Skip to main content
. 2024 Jun 10;15:4919. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-49313-x

Table 1.

Optimization of the reaction conditionsa

graphic file with name 41467_2024_49313_Taba_HTML.gif
Entry L “N3 Solvent Time (h) Yield (%) ee (%)
1 L1 1a DCE 24 35 14
2 L2 1a DCE 24 28 12
3 L3 1a DCE 24 50 23
4 L4 1a DCE 24 37 75
5 L5 1a DCE 24 44 44
6 L6 1a DCE 24 40 82
7 L7 1a DCE 24 45 80
8 L8 1a DCE 24 62 92
9 L9 1a DCE 24 47 33
10 L10 1a DCE 24 52 31
11 L8 1a DCM 24 70 94
12b L8 1b DCM 24 30 27
13c L8 1c DCM 48 80 90
14c L8 1d DCM 48 99 94
15c L8 1e DCM 48 78 94
16c L8 1f DCM 48 95 93
17c L8 1g DCM 48 93 93

DCE: 1,2-dichloroethane, DCM: dichloromethane, L: Ligand; N3: high iodine azide reagent; 1a: azidobenziodoxolone, 1b: azidodimethylbenziodoxole; 1cg: azidobenziodazolones.

aReaction conditions: 2a (0.1 mmol), 1a (0.15 mmol), Cu(MeCN)4PF6 (10 mol%), L (12 mol %), solvent (2 mL), 25 °C; isolated yields; ee values were determined by HPLC analysis.

b1b was used in place of 1a.

cThe designated azidating reagent was used in place of 1a; 5 mol % of Cu(MeCN)4PF6 and 6 mol% of L8 were used instead.