Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS AuthorChoice logoLink to ACS AuthorChoice
. 2025 Dec 12;45(2):111–116. doi: 10.1021/acs.organomet.5c00239

Flash Communication: Probing Fe Complex Assembly via Thermogravimetric Analysis

Jung-Ying Lin 1, Ernesto R Lopez 1, Andrew V Tran 1, Raul Bermudes Jr 1, John Bacsa 1, Laura K G Ackerman-Biegasiewicz 1,*
PMCID: PMC12848960  PMID: 41613620

Abstract

First-row transition metal catalysis continues to provide innovative and sustainable advances for synthetic chemistry. However, these metals can be challenging to screen efficiently in optimization campaigns due to the limited knowledge of catalyst assembly, stability, and speciation. In this report we demonstrate the use of thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) as a promising tool in evaluating the formation and properties of an Fe precatalyst, fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3. Using TGA it was possible to identify the generation of distinct Fe complexes that could form in situ from prestirring the commercial metal salt iron trichloride (FeCl3) and di­(2-picolyl)­amine (dpa) in different organic solvents. Upon applying these prestirred mixtures to the reaction between methionine and benzyl acrylate, it was determined that distinct complexes gave distinct TGA profiles. Similar TGA profiles yielded similar reaction yields, while distinct TGA profiles tended to give rise to unique yields. Utilizing this approach, a more informed first-row metal catalyzed reaction strategy can be realized.

graphic file with name om5c00239_0005.jpg

graphic file with name om5c00239_0004.jpg

First-row transition metal catalysts have gained prominence as sustainable and complementary alternatives to precious metal catalysts. − While they possess unique reactivity, often enabling single electron chemistry, this same advantage can become a limitation in screening and optimization. − Unlike well-precedented precious metal catalyst reactions, the selection of a first-row metal catalyst for reactions can be challenging due to the limited number of precedented ligand platforms and the propensity of these catalysts to generate various off-cycle species. − Traditional approaches to developing first-row metal catalyzed reactions involve extensive mechanistic exploration of catalytic species, requiring access to well-defined complexes (Figure a). − However, the synthesis and characterization of first-row transition metal complexes can be difficult and time-consuming, yielding varied success in reactions. , An alternative strategy places an emphasis on the efficiency of screening catalysts. It subjects commercially available metal precursors with organic ligands under diverse conditions and then introduces these solutions to reactions to quickly evaluate a breadth of reactivity. A drawback of this approach is that when reactions fail there is little knowledge about the presumed catalyst structure. Even when procedures involve preligation of a ligand to a metal precursor prior to introduction of reaction components, successful ligation is often assumed rather than verified. , As a result, effective methods to probe precatalyst assembly prior to screening are needed.

1.

1

Open in a new tab

Catalyst assembly in reaction development. (a) Employing stoichiometric vs catalytic amounts of Fe for reaction discovery. (b) TGA analysis for validation of complexation.

While numerous methods are available to study ligation, there are few methods that are competent at assessing catalyst stability and speciation. , Additionally, analyzing a large number of catalyst solutions requires a technique that is nonspecialized, efficient and compatible with a wide range of conditions. To meet this need our lab has investigated the use of thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) for catalyst screening as a tool to gain information about precatalyst formation. While seldom used for catalyst optimization in organic chemistry, TGA is a technique which has been widely applied in material chemistry to assess the composition and degradation of solid materials such as polymers, metal organic frameworks, and nanoparticles. − It has also been used as a standard characterization technique for isolated, well-defined inorganic complexes and in the determination of thermal stabilities. With this established precedent, we envisioned repurposing solid sample TGA analysis to evaluate solutions of metal complexes that had been formed in situ (Figure b). We imagined this strategy would offer a straightforward procedure to validate precatalyst formation which would in turn give insight into reaction design.

Given the persistent interest in the development of Fe catalysis as a sustainable approach to organic chemistry, − this study focused on the evaluation of a precedented Fe precatalyst for visible light-induced homolysis (VLIH), fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3. − In a typical reaction screen FeCl3 and di­(2-picolyl)­amine (dpa) would be prestirred together in an organic solvent, with the formation of Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 unverified. Therefore, we began our analysis by investigating whether Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 could be observed by TGA upon prestirring FeCl3 and dpa in 8 commonly used organic solvents and at two commonly used prestirring temperatures, 25 and 60 °C.

To provide a standard TGA profile of fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 for comparison with the crude solution, the presynthesized complex was subjected to TGA with a temperature ramp rate of 10 °C/min from 25 to 650 °C. It was observed that fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 as a solid was thermally stable with nearly 100% weight retained up to 200 °C (Figure a). When examining the first derivative of the TGA curve of fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 four unique decomposition peaks were revealed at 211, 270, 391, and 443 °C. In comparison to the degradation patterns of independent samples of FeCl3 and dpa, the fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 thermogravimetric profile showcased a prolonged delay in its peak temperature (T p ) at initial degradation (T p = 211.86 °C). While the weight loss of this degradation did not align with the mass of dpa or chlorine, the evolved substance from this degradation was characterized as 2-methylpyridine by GCMS (Figures S31 and S32).

2.

2

Open in a new tab

Validation of complexation using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). (a) Thermal degradation profile of fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3. (b) First derivative of TGA curves depicting solution phase aliquots of FeCl3 and dpa stirred in different solvents at the reported reaction temperature. (c) X-ray structures and TGA analysis of [Fe­(dpa)­Cl2]­[FeCl4] and [Fe­(dpa)2]­Cl2[2CH3OH].

With the well-defined thermal degradation profile of fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 obtained by TGA, we next evaluated the solutions produced by TGA by stirring FeCl3 and dpa in various reaction solvents. We hypothesized that those solvents that yielded fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 would exhibit similar first derivative TGA profiles as the solid-state sample attained previously. Furthermore, a change in decomposition temperature could indicate a change to the precatalyst or formation of a distinct species. To realize this approach, complex formation was examined in methanol (MeOH), tetrahydrofuran (THF), ethyl acetate (EtOAc), acetonitrile (MeCN), 1,2-dichloroethane (DCE), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), toluene, and N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF). While stirring FeCl3 and dpa, yellow precipitates were clearly observed in all cases which are typically indicative of Fe(dpa)Cl3. Aliquots of these stirred mixtures were then subjected to TGA. To minimize solvent-related interference in the TGA measurement while avoiding premature weight loss from low-boiling components, each sample was held at 82 °C for 10 min prior to ramping to 650 °C. For DMF-containing samples, a longer hold was applied to ensure complete solvent removal before the onset of sample degradation (Figure S49).

Upon examination of each of the first derivative TGA plots of the prestirred solutions, a higher T p at initial degradation than FeCl3 and dpa alone was observed (Figures S14–S29). These results suggest that the species resulting from ligation of dpa and FeCl3 are thermally more stable than FeCl3. Attempts at determining ligation statuses of these FeCl3 and dpa mixtures proved challenging with UV–vis spectroscopy (Figure S1–S8). In most of the solvents used in this report, fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 was insoluble, with the exception of DMF and toluene. As a result, the UV–vis absorbance spectra were not definitive in determining ligation, due to insolubility of the complex or lack of homogeneity of the solution.

Instead, by comparing the T p at the first degradation of the crude mixture with that of the dry fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 or fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 in different solvents, a significant difference of the T p was observed in most of the solvents, except MeOH and DMF (Figure b and Figures S14–S29). We hypothesized these differences could result from solvent interactions with complexes or from speciation differences across solvents. To probe this hypothesis, IR spectroscopy was used to further examine the identity of the resultant yellow precipitates derived from filtration of the crude ligation mixtures. The IR spectra of the solids derived from complexation demonstrated features similar to those of the reported fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 complex (Figures S33–S35, S38–S40, and S42–S47), which suggests the difference of the observed T p could result from solvent interactions. In contrast, complexes formed in THF at 25 and 60 °C as well as DCE at 60 °C showcased IR spectra which significantly deviated from fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3, suggesting formation of distinct species from fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 under these stirring conditions (Figures S36, S37, and S41). To confirm this hypothesis, the filtered yellow precipitate derived from stirring in THF was further submitted to TGA as a solid and possessed an initial T p of 223.55 °C similar to that of the solution phase sample (T p = 223.76 °C). This suggested the formation of a unique species which is not solvent dependent (Figure S30). Elemental analysis of this solid indicated an elemental composition similar to that of fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3. Together these data serve as an initial demonstration of the potential for TGA to identify distinct complexes from differences in degradation profiles.

Because the IR spectrum of the mixture formed by stirring FeCl3 and dpa in DCE at 60 °C differed from that of fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3, we pursued further characterization of this species. This led to the successful crystallization of [Fe­(dpa)­Cl2]­[FeCl4] from the filtrate, and was confirmed by X-ray diffraction and elemental analysis (Figure c). Additionally, this complex exhibited a unique degradation profile, distinct from those of fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 with an earlier onset degradation (T p = 174.88 °C).

To further support the ability of TGA to differentiate mixtures of solids by different degradation profiles, we hypothesized that another potential possible species that could arise from stirring could be a bisligated [Fe­(dpa)2]­Cl2 complex. We independently synthesized a [Fe­(dpa)2]­Cl2[2CH3OH] complex, whose structure was confirmed by X-ray diffraction and elemental analysis. Upon mixing fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 with [Fe­(dpa)2]­Cl2[2CH3OH] and analyzing its degradation, a profile distinct from both individual components was observed (Figure S10). [Fe­(dpa)2]­Cl2[2CH3OH] has two degradation events, with a T p = 214.25 °C and T p = 271.56 °C respectively. However, a 1:1 mixture of fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 and [Fe­(dpa)2]­Cl2[2CH3OH] resulted in a distinct TGA profile with T p = 242.01 °C. These results support the idea that TGA profiles of sample mixtures can yield unique degradation features of distinct from the individual complexes alone.

To evaluate the differences in complex formation suggested by TGA, we benchmarked the catalytic activity of FeCl3 and dpa mixtures in a Fe-mediated decarboxylative Giese reaction that proceeded through VLIH (Scheme ). Mixtures of FeCl3 and dpa stirred in toluene at 25 °C resulted in a 0% yield. However, stirring at 60 °C increased the yield to 16%. This difference was mirrored in the TGA profiles where the mixture stirred at 25 °C displayed an initial degradation T p at 196 °C with a minor secondary T p at 217 °C, while the 60 °C mixture exhibited only a single degradation T p at 202 °C. Similarly, fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3 stirred in various solvents and analyzed by TGA consistently showed a single degradation T p at 214 °C (Figure S48). Subjecting these complexes to the Giese reaction gave an average yield of 31% with a small standard deviation (±3%) (Table S3), supporting that TGA can distinguish and identify similar species from solution aliquots.

1. Catalytic Activity of FeCl3 and dpa Mixtures in a Fe-Mediated Photodecarboxylative Giese Reaction .

1

Open in a new tab

a Yields were determined by 1H NMR with dibromomethane as an external standard.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated the ability of TGA to analyze Fe complex assembly from prestirred mixtures of metal salts and ligands. While prior methods utilized TGA primarily as a solid-state analytical tool for well-defined inorganic complexes, our workflow demonstrates that TGA can also be utilized to evaluate mixtures of metal complexes taken as aliquots from solutions. Notably, sample aliquots could be assessed without solubility limitations, and thermal degradation profiles provided valuable insight into Fe complex stability and speciation. TGA was able to differentiate between fac-Fe­(dpa)­Cl3, [Fe­(dpa)2]­Cl2[2CH3OH], and [Fe­(dpa)­Cl2]­[FeCl4], all of which resulted in giving different yields in an Fe-mediated photodecarboxylative Giese reaction. The results of this report ultimately present a promising analytical workflow to inform reaction development using first-row transition metal catalysts.

Supplementary Material

om5c00239_si_001.pdf (6.4MB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF11403). Research reported in this publication was supported by Emory University through the Biological Discovery through Chemical Innovation Training Program (BDCI TP) and the NIGMS (T32GM152344). The authors would like to acknowledge the use of the Emory X-ray Crystallography Center.

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.organomet.5c00239.

  • Experimental procedures, spectroscopy, thermal degradation profiles, and crystallographic details (PDF)

The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References

  1. Watson M. P., Weix D. J.. The Once and Future Catalysts: How the Challenges of First-Row Transition-Metal Catalysis Grew to Become Strengths. Acc. Chem. Res. 2024;57(17):2451–2452. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.4c00496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Peng J.-B., Wu F.-P., Wu X.-F.. First-Row Transition-Metal-Catalyzed Carbonylative Transformations of Carbon Electrophiles. Chem. Rev. 2019;119(4):2090–2127. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gandeepan P., Müller T., Zell D., Cera G., Warratz S., Ackermann L.. 3d Transition Metals for C–H Activation. Chem. Rev. 2019;119(4):2192–2452. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Wang X., He J., Wang Y.-N., Zhao Z., Jiang K., Yang W., Zhang T., Jia S., Zhong K., Niu L., Lan Y.. Strategies and Mechanisms of First-Row Transition Metal-Regulated Radical C–H Functionalization. Chem. Rev. 2024;124(17):10192–10280. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Khusnutdinova J. R., Milstein D.. Metal–Ligand Cooperation. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015;54(42):12236–12273. doi: 10.1002/anie.201503873. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chirik P. J., Wieghardt K.. Radical Ligands Confer Nobility on Base-Metal Catalysts. Science. 2010;327(5967):794–795. doi: 10.1126/science.1183281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fürstner A.. Iron Catalysis in Organic Synthesis: A Critical Assessment of What It Takes To Make This Base Metal a Multitasking Champion. ACS Cent. Sci. 2016;2(11):778–789. doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.6b00272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. De Groot L. H. M., Ilic A., Schwarz J., Wärnmark K.. Iron Photoredox Catalysis–Past, Present, and Future. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2023;145(17):9369–9388. doi: 10.1021/jacs.3c01000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ford L., Jahn U.. Radicals and Transition-Metal Catalysis: An Alliance Par Excellence to Increase Reactivity and Selectivity in Organic Chemistry. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2009;48(35):6386–6389. doi: 10.1002/anie.200901761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chiral Ligands: Evolution of Ligand Libraries for Asymmetric Catalysis; Diéguez, M. , Ed.; CRC Press: 2021. 10.1201/9780367855734. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. D’Alterio M. C., Casals-Cruañas È., Tzouras N. V., Talarico G., Nolan S. P., Poater A.. Mechanistic Aspects of the Palladium-Catalyzed Suzuki-Miyaura Cross-Coupling Reaction. Chem. Eur. J. 2021;27(54):13481–13493. doi: 10.1002/chem.202101880. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Thiel V., Hendann M., Wannowius K.-J., Plenio H.. On the Mechanism of the Initiation Reaction in Grubbs–Hoveyda Complexes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012;134(2):1104–1114. doi: 10.1021/ja208967h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Smith G. B., Dezeny G. C., Hughes D. L., King A. O., Verhoeven T. R.. Mechanistic Studies of the Suzuki Cross-Coupling Reaction. J. Org. Chem. 1994;59(26):8151–8156. doi: 10.1021/jo00105a036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bullock R. M., Chen J. G., Gagliardi L., Chirik P. J., Farha O. K., Hendon C. H., Jones C. W., Keith J. A., Klosin J., Minteer S. D., Morris R. H., Radosevich A. T., Rauchfuss T. B., Strotman N. A., Vojvodic A., Ward T. R., Yang J. Y., Surendranath Y.. Using Nature’s Blueprint to Expand Catalysis with Earth-Abundant Metals. Science. 2020;369(6505):eabc3183. doi: 10.1126/science.abc3183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Catalysis with Earth-Abundant Elements; Schneider, U. , Thomas, S. , Eds.; Royal Society of Chemistry: 2021; Catalysis series. 10.1039/9781788012775. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mennen S. M., Alhambra C., Allen C. L., Barberis M., Berritt S., Brandt T. A., Campbell A. D., Castañón J., Cherney A. H., Christensen M., Damon D. B., Eugenio de Diego J., García-Cerrada S., García-Losada P., Haro R., Janey J., Leitch D. C., Li L., Liu F., Lobben P. C., MacMillan D. W. C., Magano J., McInturff E., Monfette S., Post R. J., Schultz D., Sitter B. J., Stevens J. M., Strambeanu I. I., Twilton J., Wang K., Zajac M. A.. The Evolution of High-Throughput Experimentation in Pharmaceutical Development and Perspectives on the Future. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2019;23(6):1213–1242. doi: 10.1021/acs.oprd.9b00140. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ganley J. M., Joe C. L., Simmons E. M.. Development of Robust, Efficient and Scalable Transition Metal Catalyzed Transformations: Translation of Reactions from Micromole to Multi-Kilogram Scale Processes. ACS Catal. 2025;15(10):8317–8336. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.5c00836. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Nsouli, R. ; Galiyan, G. ; Ackerman-Biegasiewicz, L. K. G. . Advancing Organic Chemistry Using High-Throughput Experimentation. Angew. Chem. 2025. 137 40 e202506588. 10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-5mfwk [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dreimann J. M., Kohls E., Warmeling H. F. W., Stein M., Guo L. F., Garland M., Dinh T. N., Vorholt A. J.. In Situ Infrared Spectroscopy as a Tool for Monitoring Molecular Catalyst for Hydroformylation in Continuous Processes. ACS Catal. 2019;9(5):4308–4319. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.8b05066. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Bols M. L., Ma J., Rammal F., Plessers D., Wu X., Navarro-Jaén S., Heyer A. J., Sels B. F., Solomon E. I., Schoonheydt R. A.. In Situ UV–Vis–NIR Absorption Spectroscopy and Catalysis. Chem. Rev. 2024;124(5):2352–2418. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.3c00602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Saadatkhah N., Carillo Garcia A., Ackermann S., Leclerc P., Latifi M., Samih S., Patience G. S., Chaouki J.. Experimental Methods in Chemical Engineering: Thermogravimetric AnalysisTGA. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2020;98(1):34–43. doi: 10.1002/cjce.23673. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Shapiro A. J., O’Dea R. M., Epps T. H. I.. Thermogravimetric Analysis as a High-Throughput Lignocellulosic Biomass Characterization Method. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2023;11(49):17216–17223. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c03769. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lázaro I. A.. A Comprehensive Thermogravimetric Analysis Multifaceted Method for the Exact Determination of the Composition of Multifunctional Metal-Organic Framework Materials. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2020;2020(45):4284–4294. doi: 10.1002/ejic.202000656. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Levy C. J., Puddephatt R. J.. Thermal Decomposition of Platinum­(IV)–Silicon, – Germanium, and – Tin Complexes. Organometallics. 1997;16(19):4115–4120. doi: 10.1021/om970204x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Nsouli R., Nayak S., Balakrishnan V., Lin J.-Y., Chi B. K., Ford H. G., Tran A. V., Guzei I. A., Bacsa J., Armada N. R., Zenov F., Weix D. J., Ackerman-Biegasiewicz L. K. G.. Decarboxylative Cross-Coupling Enabled by Fe and Ni Metallaphotoredox Catalysis. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2024;146(43):29551–29559. doi: 10.1021/jacs.4c09621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Crocker M. S., Lin J.-Y., Nsouli R., McLaughlin N. D., Musaev D. G., Mehranfar A., Lopez E. R., Ackerman-Biegasiewicz L. K. G.. Transformative Ligand Effects in Fe-Photocatalyzed Giese-Type Additions. Chem. Catal. 2024;4(11):101131. doi: 10.1016/j.checat.2024.101131. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Cramer H. H., Duchemin C., Kovel C. B., Kim J., Pecoraro M. V., Chirik P. J.. Ligand Field Sensitive Spin Acceleration in the Iron-Catalyzed [2 + 2] Cycloaddition of Unactivated Alkenes and Dienes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2024;146(14):9947–9956. doi: 10.1021/jacs.4c00591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhang J., Wu J.. Recent Progress in Asymmetric Radical Reactions Enabled by Chiral Iron Catalysts. Chem. Commun. 2024;60(87):12633–12649. doi: 10.1039/D4CC03047H. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Mo J., Messinis A. M., Li J., Warratz S., Ackermann L.. Chelation-Assisted Iron-Catalyzed C–H Activations: Scope and Mechanism. Acc. Chem. Res. 2024;57(1):10–22. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.3c00294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Oloo W. N., Que L. Jr.. Bioinspired Nonheme Iron Catalysts for C–H and CC Bond Oxidation: Insights into the Nature of the Metal-Based Oxidants. Acc. Chem. Res. 2015;48(9):2612–2621. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.5b00053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Bauer I., Knölker H.-J.. Iron Catalysis in Organic Synthesis. Chem. Rev. 2015;115(9):3170–3387. doi: 10.1021/cr500425u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Iron Catalysis II; Bauer, E. , Ed.; Springer International Publishing: 2015; Vol. 50, Topics in Organometallic Chemistry. 10.1007/978-3-319-19396-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Piontek A., Bisz E., Szostak M.. Iron-Catalyzed Cross-Couplings in the Synthesis of Pharmaceuticals: In Pursuit of Sustainability. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2018;57(35):11116–11128. doi: 10.1002/anie.201800364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Plietker, B. Iron-Catalyzed Substitution Reactions. In Iron Catalysis in Organic Chemistry; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: 2008; pp 197–215. 10.1002/9783527623273.ch7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Wei D., Darcel C.. Iron Catalysis in Reduction and Hydrometalation Reactions. Chem. Rev. 2019;119(4):2550–2610. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Viswanathan R., Palaniandavar M., Balasubramanian T., Muthiah P. T.. Synthesis, Structure, Spectra and Redox Chemistry of Iron­(III) Complexes of Tridentate Pyridyl and Benzimidazolyl Ligands. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1996;12:2519–2525. doi: 10.1039/dt9960002519. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Xu B., Zhong W., Wei Z., Wang H., Liu J., Wu L., Feng Y., Liu X.. Iron­(III) Complexes of Multidentate Pyridinyl Ligands: Synthesis, Characterization and Catalysis of the Direct Hydroxylation of Benzene. Dalton Trans. 2014;43(41):15337–15345. doi: 10.1039/C4DT02032D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Fernandes C., Wardell J. L., Horn A., Skakle J. M. S., Drago V.. Reactions of [{bis­(2-pyridylmethyl)­amine}­trichloroiron­(III)] with (HOCH2)3CNHCO­(CH2)nCONHC­(CH2OH)3 (n = 0–2): crystal structures of (μ-xalato)­{[bis­(mine]­ron­(III)} and (HOCH2)3CNHCO­(CH2)2CONHC­(CH2OH)3 . Polyhedron. 2004;23(8):1419–1426. doi: 10.1016/j.poly.2004.02.027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

om5c00239_si_001.pdf (6.4MB, pdf)

Articles from Organometallics are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES