Takahiro
Sasamori
*a,
Tomohiro
Sugahara
a,
Tomohiro
Agou
a,
Koh
Sugamata
a,
Jing-Dong
Guo
ab,
Shigeru
Nagase
b and
Norihiro
Tokitoh
*a
aInstitute for Chemical Research, Kyoto University, Gokasho Uji, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan. E-mail: sasamori@boc.kuicr.kyoto-u.ac.jp
bFukui Institute for Fundamental Chemistry, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8103, Japan
First published on 24th June 2015
Reaction of the stable digermyne BbtGeGeBbt (Bbt = 2,6-[CH(SiMe3)2]2-4-[C(SiMe3)3]-C6H2) with ethylene initially afforded the corresponding 1,2-digermacyclobutene. Depending on the reaction conditions applied, further reaction of this 1,2-digermacyclobutene with ethylene furnished two different reaction products: a 1,4-digermabicyclo[2.2.0]hexane or a bis(germiranyl)ethane. Combined experimental and theoretical results suggested that the 1,4-digermabicyclo[2.2.0]hexane and the bis(germiranyl)ethane are the thermodynamic and kinetic reaction products, respectively. A reaction mechanism in agreement with these results was proposed.
Previously, we have reported the synthesis of the stable diaryldisilyne BbtSiSiBbt (7, Bbt = 2,6-[CH(SiMe3)2]-4-[C(SiMe3)3]-C6H2).13 The reaction of 7 with ethylene resulted in the unexpected formation of 8 (Type II; Scheme 1), containing two silacyclopropane moieties. Compound 8 was found to be remarkably stable, as decomposition of these silacyclopropane moieties was not observed, even upon heating.14 Subsequently, we began to investigate the reactivity difference between diaryldisilynes and diaryldigermynes. Herein, we report the reaction of the stable diaryldigermyne BbtGeGeBbt (9)15 with ethylene to afford the corresponding 1,2-digermacyclobutene (10), which is the formal [2+2] cycloadduct of 9. Depending on the reaction conditions, further treatment of 10 with ethylene resulted in the formation of two products, specifically a four-membered cycloadduct (12, Type I; Scheme 2) and a three-membered cycloadduct (11, Type II; Scheme 2).
A hexane solution of digermyne 9 was frozen (−196 °C) and degassed in a J-Young tube, before being charged with ethylene.16 The colour of the solution changed from dark red to purple. Removal of the solvent from the reaction mixture afforded 1,2-digermacyclobutene 10. The formation of 10 from the reaction of digermyne 9 with ethylene can be explained by the same mechanism used to describe the reaction of disilynes with olefins:12 initially, interaction between ethylene and one of the Ge atoms in the GeGe bond generates germirane-substituted germylene 13 as an intermediate,17 which subsequently inserts intramolecularly into the Ge–C bond of the germirane moiety (Scheme 3). X-ray crystallographic analysis of 10 revealed a non-planar structure for the four-membered GeGe–C–C ring (Fig. 1).18 The two Bbt groups were found to be oriented in opposite directions, resulting in a trans-bent geometry for the GeGe moiety with trans-bent angles of 39.5° (Ge1) and 39.7° (Ge2). A GeGe bond length of 2.4132(5) Å was observed, which is slightly shorter than a typical Ge–Ge single bond (ca. 2.44 Å),19 but consistent with previously reported GeGe double bonds in digermenes (ca. 2.2–2.5 Å).19 These structural features suggested that the GeGe double bond in 10 should be weakened by the severe intrinsic strain of the four-membered GeGe–C–C ring and the highly trans-bent geometry. The 1H NMR spectrum of 10 exhibited signals commensurate with two identical Bbt groups, as well as signals consistent with two equivalent SiMe3 groups at the ortho-positions of the Bbt groups, thus confirming a fast inversion of the trans-bent geometry of the GeGe bond in 10 in solution.
Fig. 1 (a) Molecular structure of 10 (thermal ellipsoids at 50% probability; hydrogen atoms omitted for clarity), and (b) selected metric parameters for the digermacyclobutene core in 10. |
In order to induce a further reaction of 10 with a second molecule of the alkene, ethylene was condensed into a sealed vessel, which contained a frozen and degassed C6D6 solution of 10 at −196 °C. Subsequently, the reaction mixture was allowed to warm to r.t. in this sealed tube, and based on the volume of the tube, 10 was treated with an excess of ethylene (ca. 5 atm). The purple colour of 10 disappeared immediately,20 and 11 (Type II; Scheme 2) was obtained as a colourless precipitate.21 Upon opening the sealed tube in an argon-filled glove box, the colourless powder turned purple again, and on the basis of its 1H NMR spectrum it could be established that 11 retroconverted quantitatively to afford 10 within a few minutes at r.t. Accordingly, the reaction of 10 with ethylene to furnish 11 is, depending on the ethylene pressure, reversible. On the other hand, exposure of a degassed THF solution of 10 to ethylene at ambient pressure (ca. 1 atm; −78 °C to r.t.; 1 d) afforded stable colourless crystals of 12 (Type I; Scheme 2) in quantitative yield. Depending on the reaction conditions, the reaction of 10 with ethylene thus delivers different reaction products. The molecular structures of 11 and 12 were determined unambiguously by spectroscopic and X-ray crystallographic analyses.22
In order to elucidate the underlying reaction mechanism (Scheme 3), the reaction between digermyne 9 and ethylene was monitored by 1H NMR spectroscopy in THF-d8. After exposing a degassed THF-d8 solution of 9 to ethylene (ca. 1 atm) at −78 °C and then allowing it to warm to r.t., the colour of 9 disappeared and only signals associated with 10 were observed. After 10 min, the intensity of these signals decreased, and additional signals consistent with the formation of 11 were observed (10:11 = ca. 1:1). After 20 min, signals in agreement with the formation of 12 appeared, and after 5 hours, the quantitative formation of 12 was observed. These experimental results suggested that the reaction of 10 with ethylene furnishes 11 and 12 as the kinetic and thermodynamic products, respectively.
Taking all the previously discussed results into consideration, the reaction mechanism for the reaction between digermyne 9 and ethylene can most likely be interpreted as follows: the reaction is initiated by a nucleophilic attack of ethylene towards the LUMO of 9 to afford 13, which readily undergoes an intramolecular ring-expansion, affording 10via a germylgermylene–digermene rearrangement.23 Subsequently, nucleophilic attack of another molecule of ethylene towards the LUMO of 10 affords germylene 14, which is expected to easily undergo a [1+2] cycloaddition reaction between a further molecule of ethylene and the second germylene moiety. While this [1+2] cycloaddition reaction should be reversible,24 considering the results of the NMR monitoring reactions, the intramolecular C–Ge insertion of 14 is expected to proceed irreversibly to provide the thermodynamically stable product 1,4-digerma-bicyclo[2.2.0]hexane (12). The solubility of 11 in benzene was found to be limited, and the precipitation of 11 in the form of a colourless solid was observed when the reaction was conducted in this solvent. When the same reaction was carried out in THF, the kinetic product 11 was generated at an early stage in the reaction, and subsequently both 10 and 11 were converted to the thermodynamic product 12. It can thus be concluded that the reactions of such digermynes are mostly initiated by nucleophilic attack of π-electrons towards the in-plane π* orbital (LUMO) of the Ge–Ge triple bond, which is consistent with the previously reported reactivity of π-bond compounds containing heavier group 14 elements.
The proposed reaction pathways were also examined by density functional theory (DFT) calculations (see Fig. S11†), using appropriate model compounds (9′–15′) bearing Bbp (Bbp = 2,6-[CH(SiMe3)2]2-C6H3) instead of Bbt groups (Scheme 3).25 The results suggested that intermediate 13′ is formed with a small reaction barrier of 5.9 kcal mol−1, and is thermodynamically more stable than 9′ + ethylene by 14.9 kcal mol−1. Subsequently, 13′ can afford 10′ (8.2 kcal mol−1 more stable) with a small reaction barrier of 3.4 kcal mol−1. Following that, the reaction of 10′ with ethylene can provide key intermediate 14′ (3.9 kcal mol−1 more stable) with a reaction barrier of 8.6 kcal mol−1. The second molecule of ethylene can then react smoothly with 14′ to give product 11′via intermediate 15′, which is a rotational isomer with a very low reaction barrier (<1.0 kcal mol−1), while product 12′ is produced with a large barrier of 16.4 kcal mol−1, which is 5.9 kcal mol−1 more stable than product 11′. The results of these DFT calculations corroborated the hypothesis that the reaction of 10 with ethylene should furnish 11 and 12 as the kinetic and thermodynamic products, respectively.26
Finally, the reactivity difference between the reaction of ethylene with digermynes (1 and 9) and that with disilyne (7) can be explained as follows: for the reaction with 1 (ArDipGeGeArDip), the calculations draw the conclusion that the corresponding Type II product with three-membered rings should be the kinetic product, while the Type I product 3, i.e. 1,4-digermabicyclo[2.2.0]hexane, should be the thermodynamic product, indicating that the observation of the kinetic product under these reaction conditions is unlikely.27 These conclusions are in agreement with our experimental observations. For the reaction of 7 with ethylene, theoretical calculations indicated that Type II product 8 should be both the kinetically and the thermodynamically favoured product.28 These results could be interpreted in terms of the relative stability of the Ge- or Si-containing three-membered rings.
Footnote |
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: experimental and computational details, as well as X-ray crystallographic data for 10–12 are available. CCDC 1054594–1054596. For ESI and crystallographic data in CIF or other electronic format see DOI: 10.1039/c5sc01266j |
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 |