Table 2.
| |
---|---|
entry | product[a] |
1 |
2a 90%, 93:7 er (85%, 93:7 er)[b] |
2 |
2b 82%, 97:3 er |
3 |
2c 80%, 92:8 er |
4 |
2d 82%, 95:5 er (71%, 1.5 equiv BBA)[c] |
5 |
2e 51%, 93:7 er |
6 |
2f 86%, 98:2 er |
7 |
2g 82%, 92:8 er |
8 |
2h 84%, 97:3 er |
9 |
2i 92%, 96:4 er |
10 |
2j 71%, 76:24 er |
11 |
2k 86%, 70:30 er |
12 |
2l 80%, 66:34 er |
13 |
2m 77%, 72:28 er |
14 |
2n 85%, 78:22 er |
Enantiomeric excess was determined by oxidation of 2 followed by SFC analysis of the corresponding alcohol.
Reaction performed on a 5.5 mmol scale with 2.5 mol % Cu(MeCN)4PF6, 2.5 mol % L2.
Reaction performed on a 3 mmol scale.