Abstract
This work presents a stepwise reversible two‐electron transfer induced hydrogen shift leading to the conversion of a bis‐pyrrolinium cation to an E‐diaminoalkene and vice versa. Remarkably, the forward and the reverse reaction, which are both reversible, follow two completely different reaction pathways. Establishing such unprecedented property in this type of processes was possible by developing a novel synthetic route towards the starting dication. All intermediates involved in both the forward and the backward reactions were comprehensively characterized by a combination of spectroscopic, crystallographic, electrochemical, spectroelectrochemical, and theoretical methods. The presented synthetic route opens up new possibilities for the generation of multi‐pyrrolinium cation scaffold‐based organic redox systems, which constitute decidedly sought‐after molecules in contemporary chemistry.
Keywords: carbocations, electrochemistry, non-identical reversible reaction, radical reactions, redox chemistry
N,N′ ‐Ethylene bridged bis‐2‐aryl pyrrolinium cations are reported in this work, which (a) undergo stepwise reversible two‐electron reduction coupled two hydrogen transfer to form E‐diaminoalkenes; and (b) have non identical pathways for reduction and oxidation.

Introduction
Well‐defined, redox‐induced bond‐breaking and bond‐making processes are at the heart of a huge variety of chemical transformations, including important examples in bio‐ and homogeneous catalysis.1 Many such catalytic reactions, particularly in biological systems, function through the simultaneous or stepwise transfer of multiple electrons and protons.2 In cases where the redox‐induced chemical transformations are reversible, redox switchable or bistable materials can be devised. The observation and investigation of multiple electron and proton transfer steps have traditionally been the realm of transition metal complexes.3 This is because the frontier orbitals of transition metal complexes are readily tunable and accessible for reversible electron transfer. However, there are some recent examples in contemporary chemistry based on p‐block elements which provide an alternative to the traditional paradigm of transition metal chemistry.4 In this regard, N‐heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs)5 and cyclic(alkyl)(amino)carbenes (CAACs)6 have been established as compounds of particular interest.
In recent years, CAAC‐scaffolds were found to display pivotal roles in stabilizing different types of open‐shell compounds.7 In these cases, CAACs, I, have been used to first synthesize the corresponding pyrrolinium salts, II, which are converted to carbon‐based radicals, III, through a one‐electron reduction (Scheme 1). Recently, we have disclosed a new synthetic strategy for 2‐substituted pyrrolinium salts without employing CAAC as precursors.8 The C‐2 center of the 2‐substituted pyrrolinium cation is redox active and therefore the synthesis of a compound with multiple 2‐substituted pyrrolinium cation moieties, consequently, envisioned to result in a molecule with multiple redox centers. Recently, CAAC‐derived bis‐pyrrolinium cations, IV 9 and V 10 have been reported in the context of mixed‐valent and redox bistable organic compounds, respectively (Figure 1), in which the redox‐active C‐2 centers of two pyrrolinium cations are connected by a spacer.
Scheme 1.

Schematic representation of CAAC‐scaffolds containing mono‐ and dications as redox‐active compounds.
Figure 1.

Molecular structure of 3H with thermal ellipsoids at 50 % probability level. All hydrogen atoms except at C1 and C1′ have been omitted for clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and bond angles (°): C1−C1′ 1.522(5), N1−C1 1.481(3), N1−C2 1.522(3), N1−C5 1.283(4); C5‐N1‐C2 114.0(2), C5‐N1‐C1 124.8(2), C2‐N1‐C1 121.2(2), N1‐C1‐C1′ 109.8(3).
In the present study, N,N′‐ethylene‐bridged bis‐2‐aryl‐pyrrolinium dications VI were synthesized, where two redox‐active moieties were connected by their redox inactive N‐centers (Figure 1). In compound VI two strong electron‐accepting groups are strategically connected through an ethylene bridge, and which are capable of undergoing C−H bond activation. Furthermore, these systems participate in reversible multiple electron transfer and concomitant bond activation steps. Most notably, it was found that the forward and the backward two‐electron processes follow non‐identical pathways along with multiple C−H bond activation events. It should be mentioned here that transition metal complexes which participate in reversible redox‐induced bond activation reactions (electrochemical‐chemical, EC and electrochemical‐chemical‐electrochemical, ECE mechanisms) often do so by following identical reaction sequences for the forward and reverse transformations.11 Even in the case of proton‐coupled electron transfer, PCET reactions the pathway for forward and backward steps are alike.12
Results and Discussion
In order to obtain the target systems containing two redox‐active centers with a CAAC scaffold, we prepared N,N′‐ethylene‐bridged bis‐2‐aryl pyrrolinium cations 3R, through the reaction of ethylenediamine with aryl‐isopropyl‐ketone 1R, to get first N,N′‐ethylene‐bridged bis‐imine 2R (Scheme 2).13 2R were characterized by solution state 1H and 13C{1H} NMR spectroscopy as well as by single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction analysis (see Figures S1 and S2 in Supporting Information). Subsequent sequential one‐pot reactions of 2R with freshly prepared lithium diisopropylamide (LDA), isobutylene oxide, and triflic anhydride afforded N,N′‐ethylene‐bridged bis‐2‐aryl pyrrolinium cations, 3R, with triflate counter anions, as white crystalline solids (Scheme 2).13 1H NMR spectra of compounds 3H and 3Me show singlets at δ=3.71 and 3.67 ppm for the CH 2 resonance of the bridging ethylene moiety supporting the expected presence of C2‐symmetry. The symmetry was further and unambiguously confirmed by the solid‐state molecular structures of 3H and 3Me (Figure 2 and Figure S3 in Supporting Information).
Scheme 2.

Synthesis of N,N′‐ethylene bridged bis‐2‐aryl pyrrolinium salts 3R.
Figure 2.

Cyclic voltammograms of 3R in MeCN and 6R in THF at 100 mV s−1 with 0.1 m Bu4NPF6.
The cyclic voltammograms of compounds 3H and 3Me exhibit two reduction waves (for 3H at E 1/2=−1.50 and −1.71 V and for 3Me at E 1/2=−1.54 and −1.73 V) in CH3CN/0.1 M NBu4PF6 (Figure 2).13 The influence of the different substituents on the redox potentials of the two compounds is marginal. Both reduction waves appear reversible on the cyclic voltammetry timescale. However, spectroelectrochemical measurements showed that only the first reduction step for both compounds is reversible in an electrochemical sense (vide infra). In addition, a third reduction at more negative potentials was observed. This reduction step is irreversible for both compounds and was not probed further.
Compound 3H displays absorption bands at 215 and 267 nm while those of 3Me appear at 217 and 283 nm in their respective UV/Vis spectra. These wavelengths are in accordance with the compounds’ colorless nature. TD‐DFT calculations on 3H nicely reproduce the experimental spectrum (Figure S36, Table S4 in Supporting Information). Upon one‐electron reductions to compounds 4H and 4Me new bands appear in the visible region at 346 and 478 nm and at 347 and 492 nm, respectively (Figures S12 and S13 in Supporting Information). TD‐DFT calculations confirm the origin of these bands from radical‐containing species (Figure S36, S40–42 and Table S4 in Supporting Information). No other bands were observed beyond 500 nm for the one‐electron reduced forms of either compound. This fact likely points to a class I nature of these formally mixed‐valent compounds according to the Robin–Day classification,14 as would be expected for two redox‐active units connected via a non‐conjugated ethylene bridge moiety.15 Corroborating the radical nature of these species, 4H and 4Me display featureless isotropic electron paramagnetic resonance, EPR spectra at 295 K in fluid solution with g‐values of 2.0028 and 2.0027 (Figure 3). At 223 K, however, the spectra started to show partial resolution of hyperfine splittings. These features could be simulated by considering a hyperfine coupling of the electron spin with the adjacent 14N nucleus (AN=11.95 MHz) and six 1H nuclei of the CMe2 moiety with splittings ranging from 5 to 10 MHz for 4H, and similar values for 4Me. Spin density calculations at the PBE0/def2‐TZVP level of theory showed that the spin is largely located on one side of the molecule (Figure S31 in Supporting Information), thus also indirectly corroborating the class I nature of these mixed‐valent compounds. In the absence of a crystal structure, UV/Vis/EPR spectroelectrochemistry provides unequivocal evidence for the proposed chemical and electronic structures of the one‐electron reduced species 4H and 4Me, and proves that no H‐atom abstraction takes place in the one‐electron reduced species. The second reduction step turned out to be irreversible on the spectroelectrochemical timescale for both compounds and we were not able to generate spectra that can be readily assigned to any particular species. Due to singlet–triplet population equilibria and an increased number of resonances. A spin‐coupled dinuclear EPR species has an intrinsically weaker signal than a mononuclear species at equal concentration. Furthermore, if the dinuclear species takes on different conformations in solution, the spectra could be further broadened, as both exchange and magnetic dipolar interactions heavily depend on interspin distance. Thus, it is much harder to detect a spin‐coupled species than it is to observe an S=1/2 species during an EPR SEC experiment, particularly if the spin‐coupled species is unstable. This fact supports a double H‐atom transfer reaction from the initially formed unstable diradical, that is, [5H] and [5Me] species (Scheme 3). However, the H‐atom shifts most probably occurs at a timescale that is much longer than the spectroelectrochemical timescales.
Figure 3.

Left: Experimental (blue) and simulated (grey) EPR spectra of electrochemically generated 4Me (top) and 7Me (bottom). Right: calculated spin densities for 4Me (top) and 7Me (bottom).
Scheme 3.

Synthesis of E‐diaminoalkenes 6R by sequential reductions and intramolecular H‐abstraction of 3R.
In order to isolate the one‐electron as well as the two‐electron reduced products, compounds 3H and 3Me were reacted with 1 and 2 equiv of KC8 in THF (Scheme 3).13 From the 1:1 reaction of 3H/3Me and KC8 it was not possible to isolate the corresponding radical cation, 4R. However, the formation of the radicals in solution was unequivocally confirmed by solution state EPR spectroscopy (vide supra).
The 1:2 reactions of 3H/3Me and KC8 led to the formation of E‐diaminoalkenes 6H and 6Me, in 65 and 73 % yields, respectively (Scheme 3). During the reaction, apart from the one‐electron reduction at each pyrrolinium moiety, two H‐atom shifts from the N,N′‐ethylene‐bridge take place. Therefore, the isolation of 6H/6Me after two‐electron reduction of 3H/3Me, indicates that the reaction proceeds through the formation of a diradical, [5H]/[5Me], followed by a double H‐atom shift from the ethylene moiety to the C‐atom of the heterocycle. Such kind of intramolecular hydrogen atom migration has precedence in the case of alkyl radicals.16 This procedure for the synthesis of E‐diaminoalkenes is new and bears much potential for enriching the respective compounds’ library.17 Two C−H bonds are cleaved during this process, and two new C−H bonds are formed. The formation of a new C=C double bond likely provides the thermodynamic driving force for this rearrangement. In the absence of direct experimental evidence for the transient two‐electron reduced species [5H] and [5Me], these were eventually investigated computationally. For [5H], the singlet state was found to be slightly more stable than the triplet state with a singlet–triplet gap of 26 cm−1.
The 1H NMR spectra of 6H and 6Me exhibit singlets at δ=4.84 and 4.89 ppm, respectively, which arise from the vinylic C−H moieties as confirmed by 2D 13C{1H}‐1H correlation NMR spectroscopy. Analyses of the molecular structures of 6H and 6Me show the central C−C bonds to be 1.332(2) and 1.338(3) Å long, respectively, which falls in the range of a typical C=C double bond distance (Figure 4 and Figure S4 in Supporting Information).18 Two‐electron reductions of compounds 3H and 3Me, thus, led to intramolecular double H‐atom shift generating vinylic‐bridge bearing compounds, 6H and 6Me from ethylene‐bridged compounds.
Figure 4.

Molecular structure of 6H with thermal ellipsoids at the 50 % probability level. All hydrogen atoms except at C1 and C1′ have been omitted for clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and bond angles (°): C1−C1′ 1.332(2), N1−C1 1.407(2), N1−C2 1.499(1), N1−C5 1.456(2); C1‐N1‐C2 115.82(9), C1‐N1‐C5 119.40(9), C5‐N1‐C2 109.66(9), N1‐C1‐C1′ 127.1(1).
After preparing the E‐diaminoalkenes 6H and 6Me, it was tested whether these compounds could be oxidized back to 3H and 3Me. To this end, another set of cyclic voltammograms were recorded (Figure 2). Both compounds displayed a one‐electron reversible oxidation step at E 1/2=−0.58 V for 6H and E 1/2=−0.59 for 6Me. Additionally, a second irreversible oxidation step was observed at E 1/2=0.09 V for 6H and at E 1/2=0.06 V for 6Me. Similar to 3H and 3Me (see above), the influence of the substituents on the redox potentials of 6H and 6Me are also marginal. The difference in the redox potentials for 3H/3Me (ΔE 1/2=0.21 V for 3H and ΔE 1/2=0.19 V for 3Me) is lower compared to the difference for 6H/6Me (ΔE 1/2=0.67 V for 6H and ΔE 1/2=0.65 V for 6Me) pointing to a larger thermodynamic stability for the one‐electron oxidized forms of 6H/6Me as compared to the one‐electron reduced forms of 3H/3Me. The difference is likely related to the presence of a conjugated bridge in 6H/6Me. The redox potentials of 6H/6Me clearly point towards an exceptionally electron‐rich nature of these E‐diaminoolefins. Chemical oxidations were carried out with AgOTf in a 1:1 reaction affording the corresponding radical cations 7H and 7Me, respectively, in 72 and 79 % yields (Scheme 4).
Scheme 4.

Stepwise reversible oxidations and hydride shift of diamino alkenes 6R to 3R.
The molecular structures of 7H and 7Me exhibit central C−C bond distances of 1.358(6) and 1.380(3) Å, which are lengthened compared to the parent E‐diaminoalkenes 6H (1.332(2) Å) and 6Me (1.338(3) Å) (Figure 5 and Figure S5 in Supporting Information). Exocyclic N−C bond distances are 1.370(9) and 1.364(5) Å for 7H and 7Me, respectively, indicating partial double bond character there as well.19 These unique, structurally characterized radical cations underscore the propensity of the electron‐rich diazaolefinic20 compounds 6H and 6Me to undergo clean and facile one‐electron oxidations with the appropriate oxidizing agent.
Figure 5.

Molecular structure of 7H with thermal ellipsoids at the 50 % probability level. All hydrogen atoms except at C1 and C2 have been omitted for clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and bond angles (°): N1−C1 1.370(9), C1−C2 1.358(5), N1−C6 1.40(1), N1−C3 1.488(9); C5‐N1‐C1 125.7(6), C2‐C1‐N1 125.3(4), C6‐N1‐C3 114.5(6).
The reaction of two equivalents of AgOTf with E‐diaminoalkenes 6H and 6Me led to the formation of bis‐2‐aryl pyrrolinium cations, 3H and 3Me, respectively, in good yields (Scheme 4).13 The oxidation process is accompanied by a double hydride shift,21 presumably due to the greater stability of the bis‐1,6‐tertiary carbocations 3H and 3Me in comparison to the initially formed bis‐1,2‐secondary carbocation,22 [8R], which is likely to experience unfavorable coulombic repulsions owing to the presence of two positive charges at very close vicinity. The aforementioned facts provide the thermodynamic driving force for this rearrangement. The rearrangement is accompanied by the cleavage of two C−H bonds and the formation of two new C−H bonds. To the best of our knowledge, such examples of the reversible cleavage and formation of two different C−H bonds both for the forward and reverse reactions in response to two‐electron transfers is unprecedented in transition metal‐free systems. The examples known for organic systems are the cleavage and the formation of carbon–carbon σ‐bond in response to an electron transfer step.23
As expected, the compounds 6H and 6Me do not display any absorption bands in the visible region. On one‐electron oxidation to 7H and 7Me, bands in the near UV and visible regions appear at 319 and 424 nm, and at 321 and 420 nm, respectively. Such bands are typical for organic radicals. The first electrochemical oxidation step for both compounds turned out to be fully reversible, and these radicals are also very stable. Both 7H and 7Me display well‐resolved, isotropic EPR spectra in fluid solutions at 295 K with g‐values of 2.0037 and 2.0033 respectively (Figure 4). The spectra were simulated with high accuracy by considering hyperfine couplings to two equivalent 14 N nuclei (AN=20.73 MHz), and two sets of two equivalent 1H nuclei (AH1=32.3 MHz and AH2=10.76 MHz). Spin‐density calculations (see Figure S32 in Supporting Information) show the spin‐density to be predominantly located on the vinylic part of the bridge and the two connected nitrogen atoms, with a smaller but significant contribution from the H atoms at the C5 carbons. As mentioned above, the second oxidation steps for both 6H and 6Me appear irreversible in their cyclic voltammograms. This transformation was studied in more detail for 6Me. Following the second electrochemical oxidation, two new reduction signals are observed in the voltammograms at dramatically shifted negative potentials, which appear to match the redox potentials of 3Me (see Figures S20–S26 in Supporting Information). These observations point to the operation of either an EC (electrochemical‐chemical) or a more complex mechanism. The peaks at the large negative potentials are semi‐reversible and account for the significantly decreased cathodic current in the redox transition at 0.06 V (for a fully reversible redox process the anodic and cathodic peak currents have the same height). These new redox responses arise from reductions of the dicationic species formed from [8Me] (see Figure S20–S26 in Supporting Information). Notably, two distinct sets of spectroscopic changes were observed on monitoring the second oxidation step of this compound via UV/Vis spectroelectrochemistry. The final spectrum generated after the complete second oxidation looks somewhat similar to 3Me. Upon moving the applied potential back to the starting potential, the initial spectrum of 6Me was not regenerated. However, applying more negative potentials which cover also the newly generated reduction steps, and then moving the potential back to the starting point recovered a spectrum corresponding to 6Me. These experiments, thus, point to the operation of rather fast chemical reactions during the redox‐induced conversion of 6Me to 3Me via 7Me on timescales which can be monitored via UV/Vis spectroelectrochemistry. The aforementioned signals provide the first evidence for the operation of bistability in these systems. Without any direct experimental evidence for the presence of [8H] and [8Me], the former was investigated computationally. The calculations for [8H] show that the bridge's C−C bond length increased from 1.388 in 7H to 1.466 Å, while the bridge's C−N bond lengths shortened from 1.330 in 7H to 1.270 Å in [8H] (see Figure S35 in Supporting Information), which supports the bis‐iminium resonance structure of [8H] (Scheme 4).
Thus, the conversion of 3H/3Me to 6H/6Me occurs by a two‐electron reduction induced two‐H‐atom shift, while the re‐conversion of 6H/6Me to 3H/3Me takes place through a two‐electron oxidation induced two‐hydride shift. A total of four C−H bonds are cleaved and four C−H bonds are formed during the combined forward and reverse reactions. The experimental observations are supported by Gibbs free enthalpy calculations on optimized structures of species 3R to [8 R] (see Table S3 in Supporting Information). The calculations show that 3H/3Me are slightly more stable than [8 H]/[8 Me] species, while 6H/6Me are slightly more stable than [5H]/[5Me]. When 3H/3Me and 6H/6Me were mixed in a 1:1 ratio in THF no reaction took place, which is in contrast to NHC‐CAAC derived triazaalkenes, which undergo comproportionation reactions.24 Even though the interconversion between the reduced and oxidized species is reversible, the forward and the backward reaction pathways are completely distinct. Still, the interconversion of 3H/3Me and 6H/6Me can be considered globally reversible even though the second redox events in each direction are individually electrochemically irreversible.
Conclusions
In conclusion, we have synthesized bis‐2‐aryl‐pyrrolinium salts, where the N‐centers are bridged by a ‐CH2CH2‐ linker. This novel synthetic route provides a very convenient access to multi‐CAAC‐scaffold systems without the need of using free CAACs as starting materials. Notably, with this synthetic route an extensive substrate scope can be realized with substitution derivatives of both the aryl moieties and the diamine bridge. The reported procedure, thus, holds exceptional promise for synthesizing next generation multi‐CAAC scaffold containing compounds. N,N′‐Ethylene‐bridged bis‐2‐aryl‐pyrrolinium cations undergo a stepwise two‐electron reduction, yielding the E‐diaminoalkenes. The first one‐electron reduction affords the radical cation, which undergoes a second one‐electron reduction to a diradical. The latter, subsequently, and immediately abstracts two hydrogen atoms from the ethylene bridge forming the electron‐rich E‐diaminoalkenes. Upon a two‐electron oxidation, the starting bis‐2‐aryl‐pyrrolinium salts can be recovered. This process is also sequential: the first oxidation leads to a crystalline radical cation and subsequently the corresponding dication. The latter undergoes a 1,3‐hydrogen shift yielding the bis‐2‐aryl‐pyrrolinium salts. Overall, a total of four C−H bonds are cleaved, and four C−H bonds are formed reversibly in response to redox processes. All intermediates in the forward and the reverse cycle have been thoroughly studied by experiment and theory. Unlike many reversible electron transfer‐induced bond activation processes, which occur through common chemical intermediates, the events described in this study do not follow this standard paradigm. Instead, the chemical pathways in the reduction and oxidation events are completely non‐identical. The results unequivocally show that such multi‐CAAC‐scaffold systems are capable of multi‐electron transfer involving chemical reactivity that is traditionally the realm of transition metal complexes. To the best of our knowledge, this is an unprecedented observation in electron transfer induced bond activation reactions. The novel systems presented here can therefore not only mimic transition metal complexes in undergoing reversible multi‐electron transfer‐induced chemical reactions (EEC mechanisms), but also do so in a completely unique way.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Supporting information
As a service to our authors and readers, this journal provides supporting information supplied by the authors. Such materials are peer reviewed and may be re‐organized for online delivery, but are not copy‐edited or typeset. Technical support issues arising from supporting information (other than missing files) should be addressed to the authors.
Supplementary
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by intramural funds at Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) Hyderabad, Gopanpally, Hyderabad‐500107, Telangana, India from the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Government of India, India. V.C. is thankful to the Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, India, for a National J. C. Bose fellowship. The high‐performance computing facilities at ZEDAT, FU‐Berlin, are acknowledged for access to computing resources.
M. K. Nayak, J. Stubbe, N. I. Neuman, R. S. Narayanan, S. Maji, C. Schulzke, V. Chandrasekhar, B. Sarkar, A. Jana, Chem. Eur. J. 2020, 26, 4425.
Dedicated to Professor T. K. Chandrashekar on the occasion of his 65th birthday
Contributor Information
Prof. Dr. Carola Schulzke, Email: carola.schulzke@uni-greifswald.de.
Prof. Vadapalli Chandrasekhar, Email: vc@iitk.ac.in.
Prof. Dr. Biprajit Sarkar, Email: biprajit.sarkar@iac.uni-stuttgart.de.
Dr. Anukul Jana, Email: ajana@tifrh.res.in.
References
- 1.
- 1a. Tributsch H., Pohlmann L., Science 1998, 279, 1891–1895; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 1b. Marcus R. A., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1993, 32, 1111–1121; [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 1993, 105, 1161–1172; [Google Scholar]
- 1c. Evans D. H., Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 2113–2144; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 1d. Zhang N., Samanta S. R., Rosen B. M., Percec V., Chem. Rev. 2014, 114, 5848–5958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.
- 2a. Moser C. C., Keske J. M., Warncke K., Farid R. S., Dutton P. L., Nature 1992, 355, 796–802; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2b. Jeuken L. J. C., Jones A. K., Chapman S. K., Cecchini G., Armstrong F. A., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 5702–5713; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2c. Pilet E., Jasaitis A., Liebl U., Vos M. H., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 16198–16203; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2d. Sjulstok E., Olsen J. M. H., Solov'yov I. A., Sci. Rep. 2016, 5, 18446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.
- 3a. Costentin C., Drouet S., Robert M., Savéant J. M., Science 2012, 338, 90–94; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3b. Darcy J. W., Koronkiewicz B., Parada G. A., Mayer J. M., Acc. Chem. Res. 2018, 51, 2391–2399; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3c. Anderson J. S., Rittle J., Peters J. C., Nature 2013, 501, 84–88; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3d. Arashiba K., Miyake Y., Nishibayashi Y., Nat. Chem. 2011, 3, 120–125; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3e. Leoni T., Guillermet O., Walch H., Langlais V., Scheuermann A., Bonvoisin J., Gauthier S., Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 106, 216103; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3f. Hawthorne M. F., Zink J. I., Skelton J. M., Bayer M. J., Liu C., Livshits E., Baer R., Neuhauser D., Science 2004, 303, 1849–1851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.
- 4a. Power P. P., Nature 2010, 463, 171–177; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4b. Melen R. L., Science 2019, 363, 479–484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.
- 5a. Bourissou D., Guerret O., Gabbaï F. P., Bertrand G., Chem. Rev. 2000, 100, 39–91; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5b. Nesterov V., Reiter D., Bag P., Frisch P., Holzner R., Porzelt A., Inoue S., Chem. Rev. 2018, 118, 9678–9842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.
- 6a. Lavallo V., Canac Y., Präsang C., Donnadieu B., Bertrand G., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2005, 44, 5705–5709; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2005, 117, 5851–5855; [Google Scholar]
- 6b. Frey G. D., Lavallo V., Donnadieu B., Schoeller W. W., Bertrand G., Science 2007, 316, 439–441; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6c. Eichhorn A. F., Fuchs S., Flock M., Marder T. M., Radius U., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 10209–10213; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2017, 129, 10343–10347. [Google Scholar]
- 7.
- 7a. Mondal K. C., Roesky H. W., Schwarzer M. C., Frenking G., Tkach I., Wolf H., Kratzert D., Herbst-Irmer R., Niepötter B., Stalke D., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2013, 52, 1801–1805; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2013, 125, 1845–1850; [Google Scholar]
- 7b. Mahoney J. K., Martin D., Moore C. E., Rheingold A. L., Bertrand G., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 18766–18769; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7c. Soleilhavoup M., Bertrand G., Acc. Chem. Res. 2015, 48, 256–266; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7d. Mahoney J. K., Martin D., Thomas F., Moore C. E., Rheingold A. L., Bertrand G., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 7519–7525; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7e. Roy S., Mondal K. C., Roesky H. W., Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 357–369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Mandal D., Sobottka S., Dolai R., Maity A., Dhara D., Kalita P., Narayanan R. S., Chandrasekhar V., Sarkar B., Jana A., Chem. Sci. 2019, 10, 4077–4081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.
- 9a. Hansmann M. M., Melaimi M., Bertrand G., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 2206–2213; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9b. Hansmann M. M., Melaimi M., Munz D., Bertrand G., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 2546–2554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Mahoney J. K., Regnier V., Romero E. A., Molton F., Royal G., Jazzar R., Martin D., Bertrand G., Org. Chem. Front. 2018, 5, 2073–2078. [Google Scholar]
- 11.
- 11a. Noss M. E., Hylden A. T., Carroll P. J., Berry D. H., Inorg. Chem. 2018, 57, 435–445; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11b. Sarkar B., Kaim W., Fiedler J., Duboc C., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 14706–14707; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11c. Kaim W., Reinhardt R., Fiedler J., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1997, 36, 2493–2495; [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 1997, 109, 2600–2602. [Google Scholar]
- 12.
- 12a. Tan S. L. J., Webster R. D., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 5954–5964; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12b. Weinberg D. R., Gagliardi C. J., Hull J. F., Murphy C. F., Kent C. A. S., Westlake B. C., Paul A., Ess D. H., McCafferty D. G., Meyer T. J., Chem. Rev. 2012, 112, 4016–4093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.See the Supporting Information for the experimental, spectroelectrochemical, and computational details.
- 14. Robin M. B., Day P., Adv. Inorg. Chem. Radiochem. 1968, 10, 247–422. [Google Scholar]
- 15.
- 15a. Mayor M., Büschel M., Fromm K. M., Lehn J.-M., Daub J., Chem. Eur. J. 2001, 7, 1266–1272; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15b. Heckmann A., Lambert C., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 326–392; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2012, 124, 334–404. [Google Scholar]
- 16. Viskolcz B., Lendvay G., Körtvélyesi T., Seres L., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 3006–3009. [Google Scholar]
- 17.
- 17a. Yuan Y., Hou W., Zhang-Negrerie D., Zhao K., Du Y., Org. Lett. 2014, 16, 5410–5413; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17b. Conejero S., Canac Y., Tham F. S., Bertrand G., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 4089–4093; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2004, 116, 4181–4185; [Google Scholar]
- 17c. Weiss R., Huber S. M., Heinemann F. W., Audebert P., Pühlhofer F. G., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 8059–8062; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2006, 118, 8228–8231; [Google Scholar]
- 17d. Fleming I., Ghosh U., Mack S. R., Clark B. P., Chem. Commun. 1998, 711–712; [Google Scholar]
- 17e. Nakano R., Jazzar R., Bertrand G., Nat. Chem. 2018, 10, 1196–1200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. D. R. Lide, Jr. , Tetrahedron 1962, 17, 125–134. [Google Scholar]
- 19. Mandal D., Dolai R., Kalita P., Narayanan R. S., Kumar R., Sobottka S., Sarkar B., Rajaraman G., Chandrasekhar V., Jana A., Chem. Eur. J. 2018, 24, 12722–12727. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.See electron-rich diazaalkenes for example:
- 20a. Antoni P. W., Hansmann M. M., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 14823–14835; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20b. Antoni P. W., Bruckhoff T., Hansmann M. M., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 9701–9711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Boelema E., Wieringa J. H., Wynberg H., Strating J., Tetrahedron Lett. 1973, 14, 2377–2380. [Google Scholar]
- 22. Nenajdenko V. G., Shevchenko N. E., Balenkova E. S., Alabugin I. V., Chem. Rev. 2003, 103, 229–282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.
- 23a. Suzuki T., Nishida J., Tsuji T., Chem. Commun. 1998, 2193–2194; [Google Scholar]
- 23b. Ishigaki Y., Suzuki T., Nishida J., Nagaki A., Takabayashi N., Kawai H., Fujiwara K., Yoshida J., Materials 2011, 4, 1906–1926; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23c. Horner M., Hünig S., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1977, 99, 6122–6124; [Google Scholar]
- 23d. Suzuki T., Wada K., Ishigaki Y., Yoshimoto Y., Ohta E., Kawai H., Fujiwara K., Chem. Commun. 2010, 46, 4100–4102; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23e. Nishida J., Miyagawa T., Yamashita Y., Org. Lett. 2004, 6, 2523–2526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Mandal D., Dolai R., Chrysochos N., Kalita P., Kumar R., Dhara D., Maiti A., Narayanan R. S., Rajaraman G., Schulzke C., Chandrasekhar V., Jana A., Org. Lett. 2017, 19, 5605–5608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
As a service to our authors and readers, this journal provides supporting information supplied by the authors. Such materials are peer reviewed and may be re‐organized for online delivery, but are not copy‐edited or typeset. Technical support issues arising from supporting information (other than missing files) should be addressed to the authors.
Supplementary
