Article
Organometallics, Vol. 29, No. 6, 2010 1469
into the desired product. For this reason, we will focus in the
following on conversion values, since these are the most
discriminating factors among the ligands.
same catalytic system by van Leeuwen.19 Indeed, in the latter
work no acid had been added.
Among symmetrical phenanthrolines, the only one con-
sistently giving better results than phenanthroline itself is
4,7-dimethylphenanthroline. This is also in accord with the
results by van Leeuwen.19
The results are very interesting. In most cases, the activity
shows a sharp increase when the concentration of the ligand
is increased up to an optimal value, followed by a much
slower decrease when this value is exceeded. The only
phenanthroline that completely inhibits any catalytic activity
is 2,9-Me2Phen (Figure 1), but a strongly inhibiting effect is
exerted even by just one methyl group ortho to a phenanthro-
line nitrogen, and the activity observed with 2-methylphe-
nanthroline is very low (Figure 1).
The most rewarding observation, with respect to the
theoretical premises, is that unencumbered nonsymmetrical
phenanthrolines always gave higher maximum activities
compared to their symmetrical counterparts. Specifically,
4-methylphenanthroline gave a higher activity than both
phenanthroline and 4,7-dimethylphenanthroline, and the
effect is even larger when comparing 4-methoxyphenanthro-
line with phenanthroline and 4,7-dimethoxyphenanthroline.
4-Carbomethoxy-7-methylphenanthroline also gave a better
performance than 4,7-dimethylphenanthroline, but the sym-
metrical phenanthroline with two -COOMe groups was not
prepared. 3-Ethylphenanthroline gave a maximum activity
essentially indistinguishable from that of phenanthroline,
but the maximum was shifted at much lower ligand/Pd ratios
(35 instead of 150, Figure 3), which is itself an advantage
from a practical point of view. The more hindered 3-tBuPhen
gave worse results, confirming the negative effect of steric
hindrance even in the meta position of the pyridinic ring
(Figure 3).
Among symmetrical phenanthrolines, 3,4,7,8-Me4Phen
(Figure 1) and 4,7-dimethoxyphenanthroline (Figure 2)
show an atypical behavior, with the activity having a
small plateau at intermediate ligand/Pd ratios, followed by
a further rate increase. Such behavior seems at first sight
suspect, but it should be noted that these two phenanthro-
lines are the two most basic among those tested and the
deviation from the behavior observed for the other ligands
may have a specific explanation. We recall that an acid is
present in the reaction mixture, and we have recently shown
that the protonation equilibrium is not completely shifted
toward the reagents even when diphenylphosphinic acid and
phenanthroline are used. Phosphoric acid is stronger than
diphenylphosphinic acid, and in the case of the most basic
ligands it is possible that protonation becomes more impor-
tant, altering all the equilibria in the system. An indirect
support for this explanation comes from the change in the
selectivity of the reaction toward the byproduct azoxyben-
zene as the ligand/Pd ratio is varied. It has been previously
noted that the addition of acids to the reaction mixture
causes a decrease in the amount of the formed azoxyben-
zene.7-10,28 The selectivity trends observed in this work
(Table S1) indicate that an increase in azoxybenzene selecti-
vity is observed at higher ligand ratios, in accord with a
partial neutralization of the acid by the excess ligand. How-
ever, whereas the effect is small in most cases (e.g., the
selectivity changes from 1.9% to 2.8% along the series in
the case of unsubstituted phenanthroline), it is larger in the
case of the two aforementioned phenanthrolines (from 2.8%
to 5.1% in the case of 3,4,7,8-Me4Phen and from 2.2% to
4.9% in the case of 4,7-(MeO)2Phen), supporting the idea
that deprotonation is occurring to a larger extent with the
latter ligands.
The absolute order of maximum activity (highest TOF/h-1
in parentheses) was 4-methoxyphenanthroline (5710) >
4-carbomethoxy-7-methylphenanthroline(5409) >4-methyl-
phenanthroline (5326) > 3,4,7,8-Me4Phen (5010) > 4,7-
dimethylphenanthroline (4911) > 3-ethylphenanthroline
(4810) ≈ phenanthroline (4803) > 4,7-dimethoxyphenan-
throline (4754) > 3-tBuPhen (3969) . 2- methylphenan-
throline (571) . 2,9-Me2Phen (≈ 0).
From the results, with 4-methoxyphenanthroline being the
best ligand, followed by 4-carbomethoxy-7-methylphenan-
throline, it is evident that a next synthetic target may be the
nonsymmetric phenanthroline having a methoxy and a
carbomethoxy group. 3,4-Dimethylphenanthroline and its
derivatives in which the other pyridine ring is substituted
with an electron-withdrawing group are also promising
candidates.
Reactions under 100 bar of Carbon Monoxide. We have
previously shown that with phenanthroline as the ligand
the present catalytic reaction shows a first-order dependence
of the rate on the CO pressure at least in the range 40-
100 bar.7,8 Higher pressures had not been tested for technical
reasons, although they are expected to afford even higher
conversions. Since the hemilabile nature of the new ligands
may alter this trend, the best ligands and phenanthroline
were also tested under 100 bar of CO, to check if a positive
effect is still observed. Results are reported in Table S2
(Supporting Information), and the TOF values are graphi-
cally shown in Figure 4.
The positive effect of a higher pressure is maintained even
with the nonsymmetric phenanthrolines, indicating that CO
coordination to complexes of type 1 to give 2 (Scheme 1) has
been made easier by the use of the new ligands, but not
enough to shift the equilibrium between the two to the side of
the latter. Note that accelerating the aniline carbonylation
step to the point that it is no longer the rate-determining step
of the catalytic cycle is not desirable. Indeed, this would
result in the resting state of the catalyst being a palladium(0)
complex, and this in turn would lead to much faster catalyst
deactivation, as is indeed observed under some conditions
In any case, the anomalous shape of the 3,4,7,8-Me4Phen
curve results in an intersection with the phenanthroline one.
This observation explains some inconsistencies previously
reported in the literature, where 3,4,7,8-Me4Phen is a better
ligand than Phen according to some papers,8,29-32 while the
reverse holds in other cases.9 Clearly, the different concen-
trations and ligand/Pd ratios employed in different works
can justify these observations. That protonation may
become important in the case of the most basic ligands can
explain why 4,7-(MeO)2Phen is hardly effective under our
conditions, whereas it was shown to be a good ligand for the
(28) Wehman, P.; Borst, L.; Kamer, P. C. J.; van Leeuwen, P. W. N. M.
J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 1996, 112, 23–36.
(29) Alessio, E.; Mestroni, G. J. Mol. Catal. 1984, 26, 337–40.
(30) Alessio, E.; Mestroni, G. J. Organomet. Chem. 1985, 291, 117–
27.
(31) Bontempi, A.; Alessio, E.; Chanos, G.; Mestroni, G. J. Mol.
Catal. 1987, 42, 67–80.
(32) Cenini, S.; Ragaini, F.; Pizzotti, M.; Porta, F.; Mestroni, G.;
Alessio, E. J. Mol. Catal. 1991, 64, 179–190.