorobenzene 3 along with anion
(Scheme 1). Probably, benzene 3 is a product of transforma-
tions of anion 2 into the corresponding fluorinated phenylboronic
2
1
85; (b) M. I. Bruce, R. C. F. Gardner and F. G. A. Stone, J. Chem.
17
acid 4 under the action of the lithium salts with subsequent
hydrodeboration of the latter (Scheme 2). Initial anion 1 also
slowly reacts with LiCl to give pentafluorobenzene, being
Soc., Dalton Trans., 1976, 81.
1
8
4
5
C. E. Osterberg and T. G. Richmond, in ACS Symp. Ser., eds. J. S.
Thrasher and S. H. Strauss, Am. Chem. Soc., 1994, p. 392.
(a) C. M. Anderson, R. J. Puddephatt, G. Ferguson and A. J. Lough,
J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun., 1989, 1297; (b) C. M. Anderson,
M. Crespo, G. Ferguson, A. J. Lough and R. J. Puddephatt, Organo-
metallics, 1992, 11, 1177; (c) M. Crespo, X. Solans and M. Font-Bardia,
Polyhedron, 1998, 17, 3927.
BF
3
BF
3
X
F
F
F
X
F
Ni(0)
Zn, NMP–H2O
80 °C
6
7
R. Uson, J. Fornies, P. Espinet, A. Garcia, M. Tomas, C. Focesfoces
and F. H. Cano, J. Organomet. Chem., 1985, 282, C35.
F
F
F
(a) S. Park, M. Pontierjohnson and D. M. Roundhill, J. Am. Chem.
Soc., 1989, 111, 3101; (b) S. Park, M. Pontierjohnson and D. M.
Roundhill, Inorg. Chem., 1990, 29, 2689; (c) M. Crespo, M. Martinez
and J. Sales, J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun., 1992, 822; (d) M. Crespo,
M. Martinez and J. Sales, Organometallics, 1993, 12, 4297.
S. D. Perera, B. L. Shaw and M. Thorntonpett, Inorg. Chim. Acta,
1
2
X = F
X = H
2 X = F
6 X = H
B(OH)
2
X
F
X
F
8
9
LiCl
NMP–H2O
0 °C
1
995, 233, 103.
NMP–H2O
80 °C
(a) M. J. Atherton, J. Fawcett, J. H. Holloway, E. G. Hope, A. Karacar,
D. R. Russell and G. C. Saunders, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1996,
8
F
F
F
F
3215; (b) M. J. Atherton, J. H. Holloway, E. G. Hope and G. C. Saunders,
4
7
X = F
X = H
3 X = F
5 X = H
J. Organomet. Chem., 1998, 558, 209; (c) M. J. Atherton, J. Fawcett,
J. H. Holloway, E. G. Hope, S. M. Martin, D. R. Russell and G. C.
Saunders, J. Organomet. Chem., 1998, 555, 67; (d) J. Fawcett, S. Friedrichs,
J. H. Holloway, E. G. Hope, V. McKee, M. Nieuwenhuyzen, D. R. Russell
and G. C. Saunders, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1998, 1477; (e) R. M.
Bellabarba, M. Nieuwenhuyzen and G. C. Saunders, Organometallics,
Scheme 2
‡
Structure of anion [C F BF ] was proved by 19F NMR spectroscopy
–
6
5
3
3
5
(
1
NMP) d: –135.59 (m, 2-F, J 20 Hz, J 15 Hz), –139.36 (q, BF ,
JBF 45 Hz), –143.31 (m, 5-F, J 19.7 Hz), –160.05 (m, 3-F, J 20 Hz,
3J 20 Hz), –162.69 (m, 4-F, J 19 Hz, J 9 Hz) [lit., (CD CN) d:
135.25 (m, 2-F, J 22 Hz, J 9 Hz), –139.16 (m, BF ), –143.01 (m,
FF FF 3
-F, JFF 19 Hz), –159.72 (m, 3-F, JFF 19 Hz, JFF 22 Hz), –162.04
FF FF 3
2
002, 21, 5726.
3
3
FF
FF
1
0 L. Cronin, C. L. Higgitt, R. Karch and R. N. Perutz, Organometallics,
1997, 16, 4920.
11 G. B. Deacon, P. I. Mackinnon and T. D. Tuong, Aust. J. Chem., 1983,
36, 43.
3
4
16
FF
FF
FF
3
3
4
–
5
3
3
3
3
(
m, 4-F, J 19 Hz)].
FF
§
19
¶
19
1
,2,3,4-Tetrafluorobenzene: F NMR (NMP) d: –139.93 (m, 2F, 1,4-F,
1,2,3-Trifluorobenzene: F NMR (NMP) d: –135.85 (m, 2F, 1,3-F,
3
JFF 18 Hz, J 7 Hz), –157.07 (m, 2F, 2,3-F, 3JFF 18 Hz, J 19 Hz,
3
3
3JFF 21 Hz, JHF 8 Hz), –162.45 (m, 1F, 2-F, JFF 21 Hz, JHF 6 Hz)
3
3
4
HF
20
FF
4J 5 Hz) [lit., d: –139.8 (m, 2F; 1,4-F), –156.8 (m, 2F, 2,3-F)].
[lit., d: –136.2 (m, 2F, 1,3-F), –163.0 (m, 1F, 2-F)].
20
HF
–
261 –