Organic Letters
Letter
constructing the requisite tricyclic systems with a resulting
pendant sulfone functionality. Arylsulfonyl chlorides are
inexpensive, bench-stable solids with many derivatives readily
available. The biological activity and/or physical properties of
the resulting organic compounds can be significantly enhanced
by the introduction of a sulfur group.17 Sulfonyl-containing
polycyclic compounds, in particular, have extensive applica-
tions in synthesis, agrochemical industries, and pharmaceut-
icals.18 Thus, sulfonylative construction of fluorenes warrants
further development. Herein, we report an efficient photo-
cascade protocol19 toward the synthesis of sulfonylated
fluorenes and pyrroloindoles, which is operationally simple
and works under mild and neutral conditions.
According to previous reports,24 the sulfonylation reaction is
expected to proceed via an atom-transfer radical addition
(ATRA)25 to form key intermediate I (Figure 1).24a Under the
Given the wide availability of industrially produced p-
toluenesulfonyl chloride 1a (TsCl), we initiated our studies by
investigating the reaction using 1a in combination with readily
prepared 2-phenyl-α-methylstyrene 2a. We first attempted to
perform the reaction with Na2CO3 in anhydrous CH3CN at
room temperature under an oxidative quenching cycle with the
[Ru(bpy)3Cl2]20 (E1/2(III/II*) = −0.81 V vs SCE, bpy = 2,2′-
bipyridine) photocatalyst (PC) and blue-light irradiation
(LED455) (Table 1, entry 1). Unexpectedly, acyclic sulfony-
a
Table 1. Optimization of the Reaction Parameters
Figure 1. Plausible reaction mechanism.
b
redox potentials of PC
yield (%)
Ru-PC photocatalytic conditions, intermediate I undergoes
rapid dehydrochlorination to form acyclic 4aa. In contrast, in
the case of Ir-PC, the subsequent single electron transfer from
photoexcited fac[Ir(ppy)3]* to I occurs to form a correspond-
ing stable benzylic radical II concurrent with the oxidation of
fac[Ir(ppy)3]* to fac[Ir(ppy)3]+ (Figure 1).26 The obvious
disparity in the photocatalytic reaction outcome is attributed to
the large difference in the excited-state reduction potentials
between the [Ru(bpy)3Cl2] and fac[Ir(ppy)3] PCs to reduce
the benzylic chloride unit of intermediate I.22,25e The excited-
state reduction potential of [Ru(bpy)3Cl2] is significantly lower
(−0.81 V vs SCE) than that of fac[Ir(ppy)3] (−1.73 V vs
SCE),22 which likely determines the fate of benzyl chloride
intermediate I. The formation of a tosyl radical was confirmed
by trapping it with TEMPO to give 5a (HRMS [M + Na]+ =
334.1551), whereas any attempt to trap benzylic radical II to
obtain 6aa failed (Scheme 2a), implying that intramolecular
cyclization of II rapidly proceeds to give radical III. III is likely
more prone to oxidation by fac[Ir(ppy)3]+, affording
carbocation IV with concurrent closing of the photocatalytic
cycle. The resulting IV rapidly aromatizes to deliver the desired
fluorene derivative 3aa.
As shown in Figure 1, the Ru-catalyzed reaction exclusively
gave exo-olefin product 4aa over vinyl sulfone 7aa, suggesting
that the steric factor overrides the inherent pKa of the protons
in this deprotonation process. When the flanking Me group
was replaced with phenyl (2b) to disrupt the terminal
deprotonation process, intramolecular cation cyclization
predominantly proceeded to afford cyclized product 3ab,
indicating the reluctance of the α-protons of the sulfone to
participate in the deprotonation (<10% of 7ab (E/Z mixture))
(Scheme 2b).27 In contrast, a truncated substituent (2c)
resulted in the exclusive formation of vinyl sulfone 7ac (E/Z
mixture), suggesting that the Thorpe−Ingold effect contrib-
+
−
entry
PC
EM
(V) EM*/M (V)
base
3aa
4aa
/M*
1
2
3
4
5
6
[Ru]
[Ru]
[Ir]
[Ir]
[Ru]
[Ir]
−0.81
−0.81
−1.73
−1.73
−0.81
−1.73
−1.73
+0.77
+0.77
+0.31
+0.31
+0.77
+0.31
+0.31
Na2CO3
0
0
76
61
0
79
61
10
14
45
13
0
Na2CO3
K2HPO4
K2HPO4
Na2CO3
Na2CO3
65
0
c
7
d
[Ir]
8
0
0
a
TsCl 1a (0.5 mmol, 1 equiv), 2a (0.75 mmol, 1.5 equiv), PC (1 mol
%), base (0.75 mmol, 1.5 equiv), dry CH3CN (2 mL), LED455, rt, 36
h. Isolated yields. Without a light source. Without PC. [Ru] =
b
c
d
[Ru(bpy)3Cl2] and [Ir] = fac[Ir(ppy)3].
lated compound 4aa (79%) was produced, and the desired
sulfonylated fluorene 3aa was not observed. We switched the
PC to fac[Ir(ppy)3],21 which has stronger reduction potential
(E1/2(IV/III*) −1.73 V vs SCE, ppy = 2-phenylpyridine).22
Intriguingly, photocatalysis with the latter Ir-based PC
significantly altered the product profile; the desired 3aa was
obtained in 76% yield with less than 10% of undesired acyclic
4aa (Table 1, entry 3). The Na2CO3 base improved the yield
and ratio of 3aa/4aa (Table 1, entries 3 vs 4), while other
inorganic bases, such as K2HPO4, were less effective in both
Ru- and Ir-based photocatalysis (Table 1, entries 5 and 6). The
results of control experiments indicated that achieving the
desired sulfonylation required the combination of light
irradiation and a PC (Table 1, entries 7 and 8).
The reductive quenching cycle is thermodynamically
unfavorable due to the large excited-state oxidation potential
−
difference between the photocatalysts (RuM*/M = +0.77 V;
IrM*/M = +0.31 V)23 and the olefins used (+1.0 to +1.75 V).22
−
B
Org. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX