3
0
M. Ángeles Úbeda et al. / Journal of Catalysis 381 (2020) 26–37
ꢀ
1
1
the signals at ca. 1220 cm
intense peak at 1687 cm
1
strongly decreases. Moreover, the
disappears and two new signals at
544 and 1395 cmꢀ1, associated to
as(OACAO) and (OACAO)
kðtÞ were found to be monotonically decreasing functions with
maximum rate at zero time [25]. In general, the silica supported
catalyst presented higher activities for 4-substituted phenyl
iodides. However, this type of catalysts undergone rapid deactiva-
tion, leading to particularly low yields when using phenyl bromide
ꢀ
m
m
s
vibrations can be observed. This evolution strongly suggests that
the Pd-complexes are effectively anchored on the polymer. The
XPS spectrum confirms that the oxidation state of the Pd is pre-
served after the anchoring step. In fact, the Pd 3d spectrum shows
two signals at binding energy values of 337.5 and 342.8 eV (see
further below Fig. 7 in Section 4.6) that, according to the bibliogra-
phy, are due to Pd(II) metal centers.
The STEM-HAADF image in Fig. 1 supports the Pd(II) oxidation
state. In fact, only an extremely low number of white spots (due
to the presence of Pd(0) nanoparticles) is observed (see below for
details). In any case, the mapping on Pd(0)-free domains reveals
the presence and homogeneous distribution of Pd and P, now at
the nanoscale.
derivatives substituted with electrodonor radicals as substrates
ꢄ
(
g1ð24h; 80 CÞ ¼ 34, 16, 10% for Br-Ph-R with R = H, OCH3,
CH [25]). This issue makes the material of little interest to catalyze
3
reactions involving low activated phenyl halides. Although the
polymeric material reacted more slowly for 4-substituted phenyl
iodides, it was quite more active for 4-substituted phenyl bromides
than the silica-supported material. Even more interesting was the
fact that the yields for the polymer supported system were higher
ꢄ
for all substrates (e.g. g1ð5h; 60 CÞ ¼ 87; 76; 68% for Br-Ph-R with
R = H, OCH , CH ), which makes the use of the polymeric support
3
3
especially attractive when using weakly activated phenyl halides.
The induction period suggested that Pd(II) is not the active cat-
alyst, and hence Pd(II) complexes in material (4) must undergo
reduction. The activity was rationalized assuming that small
amounts of Pd atoms coming from the Pd(II) reduction enter into
the solution, starting the SM catalytic cycle. The activity increases
while the reduction in progress supplies Pd atoms. On the other
hand, the aggregation process leads to a gradual activity loss as
the solubilized Pd species form larger aggregates. Obviously, the
activity curves must go through a maximum as a consequence of
the opposite effect caused by the reduction/aggregation processes.
This behavior differs from that observed for the Pd NPs-UVM-7 cat-
alyst. For this material, Pd(0) enters massively the dissolution as
small Pd NPs when the reactor reaches a critical temperature
(80 °C), resulting in a high initial reaction rate. Nevertheless, the
activity drops rapidly due to the aggregation phenomenon, which
occurs in a greater extent because of the higher Pd(0) concentra-
tion in the solution.
The difference in activity for phenylbromides presented by the
polymeric material and Pd NPs-UVM-7 can be understood by ana-
lyzing the way in which the material introduces the Pd active spe-
cies in the medium. The polymer-immobilized catalyst provides
small amounts of Pd atoms continuously, hence it catalyzes the
reaction as long as the polymer is capable to do this task. In con-
trast, the silica material delivers most of Pd(0) as Pd NPs at the
beginning of the reaction. As mentioned, the Pd NPs aggregate fas-
ter as they are larger and more concentrated, resulting in an earlier
depletion of the most active Pd species. These differences are also
related to the different nature of the materials: porous vs. non-
porous when the silica or the polymer is used as support. In order
to provide Pd NPs, the polymer needs first to be swollen through
the solvent action, then forming the Pd(0) species, and finally dif-
fuse (more hindered when compared to the open bimodal pore
system of the UVM-7). The other determinant factor is the relative
rate of the aggregation respect to the reaction rate. If the aggrega-
tion process is faster than the chemical reaction, the early deple-
tion of the active Pd will cause a decrease in the reaction yield.
In this line, the yield of the slow reacting bromo derivatives is
higher when using the catalyst immobilized on the polymer, as
the active species are not exhausted throughout the course of the
reaction, whereas the decrease in yield was not observed for the
faster reacting 4-iodo phenyl derivatives, all of them reaching near
4
.2. Catalyst activity
The activity of precatalyst (4) was checked for the SM reaction
of boronic acid with the 4-substituted phenylhalides shown in
Scheme 2, following the methodology previously described. The
Pd(II)-carboxypolystyrene material catalyzed efficiently the reac-
tion at 60 °C. This made a difference with the catalyst Pd NPs-
UVM-7 that did not show significant activity below 80 °C [25].
Fig. 2(a) and Fig. S2 (supplementary information) show the kinetic
behavior of 4-substituted phenyl bromides and phenyl iodides
respectively. The reactivity order was that expected for a SM reac-
tion controlled by the transmetallation step (i.e. the reaction
became faster when increasing the substituent electronegativity
for substrates sharing the same halide) [38–40]. As expected, the
rate for 4-substituted phenyl iodides was higher than that of their
corresponding bromo derivatives due to the left-displacement that
occurs in the oxidative addition equilibrium involving the phenyl
bromides. The equilibrium shift was caused by the higher energy
of the CABr bond in relation to that of the CAI bond.
Fig. 2(b) shows the variation in activity of the catalyst quanti-
fied by means of the kðtÞ function, which reflects the change in
the nature and concentration of the Pd species inside the reactor
[
41,42]. The basic idea behind this methodology is the assumption
that all Pd species (in the liquid phase and anchored on the catalyst
surface) have different activities (k ), so that the observed catalytic
i
activity is calculated as the sum of that of all species,
X
d½Aꢂ
ꢀ
¼ ð
k
i
x
i
ðtÞÞ½Pdꢂ ½Aꢂ½Bꢂ ¼ kðtÞ½Pdꢂ ½Aꢂ½Bꢂ
ð10Þ
T
T
dt
i
The first-order dependence of Eq. (10) on the analytical concentra-
tion of Pd (½Pdꢂ ) was checked (see Fig. S3 in supplementary infor-
T
mation). Obviously, if the mole fraction of Pd species (x
i
ðtÞ) varies,
e.g. due to dissolution, aggregation, or deposition processes, the
activity of the catalyst will change over time [43]. The function
inside the summatory requires a detailed knowledge of the distri-
bution of Pd species and their specific activity. Usually, the last
information is not experimentally available and, for this reason,
the empirical kðtÞ function was used in this work to perform a
semi-quantitative analysis of the activity. Table 1 collects the calcu-
lated parameters defining the catalyst activity namely, the value of
1
00% conversion.
kðtÞ (kmax), the formal catalytic constant (kcat ¼ kmax=½Pdꢂ ), the turn-
T
over frequency at the maximum activity (TOF ¼ kmax½Aꢂ½Bꢂ=½Pdꢂ ),
T
and the experimental yields of the SM products and biphenyl at 5 h.
Remarkable differences in activity were found for the silica and
polymer supported catalysts. All reactions catalyzed by the poly-
meric material exhibited an induction period, their activity kðtÞ
curves going through a maximum as shown in Fig. 2(b). This
extreme was absent for the silica-supported material, for which
4.3. Reusing catalyst experiments
Fig. 3(a) and (b) shows the change of yield and activity along 6
reusing cycles. All the graphs indicated that the activity remained
high and constant during the first 4 cycles, observing an abrupt
decrease from the fifth one, and the activity declining until a prac-