Abstract
We report here “sandwich”-diimine copper complex-catalyzed trifluoroethylation and pentafluoropropylation of unactivated C(sp3)–H bonds in alkyl esters, halides, and protected amines by employing CF3CHN2 and CF3CF2CHN2 reagents. Reactions proceed in dichloromethane solvent at room temperature. Identical C-H functionalization conditions and stoichiometries are employed for generality and convenience. Selectivities for C–H insertions are higher for compounds possessing stronger electron-withdrawing substituents. Preliminary mechanistic studies point to a mechanism involving a pre-equilibrium forming a “sandwich”-diimine copper-CF3CHN2 complex followed by rate-determining loss of nitrogen affording the reactive copper carbene. It reacts with trifluoromethyldiazomethane about 6.5 times faster than with 1-fluoroadamantane explaining the need for slow addition of the diazo compound.
Keywords: C-H activation, carbenes, copper, diazo compounds, diimines
Graphical Absract

“Sandwich” diimine-copper (I) complex catalyzes reactions of CF3CHN2 and CF3CF2CHN2 reagents with C(sp3)–H bonds in a large panel of alkyl esters, halides, and protected amines resulting in introduction of trifluoroethyl- and pentafluoropropyl groups with predictable regioselectivities. Identical C-H functionalization conditions and stoichiometries are employed for generality and synthetic convenience. Preliminary mechanistic studies point to a mechanism involving a pre-equilibrium forming a “sandwich”-diimine copper-CF3CHN2 complex followed by rate-determining loss of nitrogen affording the reactive copper carbene which reacts with trifluoromethyldiazomethane about 6.5 times faster than with 1-fluoroadamantane explaining the need for slow addition of the diazo compound.
Introduction
Polyfluoroalkyl groups are important moieties that can increase the potency, enhance the metabolic stability, and improve the lipophilicity of biologically active molecules.1 In contrast to the trifluoromethylation strategies which have been extensively investigated in recent years,2 the incorporation of 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl and related substituents has received less attention.3 Three main strategies have been employed for formation of carbon-trifluoroethyl bonds. First, cross-coupling of aryl boronic acids or aryl halides with CF3CH2I under transition metal catalysis gives 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl arenes.4 In some cases, benzyl or allyl electrophiles can be used, resulting in C(sp3)– C(sp3) bond formation.4i Second, C–H bond functionalization strategies have been employed for the trifluoroethylation of aromatic and heterocyclic compounds.5 Third, reactions of 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl radicals with alkenes have been reported.6
Reactions proceeding via metal carbenes have been extensively used for C(sp3)–H bond functionalization.7 The electrophilic carbene generated from 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane should insert into alkane C–H bonds producing trifluoroethyl-containing molecules.8 Somewhat unexpectedly, this transformation has not been widely explored. While reactions of CF3CHN2 with X–H bonds (X = N, S, O, P, B, Si) have been extensively investigated,9 only three publications report metal-catalyzed insertion of trifluoroethylcarbene into C(sp3)–H bonds. An early report by Duan and Gu discloses iron-catalyzed trifluoroethylation of cyclohexane in 20% yield, along with two examples of insertion into benzylic C–H bonds (Scheme 1A).10 In 2019, Arnold and co-workers developed a highly enatioselective, activated C(sp3)–H bond trifluoroethylation in tertiary amines catalyzed by engineered cytochrome P450 enzyme analogue (Scheme 1B).11 Our group recently disclosed “sandwich” diimine-copper catalysts 1 and 2 for hydrocarbon C–H functionalization with a number of diazoalkanes. Adamantane, cyclooctane, cyclodecane, and cyclododecane trifluoroethylation was reported (Scheme 1C).12 Key to the success of these transformations is axial steric bulk around the reactive center as well as high electrophilicity of the cationic copper complex which allows the use of unactivated diazocompounds. However, trifluoroethylation of synthetically relevant substrates was not explored. We report here that diimine-copper catalyst 2 allows for site-selective unactivated C(sp3)–H trifluoroethylation in protected carboxylic acids, alcohols, amines, and alkyl halides. Reactions occur at room temperature under uniform conditions by using C–H insertion substrates as limiting reagents, which should facilitate use of these transformations in synthesis.
Scheme 1.

Trifluoroethylation of C(sp3)–H bonds by metal carbenes.
Results and Discussion
Reaction optimization.
We previously used diazo compounds as limiting reagents.12 This is acceptable for reactions with easily accessible hydrocarbon or ether substrates such as cyclohexane or dioxane. However, in case of more complex structures, C–H insertion substrate should be used as the limiting reagent. We examined the reaction of 5-methyl-2-hexanol acetate 3 with 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane (Table 1). Trifluoroethylation occurs exclusively at the remote tertiary position. Screening with respect to amount of diazo reagent showed that best results are obtained with 6 equivalents of 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane (entries 1–5). Entries 4, 6, and 9 demonstrate that product 4 is formed in the highest yield if 5 mol% of catalyst is used, while 2 and 10 mol% loading affords lower conversions. Interestingly, the product yield is dependent on the concentration of the diazo reagent. We could reproducibly obtain about 1.2 M concentration of 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane which gave 77% NMR (62% isolated) yield of 4 (entry 4). However, if 0.84 M solution of diazo reagent was used under otherwise identical conditions, 64% NMR yield of 4 was observed (entry 7). Lowering concentration of 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane to 0.4 M further decreased the product yield to 58% (entry 8). Control experiment with simple diphenyl imine catalyst 5 gave only 22% yield of 4, while use of Cu(MeCN)4PF6 did not result in formation of C–H insertion product. The best results were obtained under conditions of entry 4, which were used in all subsequent experiments. Excess of diazo reagent is converted to a mixture of isomeric bis(trifluoromethyl)ethylenes.
Table 1.
Reaction optimization studiesa
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry | CF3CHN2 (M, equiv) | Catalyst (mol%) | Yield [%] |
| 1 | 1.2, 1 | 2 (5) | 22 |
| 2 | 1.2, 2 | 2 (5) | 47 |
| 3 | 1.2, 4 | 2 (5) | 58 |
| 4 | 1.2, 6 | 2 (5) | 77(62)b,c |
| 5 | 1.2, 8 | 2 (5) | 67 |
| 6 | 1.2, 6 | 2 (10) | 72 |
| 7 | 0.84, 6 | 2 (5) | 64 |
| 8 | 0.4, 6 | 2 (5) | 58 |
| 9 | 1.2, 6 | 2 (2) | 21 |
| 10 | 1.2, 6 | 5 (5) | 22 |
| 11 | 1.2, 6 | Cu(MeCN)4PF6 (5) | NR |
Reaction conditions: neat 3 (0.2 mmol, 1.0 equiv), add CF3CH=N2 as a solution in CH2Cl2 in 10 hours by syringe pump at RT (20–23 °C), then stir for 12 hours. Yields determined by 19F NMR spectroscopy with trifluorotoluene as an internal standard.
Isolated yield. NR = no C-H insertion.
NMR yield of 77% was obtained also if reaction was stirred 2 hours after addition.
Acyl group effect on insertion into tertiary C(sp3)–H bonds.
After establishing the optimal reaction conditions, we explored the effect of acyl group on selectivity and yield of C–H insertion (Scheme 2). Please note that reaction conditions in all subsequent schemes are identical unless otherwise noted. 4-Methyl-1-pentanol acetate 6 was trifluoroethylated at the tertiary position in 75% yield.
Scheme 2.

Alcohol protecting group effect.
The pivalate ester 7 gave 9 in 61% yield. 5-Methyl-2-hexanol trifluoroacetate 10 gave 12 in 53% yield, while the corresponding acetate and pivalate afforded 4 and 13 in 62 and 70% yields, respectively. Presumably, strongly electron-withdrawing trifluoroacetate deactivates the proximal C–H bonds towards carbene insertion. Conversely, for more distant C–H bonds use of trifluoroacetate esters should increase the selectivity by deactivating the proximal C–H bonds. Functionalization of 3,7-dimethyl-1-octanol acetate 15 gave a 50% isolated yield of a mixture of five isomers in 33:3:1:1:2.7 ratio, with the major isomer derived from insertion in distal tertiary position. The corresponding trifluoroacetate 14 gave a mixture of three isomers in 27:1:1 ratio in 68% isolated yield. Thus, overall selectivity (4.3/1 vs. 13.5/1 major/minor isomers) and yield was higher for the trifluoroacetate ester substrate. For functionalization of proximal C–H bonds one should use acetate or pivalate ester, while for distal bonds trifluoroacetate protecting group gives better yields and selectivities.
Acyl group effect on insertion into secondary C(sp3)–H bonds.
Next, we explored insertion into methylene C–H bonds (Scheme 3). Reaction of 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane with 1-pentanol acetate 18 gave a 60% isolated yield of three isomer mixture in 17:2:1 ratio with 21 as the major one. Trifluoroacetate-containing substrate 19 afforded a 26:2.6:1 ratio of isomer mixture in 55% NMR yield. Two most abundant isomers 22a and 22b were isolated and fully characterized after derivatization.13 The highest selectivity was observed for pentafluorophenyl ester 20. A 14:1 ratio of isomers was obtained with 23 as the major product in 62% yield. Next, reactions with 1-hexanol esters were explored. Trifluoroacetate 24 gave a 17:3:1 ratio of products in 89% NMR and 65% isolated yield. Using a more electron-withdrawing triflate ester 26 marginally increased C–H insertion selectivity to afford 20:2.5:1 ratio of products in 50% yield. It is likely that for longer alkyl chains the selectivities will not be synthetically useful if catalyst 2 is employed.
Scheme 3.

Selectivity dependence on distance from ester.
Trifluoroethylation of acyl moiety C(sp3)–H bonds in esters.
Scheme 4 shows C(sp3)–H bond functionalizations of the acyl linkage of carboxylic esters. For methyl, ethyl, and propyl esters the C–H insertion can be directed to the acyl group if it contains at least a three-carbon chain. Propyl isovalerate 28 was trifluoroethylated to give a 60% yield of 29. 4-Methylvaleric acid ester 30 reacted selectively at the tertiary position affording a 59% yield of 31. Isoheptanoic acid methyl ester 32 was trifluoroethylated in 70% yield. Methyl ester of valeric acid 34 reacted selectively at the most remote methylene position to afford 35 in 65% yield. For longer chain carboxylic acids, such as caproic acid ester 36, selectivity decreases and an 80% yield of three isomer mixture (68.5:12:1) was isolated. The two most abundant isomers were identified as 37a and 37b after derivatization and separation.13 Interestingly, α–halocarboxylic acid esters are compatible with the reaction conditions. Thus, α-bromocaproic acid methyl ester 38 was trifluoroethylated to give 39 in 42% yield as a 1:1 diastereomer ratio. Functionalization of α-bromoheptanoic acid ethyl ester 40 was less selective, affording a 25:1:1 isomer ratio in 60% yield. The major isomer 41 was formed as a 1:1 diastereomer mixture.
Scheme 4.

Substrate scope with respect to carboxylic acid moiety in esters.
Trifluoroethylation of alcohol moiety C(sp3)–H bonds in esters.
Scheme 5 shows functionalization of alcohol derivative C(sp3)–H bonds. Isoamyl acetate 42 reacted selectively at the tertiary position giving 39% isolated and 50% NMR yield of 43. The lower isolated yield is due to volatility of the product. 2,5-Dimethyl-2-hexanol trifluoroacetate 44 gave a 62% yield of 45, while tetrahydrolinalool trifluoroacetate 46 reacted to form 60% of 47. For longer chain esters such as 48, minor amount of insertion into secondary C–H bonds was observed along the expected product 49 arising from functionalization of the tertiary C–H bond. Trifluoroethylation of 2-methyl-2-hexanol trifluoroacetate 50 afforded a 40% yield of a 10:1 isomer mixture with 51 as a major product.
Scheme 5.

Scope with respect to alcohol moiety in esters.
Trifluoroethylation of the adamantane scaffold.
Scheme 6 shows trifluoroethylation of 1-adamantanecarboxylic acid methyl ester 52. Under the standard conditions, a separable mixture of mono-, bis-, and tris-trifluoroethylated products was obtained, with 17% of 53, 63% of 54, and 12% of 55 isolated. The reaction could be forced to completion by performing it under standard conditions, evaporating the volatiles, and adding another portion of 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane and catalyst. Under these conditions, 72% of tris-trifluoroethylated 55 was isolated.
Scheme 6.

Adamantanecarboxylic acid ester reactions.
Trifluoroethylation of amine and halogen-containing substrate C(sp3)–H bonds.
Scheme 7 shows compatibility of other functional groups with the trifluoroethylation protocol. Phthaloyl-protected isoamylamine 56 was trifluoroethylated in 60 % yield affording 57. Protected amylamine 58 gave an 87% yield of isomer mixture (25:1:1), with 59 as a major product. Phthaloyl-protected memantine 60 reacted to give 61 in 95% yield. 1-Bromo-pentane 62 was trifluoroethylated affording a 31:2:1 isomer mixture in 62% yield, with 63 as a major product. The carbon-bromine bond was not affected under these conditions.14 Fluorohydrocarbons can also be trifluoroethylated affording polyfluorinated products. Reaction of 64 gave a 76% isolated yield of an isomer mixture (37:4:2:1:1) with 65 as a major product. 1-Fluoroadamantane 66 was bis(trifluoroethylated) to afford 67 in 86% yield.
Scheme 7.

Compatibility with other functional groups.
Pentafluoropropylation of C(sp3)–H bonds.
Pentafluoropropylation of unactivated C(sp3)–H bonds has not been reported.11 We explored the reactions of 2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoro-1-diazopropane with a number of esters (Table 2). The yields are somewhat lower than those obtained in reactions with 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane, likely due to higher steric demand of the intermediate metallocarbene, and lower concentration of 2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoro-1-diazopropane solution. Esters 3 and 10 were pentafluoropropylated to give 68 and 69 in nearly identical 32 and 30% yields (entries 1 and 2). These yields are about twice lower than those obtained in reactions with 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane. Trifluoroacetate 48 reacted to give a 36% yield of 70 (entry 3). In contrast to trifluoroethylation, only one isomer of product was observed in crude reaction mixture. Propyl 4-methylvalerate 30 gave 71 in a 30% yield, and isoheptanoic acid methyl ester 32 was pentafluoropropylated in 35% yield to afford 72 (entries 4 and 5).
Table 2.
Pentafluoropropylation of C(sp3)–H bonds.
|
Reaction conditions: ester (0.2 mmol, 1.0 equiv), add CF3CF2CH=N2 as a solution in CH2Cl2 in 10 hours by syringe pump at RT (20–23 °C), then stir for 12 hours. Yields are isolated yields.
Trifluoroethylation of 5β-cholestan-3β-ol trifluoro-acetate.
To demonstrate the amenability of trifluoroethylation strategy for late-stage synthetic applications, we subjected 5β-cholestan-3β-ol trifluoroacetate 73 to the standard trifluoroethylation conditions (Scheme 8). A 60% NMR and 45% isolated yield of 74 was obtained, with trifluoroethylation predominately occurring at the isopropyl group.
Scheme 8.

Cholestanol derivative trifluoroethylation.
Mechanistic considerations.
Low temperature NMR studies were performed to observe reaction intermediates and interrogate their reactivities. Catalyst 75 was combined with 5 or 10 equivalents of 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane in CD2Cl2 solvent at –70 °C (Scheme 9) and 19F spectra were recorded every five minutes. The only species observed in 19F spectra were the PF6 anion, CF3CHN2, and cis/trans isomers of bis(trifluoromethyl)ethylene dimers arising from decomposition of the diazo compound. Pseudo-first order rate constants for the dimer formation are dependent on concentration of CF3CHN2 implying an associative exchange mechanism for ethylene displacement by the diazo compound.13,17 The calculated second order rate constant corresponds to ΔG≠ = 13.5 kcal/mol. In related copper complex 1 associative ethylene self-exchange proceeds with ΔG≠ = 12.9 kcal/mol.15 The generally accepted mechanism for metal-catalyzed formation of alkenes from diazocompounds is presented in Scheme 9.16 Ethylene ligand exchange for the diazocompound is followed by nitrogen extrusion producing the copper carbene, which reacts with another equivalent of diazo species affording nitrogen and bis(trifluoromethyl)ethylene isomers. The addition of 4 equivalents of ethylene completely shuts down the dimer formation. Trifluoromethylcyclopropane is not formed under these conditions. This points to a mechanism involving preequilibrium forming 76 followed by rate-determining loss of nitrogen affording 77 (N2 is unlikely to recapture 77 and re-form 76).
Scheme 9.

Mechanistic considerations.
Next, the relative reactivity of copper carbene intermediate with 1-fluoroadamantane and 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane was determined. Catalyst 75 was combined with 1-fluoroadamantane and 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane in CD2Cl2 solvent at –80 °C and 19F spectra were recorded every five minutes. Interestingly, C–H functionalization of 1-fluoroadamantane occurs at –80 °C. Copper carbene intermediate 77 can react either with another molecule of 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane affording bis(trifluoromethyl)ethylene isomers, or with 1-fluoroadamantane giving C–H functionalization product 78. Ratio between the bis(trifluoromethyl)ethylene and 78 shows that reaction of 77 with trifluoromethyldiazomethane is about 6.5 times faster than 1-fluoroadamantane functionalization. High reactivity of copper carbene 77 with 2,2,2-trifluorodiazoethane explains necessity for slow addition of the diazocompound to substrate/catalyst mixture. The comparative reactivity of a tertiary and secondary C(sp3)–H bonds in 30 and 34 is consistent with that reported earlier.18
Conclusions
In conclusion, we have shown that “sandwich” diimine-copper(I) complexes are efficient catalysts for C(sp3)–H trifluoroethylation and pentafluoropropylation. Alkyl esters, halides, and protected amines react with CF3CHN2 and CF3CF2CHN2 in dichloromethane at room temperature affording products in moderate to high yields. In all reactions, 5 mol% catalyst 2, six equivalents of the diazo compound, and 10–hour addition time was used. General reaction conditions should allow for easy extension of the methodology to other substrates. Selectivities for C–H insertions are higher for esters possessing stronger electron-withdrawing substituents such as trifluoroacetate or pentafluorobenzoate. Acceptable regioselectivities can be achieved for up to 5–6 carbon long methylene chains provided that an electron-withdrawing moiety is present. Preliminary mechanistic studies suggest a mechanism involving ligand exchange that reversibly forms a copper-CF3CHN2 complex followed by rate-determining loss of nitrogen affording the reactive copper carbene. Addition of external ligands such as ethylene inhibits the formation of copper carbene. Intrinsic reactivity of intermediate copper carbene with trifluoromethyldiazomethane is about 6.5 times higher than that with 1-fluoroadamantane explaining the need for slow addition of the diazo compound.
Experimental Section
General Procedure for 2,2,2-Trifluoroethylation Reactions:
Outside the glovebox, one 35 mL borosilicate vial was equipped with a magnetic stir bar. The vial was placed inside the glovebox. To the vial was added solid copper catalyst 2 (25 mg, 5 mol%) and substrate (0.5 mmol, 1.0 equiv). 0.2 mL of CH2Cl2 was added to this vial if substrate is solid. The vial was then sealed with a cap containing a septum and taken out of the glovebox. Outside the glovebox, CF3CHN2 (1.2 M in CH2Cl2, 6 equiv) was added with an aid of a syringe pump equipped with a plastic syringe over 10 hours at room temperature. The grease was then applied to the top of the septa to maintain an inert atmosphere. After addition was complete, stirring was continued for 12 hours. After that, glacial acetic acid (0.5 mL) was added to quench unreacted diazo compound. Silica gel was then added and mixture was concentrated on rotary evaporator at RT and subjected to flash chromatography using an appropriate eluent to obtain the products. After concentrating the fractions containing the product, the residue was dried under reduced pressure to yield pure product. The product was characterized by 1H, 13C, 19F NMR and HR-MS. Due to the UV inactive property, these products were identified and isolated based on the GC-MS and 19F NMR for each fraction.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Welch Foundation (Chair E-0044) and NIGMS (Grant R01GM077635). We thank Dr. Xiqu Wang for collecting and solving X-ray structure of compound 74, and Dr. Zhi-Hao Chen for assistance with low-temperature NMR studies. Prof. Maurice Brookhart is acknowledged for helpful discussions.
Footnotes
References
- [1].(a) Muller K, Faeh C, Diederich F, Science 2007, 317, 1881–1886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Purser S, Moore PR, Swallow S, Gouverneur V, Chem. Soc. Rev 2008, 37, 320–330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Zhou Y, Wang J, Gu Z, Wang S, Zhu W, Aceña JL, Soloshonok VA, Izawa K, Liu H, Chem. Rev 2016, 116, 422–518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (d) Johnson BM, Shu Y-Z, Zhuo X, Meanwell NA, J. Med. Chem 2020, 63, 6315–6386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (e) Gillis EP, Eastman KJ, Hill MD, Donnelly DJ, Meanwell NA, J. Med. Chem 2015, 58, 8315–8359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].(a) Tomashenko OA, Grushin VV, Chem. Rev 2011, 111, 4475–4521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Charpentier J, Früh N, Togni A, Chem. Rev 2015, 115, 650–682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Liu X, Xu C, Wang M, Liu Q, Chem. Rev 2015, 115, 683–730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (d) Mandal D, Maji S, Pal T, Sinha SK, Maiti D, Chem. Commun 2022, 58, 10442–10468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (e) Xiao H, Zhang Z, Fang Y, Zhu L, Li C, Chem. Soc. Rev 2021, 50, 6308–6319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].(a) Uneyama K, Yamazaki T, J. Fluorine Chem 2017, 203, 3–30. [Google Scholar]; (b) Han J-B, Hao J-H, Zhang C-P, Qin H-L, Curr. Org. Chem 2015, 19, 1554–1565. [Google Scholar]
- [4].(a) Zhao Y, Hu J, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2012, 51, 1033–1036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Liang A, Li X, Liu D, Li J, Zou D, Wu Y, Wu Y, Chem. Commun 2012, 48, 8273–8275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Brusoe AT, Hartwig JF, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2015, 137, 8460–8468. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (d) Mcloughlin VCR, Thrower J, Tetrahedron 1969, 25, 5921–5940. [Google Scholar]; (e) Xu S, Chen H-H, Dai J-J, Xu H-J, Org. Lett 2014, 16, 2306–2309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (f) Zhang X, Yang C, Adv. Synth. Catal 2015, 357, 2721–2727. [Google Scholar]; (g) Yang Y, Zhou Q, Cai J, Xue T, Liu Y, Jiang Y, Su Y, Chung LW, Vicic DA, Chem. Sci 2019, 10, 5275–5282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (h) Li H, Sheng J, Liao G-X, Wu B-B, Ni H-Q, Li Y, Wang X-S, Adv. Synth. Catal 2020, 362, 5363–5367. [Google Scholar]; (i) Umemoto T, Kuriu Y, Tetrahedron Lett 1981, 22, 5197–5200. [Google Scholar]
- [5].(a) Song W, Lackner S, Ackermann L, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2014, 53, 2477–2480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Tolnai GL, Székely A, Makó Z, Gáti T, Daru J, Bihari T, Stirling A, Novák Z, Chem. Commun 2015, 51, 4488–4491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Zhu M, Han X, Fu WJ, Wang ZQ, Hao BM, Hao XQ, Song MP, Xu C, J. Org. Chem 2016, 81, 7282–7287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (d) Zhang H, Wang HY, Luo Y, Chen C, Cao Y, Chen P, Guo Y-L, Lan Y, Liu G, ACS Catal. 2018, 8, 2173–2180. [Google Scholar]; (e) Zhao K, Zhang Z-Y, Cui X-L, Wang Y-X, Wu X-D, Li W-M, Wu J-X, Zhao L-L, Guo J-Y, Loh T-P, Org. Lett 2020, 22, 9029–9035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (f) Fujiwara Y, Dixon JA, O’Hara F, Funder ED, Dixon DD, Rodriguez RA, Baxter RD, Herlé B, Sach N, Collins MR, Ishihara Y, Baran PS, Nature 2012, 492, 95–99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (g) Yan S-Y, Zhang Z-Z, Shi B-F, Chem. Commun 2017, 53, 10287–10290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].(a) Huang M, Li L, Zhao Z-G, Chen Q-Y, Guo Y, Synthesis 2015, 47, 3891–3900. [Google Scholar]; (b) Li L, Huang M, Liu C, Xiao J-C, Chen Q-Y, Guo Y, Zhao Z-G, Org. Lett 2015, 17, 4714–4717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) He B, Pan Q, Guo Y, Chen Q-Y, Liu C, Org. Lett 2020, 22, 6552–6556. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (d) Yu X, Cohen SM, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2016, 138, 12320–12323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].(a) Doyle MP, Duffy R, Ratnikov M, Zhou L, Chem. Rev 2010, 110, 704–724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Díaz-Requejo MM, Pérez PJ, Chem. Rev 2008, 108, 3379–3394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Zhao X, Zhang Y, Wang J, Chem. Commun 2012, 48, 10162–10173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (d) Davies HML, J. Org. Chem 2019, 84, 12722–12745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (e) Davies HML, Denton JR, Chem. Soc. Rev 2009, 38, 3061–3071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (f) DeAngelis A, Panish R, Fox JM, Acc. Chem. Res 2016, 49, 115–127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (g) Dias HVR, Lovely CJ, Chem. Rev 2008, 108, 3223–3238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].(a) Gilman H, Jones RG, J. Am. Chem. Soc 1943, 65, 1458–1460. [Google Scholar]; (b) Morandi B, Carreira EM, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2010, 49, 938–941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Atherton JH, Fields R, J. Chem. Soc. C 1967, 1450–1454. [Google Scholar]; (d) Atherton JH, Fields R, J. Chem. Soc. C 1968, 2276–2278. [Google Scholar]
- [9].(a) Dyatkin BL, Mochalina EP, Bull. Acad. Sci. USSR Div. Chem. Sci 1964, 13, 1136–1139. [Google Scholar]; (b) Koller KL, Dorn HC, Anal. Chem 1982, 54, 529–533. [Google Scholar]; (c) Loehr DT, Armistead D, Roy J, Dorn HC, J. Fluorine Chem. 1988, 39, 283–287. [Google Scholar]; (d) Dyatkin BL, Mochalina EP, Bull. Acad. Sci. USSR, Div. Chem. Sci 1965, 14, 996–999. [Google Scholar]; (e) Pieber B, Kappe CO, Org. Lett 2016, 18, 1076–1079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (f) Rong MY, Yang L, Nie J, Zhang FG, Ma JA, Org. Lett 2019, 21, 4280–4283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (g) Guo R, Lv N, Zhang FG, Ma JA, Org. Lett 2018, 20, 6994–6997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (h) Morandi B, Carreira EM, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2011, 50, 9085–9088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (i) Morandi B, Carreira EM, Org. Lett 2011, 13, 5984–5985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (j) Li J, Ma C, Xing D, Hu W, Org. Lett 2019, 21, 2101–2105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (k) Luo H, Wu G, Zhang Y, Wang J, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2015, 54, 14503–14507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (l) Hyde S, Veliks J, Liégault B, Grassi D, Taillefer M, Gouverneur V, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2016, 55, 3785–3789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Duan Y, Lin JH, Xiao JC, Gu YC, Org. Chem. Front 2017, 4, 1917–1920. [Google Scholar]
- [11].Zhang J, Huang X, Zhang RK, Arnold FH, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2019, 141, 9798–9802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Klimovica K, Heidlas JX, Romero I, Le TV, Daugulis O, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed, 2022, 61, e202200334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Please see Supporting Information for details.
- [14].Dias HVR, Browning RG, Polach SA, Diyabalanage HVK, Lovely CJ, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2003, 125, 9270–9271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Klimovica K, Kirschbaum K, Daugulis O, Organometallics 2016, 35, 2938–2943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].(a) Dai X, Warren TH, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2004, 126, 10085–10094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (b) Caballero A, Díaz-Requejo MM, Trofimenko S, Belderraín TR, Pérez PJ, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem 2007, 2848–2852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (c) Besora M, Braga AAC, Sameera WMC, Urbano J, Fructos MR, Pérez PJ, Maseras F, J. Organomet. Chem 2015, 784, 2–12. [Google Scholar]; (d) Jagannathan JR, Fettinger JC, Shaw JT, Franz AK, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2020, 142, 11674–11679. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (e) Kirmse W, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2003, 42, 1088–1093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; (f) Salomon RG, Kochi JK, J. Am. Chem. Soc 1973, 95, 3300–3310. [Google Scholar]
- [17].Assuming that formation of 77 is irreversible, kinetics should be determined by the first two steps of the reaction (formation of 76 and its decomposition). Using a steady state approximation analysis of the invisible 76 the following equation can be obtained: rate = k1k2[CF3CHN2]/(k-1[C2H4]+k2). At low [C2H4] which is the case for reaction with no added ethylene, k2>>>k-1[C2H4] and rate = k1[CF3CHN2]. At high [C2H4] which is the case for reaction with added ethylene, k-1[C2H4]>>> k2, and rate = k1k2[CF3CHN2]/k-1[C2H4].
- [18].Relative reactivities of alkane C-H bonds in reactions with metal carbenes have been measured:; Olmos A, Gava R, Noverges B, Bellezza D, Jacob K, Besora M, Sameera WMC, Etienne M, Maseras, Asensio G, Caballero A, Peréz PJ, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2018, 57, 13848–13852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Kenyon P, Wörner M, Mecking S, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2018, 140, 6685–6689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Tran QH, Brookhart M, Daugulis O, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2020, 142, 7198–7206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Rosa V, Avilés T, Aullon G, Covelo B, Lodeiro C, Inorg. Chem 2008, 47, 7734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Mehara J, Watson BT, Noonikara-Poyil A, Zacharias AO, Roithová J, Dias HVR, Chem. Eur. J 2022, 28, e202103984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].De S, Tetrahedron Lett. 2004, 45, 2919–2922. [Google Scholar]
- [24].McNeill E, Du Bois J, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2010, 132, 10202–10204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [25].Zhou LM, Nie MY, Wang QH, Zhu DQ, Shen HQ, Chin. J. Chem 1999, 17, 363–376. [Google Scholar]
- [26].Ferreira HV, Rocha LC, Severino RP, Porto ALM, Molecules 2012, 17, 8955–8967. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [27].Antoniotti S, Fernandez X, Duñach E, Biocatal. Biotrans-form 2008, 26, 228–234. [Google Scholar]
- [28].Hsuan CF, Hsu HF, Tseng WK, Lee TL, Wei YF, Hsu KL, Wu CC, Houng JY, Molecules 2015, 20, 16908–16923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [29].Jana S, Ghosh M, Ambule M, Sen Gupta S, Org. Lett 2017, 19, 746–749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [30].Iranpoor M, Shekarriz M, Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn 1999, 72, 455–458. [Google Scholar]
- [31].Korhonen IOO, Lind MA, J. Chromatogr 1985, 328, 325–332. [Google Scholar]
- [32].Zefirov NS, Zhdankin VV, Makhon’kova GV, Dan’kov YV, Koz’min AS, J. Org. Chem 1985, 50, 1872–1876. [Google Scholar]
- [33].Perrella FW, Chen SF, Behrens DL, Kaltenbach RF, Seitz SP, J. Med. Chem 1994, 37, 2232–2237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [34].Okamoto K, Kinoshita T, Oshida T, Yamamoto T, Ito Y, Dohi M, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans 2 1976, 1617–1627. [Google Scholar]
- [35].Parnes ZN, Khotimskaya GA, Kudryavtsev RV, Kursanov DN, Bull. Acad. Sci. USSR, Div. Chem. Sci. (Engl. Transl.) 1972, 21, 854–857. [Google Scholar]
- [36].González-Núñez ME, Castellano G, Andreu C, Royo J, Báguena M, Mello R, Asensio G, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2001, 123, 7487–7491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [37].Pronin SV, Reiher CA, Shenvi RA, Nature 2013, 501, 195–199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [38].Portella C, Iznaden M, Tetrahedron 1989, 45, 6467–6478. [Google Scholar]
- [39].Panwar V, Al-Nafiey A, Addad A, Sieber B, Roussel P, Boukherroub R, Jain SL, RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 88567–88573. [Google Scholar]
- [40].Oliveira RL, Kiyohara PK, Rossi LM, Green Chem. 2009, 11, 1366–1370. [Google Scholar]
- [41].Dhakshinamoorthy A, Sharmila A, Pitchumani K, Chem. Eur. J 2010, 16, 1128–1132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [42].Bodnar BS, Vogt PF, J. Org. Chem 2009, 74, 2598–2600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [43].Vojtko J, Tomčík P, Int. J. Chem. Kinet 2014, 46, 189–196. [Google Scholar]
- [44].Matsuura K, Deyashiki Y, Bunai Y, Ohya I, Hara A, Arch. Biochem. Biophys 1996, 328, 265–271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [45].Ackerman LKG, Alvarado JIM, Doyle AG, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2018, 140, 14059–14063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [46].Schmidt VA, Quinn RK, Brusoe AT, Alexanian EJ, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2014, 136, 14389–14392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [47].Lal GS, Pez GP, Pesaresi RJ, Prozonic FM, Cheng H, J. Org. Chem 1999, 64, 7048–7054. [Google Scholar]
- [48].Yin F, Wang Z, Li Z, Li C, J. Am. Chem. Soc 2012, 134, 10401–10404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
