Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jun 9.
Published in final edited form as: Org Lett. 2023 May 24;25(22):4098–4102. doi: 10.1021/acs.orglett.3c01321

Table 1.

Reaction optimization.

graphic file with name nihms-1910974-t0002.jpg
entry Lewis acid ligand % yielda
1 none none 0
2 20 mol% Sc(OTf)3 none 34
3 20 mol% Mg(OTf)2 none 14
4 20 mol% Cu(OTf)2 none 8
5 20 mol% Zn(OTf)2 none 19
6 20 mol% Fe(OTf)3 none 7
7 20 mol% La(OTf)3 none 4
8 20 mol% Yb(OTf)3 none 7
9 20 mol% Sc(OTf)3 30 mol% bipy 14
10 20 mol% Sc(OTf)3 30 mol% terpy 50
11 20 mol% Sc(OTf)3 30 mol% dMepybox 47
12 b 10 mol% Sc(OTf) 3 15 mol% terpy 72
13c 20 mol% Sc(OTf)3 30 mol% terpy 0
14d 20 mol% Sc(OTf)3 30 mol% terpy 0
15e 20 mol% Sc(OTf)3 30 mol% terpy 24
graphic file with name nihms-1910974-t0003.jpg

Unless otherwise noted, reactions were conducted using 0.1 mmol 12a, 0.5 mmol 2a, 2 mol% 14, and 2 mL solvent.

a

Yields were determined by 1H NMR analysis of the crude reaction mixture using CH2Br2 as an internal standard.

b

0.3 mmol scale, 3 mL CH2Cl2, 25 mol% imidazole, isolated yield.

c

No photocatalyst.

d

Run in the dark.

e

No imidazole.