2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.cattod.2016.08.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Group 13 metal (Al, Ga, In) alkyls supported by N -heterocyclic carbenes for use in lactide ring-opening polymerization catalysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
31
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
2
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Interestingly, the latter was in agreement with smaller steric hindrances of SIMes and IMes, and in contrast with larger steric demand of SIPr and IPr, in comparison with 6-Mes, as represented by the buried volume of discussed NHCs [25]. The analysis of the strength of In-C6-Mes bond of 2 in solution, in comparison with In-CNHC bonds of already characterized Me3In(NHC) adducts [3,21,23], was in sharp contrast with the solid state result. In solution, the shift between free and coordinated NHCs in 13 Although the reaction of 6-Mes with [Me 2 In(µ-OMe)] 3 led to the formation of Me 2 InOMe(6-Mes) complex (see the Supplementary Materials), which was more stable in comparison with Me 2 In(OCH 2 CH 2 OMe)(6-Mes), it seemed to disproportionate more readily in comparison with Me 2 InOMe(NHC) (NHC = SIMes, IMes), and as result could not be isolated in contrast to the latter [3].…”
Section: Reactivity Of [Me2m(μ-or)]n (M= Ga In ; or = Och2ch2ome Omsupporting
confidence: 50%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Interestingly, the latter was in agreement with smaller steric hindrances of SIMes and IMes, and in contrast with larger steric demand of SIPr and IPr, in comparison with 6-Mes, as represented by the buried volume of discussed NHCs [25]. The analysis of the strength of In-C6-Mes bond of 2 in solution, in comparison with In-CNHC bonds of already characterized Me3In(NHC) adducts [3,21,23], was in sharp contrast with the solid state result. In solution, the shift between free and coordinated NHCs in 13 Although the reaction of 6-Mes with [Me 2 In(µ-OMe)] 3 led to the formation of Me 2 InOMe(6-Mes) complex (see the Supplementary Materials), which was more stable in comparison with Me 2 In(OCH 2 CH 2 OMe)(6-Mes), it seemed to disproportionate more readily in comparison with Me 2 InOMe(NHC) (NHC = SIMes, IMes), and as result could not be isolated in contrast to the latter [3].…”
Section: Reactivity Of [Me2m(μ-or)]n (M= Ga In ; or = Och2ch2ome Omsupporting
confidence: 50%
“…Interestingly, the latter was in agreement with smaller steric hindrances of SIMes and IMes, and in contrast with larger steric demand of SIPr and IPr, in comparison with 6-Mes, as represented by the buried volume of discussed NHCs [25]. The analysis of the strength of In-C 6-Mes bond of 2 in solution, in comparison with In-C NHC bonds of already characterized Me 3 In(NHC) adducts [3,21,23], was in sharp contrast with the solid state result. In solution, the shift between free and coordinated NHCs in 13 [30], the analysis of the strength of a M-C NHC bond using the 13 C NMR spectroscopy could be influenced by other factors affecting the distribution of electron density at carbene carbon.…”
Section: Reactivity Of [Me2m(μ-or)]n (M= Ga In ; or = Och2ch2ome Omsupporting
confidence: 50%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The NMR data for 3 and 4 only display sharp resonances As determined through X-ray crystallographic studies (XRD), the solid-state molecular structure of 2 confirmed the effective coordination of IPr* to InMe 3 , resulting in a four-coordinate In(III) adopting a distorted tetrahedral geometry and coplanar to the NHC heterocyclic ring (Figure 2). The In-C carbene bond distance (2.330(5) Å) in 2 is a bit longer than those in (IMes)InMe 3 and (IPr)InMe 3 (2.292(6) and 2.309(2) Å, respectively; IMes = 1,3-bis(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1,3-dihydro-imidazol-2-ylidene; IPr = 1,3-bis{2,6-bis(1-methylethyl)phenyl})-1,3-dihydro-imidazol-2-ylidene), likely reflecting greater steric hindrance between the NHC and InMe 3 in 2 [20,21]. However, the shortest contacts between IPr* and InMe 3 (H···H = 2.257 Å and C···H = 2.747 Å) remain close to the sum of the van der Waals (vdW) radii of the corresponding atoms, in line with no severe steric congestion in 2 and in agreement with the observed stability of adduct (IPr*)InMe 3 in solution [22].…”
Section: Adducts (Stbu)mme3 (3 M = Ga; 4 M = In)mentioning
confidence: 99%