Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Dec 16.
Published in final edited form as: Chemistry. 2012 Oct 23;18(51):10.1002/chem.201202085. doi: 10.1002/chem.201202085

Table 1.

Initial Optimization.[a]

graphic file with name nihms-515218-t0014.jpg

R conc.[b] temp. time X yield ee[c]

Ligand Screening

1 Ph 0.18 rt 22 h 20 (1) 78% 80%
2 Ph 0.18 0 °C 16 h 20 (L2) 26% 35%
3 Ph 0.18 0 °C 16 h 20 (L3) 36% −66%

Time, Temperature and Catalyst Loading, X = (S,S)-1

4 Ph 0.18 rt 72 h 20 95% 79%
5 Ph 0.18 rt 48 h 10 77% 83%
6 Ph 0.18 −20 °C 45 h 10 60% 77%
7 Ph 0.18 −20 °C 45 h 5 32% 72%

Reaction Concentration, X = (S,S)-1

8 TMS 0.18 3 °C 21 h 10 35% 85%
9 TMS 0.26 3 °C 21 h 10 50% 85%
10 TMS 0.38 3 °C 24 h 10 74% 85%
11 TMS 0.69 3 °C 21 h 10 87% 75%

Catalyst Loading at Higher Concentration, X = (S,S)-1

12 Ph 0.38 3 °C 24 h 10 86% 74%
13 Ph 0.38 3 °C 24 h 5 73% 58%
14 Ph 0.38 3 °C 21 h 2.5 68% 46%

graphic file with name nihms-515218-t0015.jpg

[a]

Reactions run on a 0.325 mmol scale with 2.7 or 2.8 equiv alkyne and 2.6 or 2.95 equivalents of dimethylzinc respectively. Isolated yields are reported.

[b]

Reaction concentration (in molarity) is reported with respect to the alkyne and includes the toluene added as part of the dimethylzinc solution.

[c]

Enantiomeric excess determined by chiral HPLC analysis.