Table 1.
entry | variation from the “standard” conditions | yield (%)a |
---|---|---|
1 | none | 92 |
2 | no Cul | <1 |
3 | no rac-BINOL | <1 |
4 | no hv | <1 |
5 | no BTPP | <1 |
6 | no Cul, no rac-BINOL, no light | <1 |
7 | CuBr, instead of Cul | 84 |
8 | CuCI, instead of Cul | 86 |
9 | CuBr2, instead of Cul | 81 |
10 | Cu(OTf)2, instead of Cul | 82 |
11 | copper nanopowder, instead of Cul | <1 |
12 | 6% rac-BINOL | 70 |
13 | 4% rac-BINOL | 48 |
14 | 2-naphthol, instead of rac-BINOL | 14 |
15 | rac-BINOL dimethyl ether, instead of rac-BINOL | <1 |
16 | 1,1,3,3-tetramethylguanidine, instead of BTPP | 50 |
17 | LiOt-Bu, instead of BTPP | 14 |
18 | room temperature | 56 |
19 | 1.2 equiv Cyl | 62 |
20 | 1.0 equiv BTPP | 62 |
21 | 2.5% Cul, 5% rac-BINOL | 54 |
22 | CyBr, instead of Cyl | <1 |
23 | CyCI, instead of Cyl | <1 |
24 | CyOTs, instead of Cyl | <1 |
25 | under air (capped vial) | 39 |
26 | 0.1 equiv H2O added | 78 |
Yields were determined via 1H NMR analysis versus an internal standard (average of two experiments).