Comparing various chiral dirhodium tetracarboxylates in the dirhodium method | Zendy

Mattiza Jens T. | Zendy; Harada Nobuyuki | Zendy; Kuwahara Shunsuke | Zendy; Hassan Zahid | Zendy; Duddeck Helmut | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Premium

Comparing various chiral dirhodium tetracarboxylates in the dirhodium method

Author(s) -

Mattiza Jens T.,

Harada Nobuyuki,

Kuwahara Shunsuke,

Hassan Zahid,

Duddeck Helmut

Publication year - 2009

Publication title -

chirality

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 0.43

H-Index - 77

eISSN - 1520-636X

pISSN - 0899-0042

DOI - 10.1002/chir.20706

Subject(s) - chemistry , enantiopure drug , chirality (physics) , propionate , stereochemistry , aryl , ring (chemistry) , catalysis , enantioselective synthesis , organic chemistry , symmetry breaking , chiral symmetry breaking , physics , alkyl , quantum mechanics , nambu–jona lasinio model

Three enantiopure dirhodium tetracarboxylates are compared in their NMR properties to differentiate chiral ligands of various kinds ( dirhodium method ). The complex with four ( S )‐2‐methoxy‐2‐(1‐naphthyl) propionate (MαNP) residues ( Rh2) is slightly better for strong donors than the complex with four Mosher acid anions ( Rh1 ), but it is inferior for weak donors. On the other hand, the dirhodium tetracarboxylate complex with four ( S )‐ N ‐phthaloyl‐( S )‐ tert .‐leucinate residues ( Rh3 ) is generally more effective than Rh1 . These results are explained by the estimated conformational behavior of the substituents within the equatorial acid residues and the anisotropy (ring‐current) effect of aryl groups. Chirality 2009. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research