Skip to main content
. 2019 Nov 5;10:5025. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12949-1

Table 1.

Reaction optimization

graphic file with name 41467_2019_12949_Figa_HTML.gif
Entry Ligand Yield[%]a (3a:4a:5a:6a) Entry Ligand Yield[%]a (3a:4a:5a:6a)
1 PPh3 47 (0/17/25/5) 9 PPhCy2 43 (0/10/29/4)
2 PCy3 41 (0/0/35/6) 10 P(OMe)3 30 (0/14/16/0)
3 PnBu3 39 (0/9/30/0) 11 PnPr3 29 (0/13/16/0)
4 PtBu3 25 (25/0/0/0) 12 PMe2Ph 32 (0/25/7/0)
5 XPhos 35 (35/0/0/0) 13 PtBuCy2 32 (0/15/17/0)
6 PMe3 85 (0/85/0/0) 14 Xantphos 38 (0/16/19/3)
7 PPh2Cy 44 (0/17/22/5) 15b PCy3 79 (0/0/79/0)
8 DCYPE 0 16b PnBu3 92 (0/0/92/0)
graphic file with name 41467_2019_12949_Figb_HTML.gif

Reactions conditions: Ni(cod)2 (10 mol%), ligand (20 mol%), CsOPiv (1.5 equiv), 1a (0.2 mmol), 2a (0.4 mmol), t-AmylOH (1 mL), 70 °C, 48 h

a1H NMR yields with C2H2Br4 as internal standard

bMolar ratio of 1a:2a = 1.5:1

cPnBu3 (20 mol%), H2 scavenger (2.0 equiv). The 1H NMR yield of 5a is given

d1.0 equiv H2 acceptor

eThe isolated yield is given in parenthesis