Reactivity Trends in CO Insertions
Certain conditions must be met for migratory insertion to occur: the two ligands undergoing the process must be cis, and the complex must be stable with two fewer total electrons. Thermodynamically, the formed Y–X and covalent M–Y bonds must be more stable than the broken M–X and dative M–Y bonds for insertion to be favored. When the opposite is true, the microscopic reverse (elimination or deinsertion) will occur spontaneously.
Migratory aptitudes for insertion into CO have been studied extensively, and the general conclusion here is “it’s complicated.” A few ligands characterized by remarkably stable metal-ligand bonds don’t undergo insertion for thermodynamic reasons—the M–X bond is just too darn strong. Perfluoroalkyl complexes and metal hydrides are two notable examples. Electron-withdrawing groups on the X-type ligand, which strengthen the M–X bond, slow down insertion (likely for thermodynamic reasons though…Hammond’s postulate in action).
What factors affect the relative speed (kinetics) of favorable insertions? Sterics is one important variable. Both 1,1- and 1,2-insertions can relieve steric strain at the metal center by spreading out the ligands involved in the step. In 1,2-insertions, the X-type ligand removes itself completely from the metal! Unsurprisingly, then, bulky ligands undergo insertions more rapidly than smaller ligands. Complexes of the first-row metals tend to react more rapidly than analogous second-row metal complexes, and second-row metal complexes react faster than third-row metal complexes. This trend fits in nicely with the typical trend in M–C bond strengths: first row < second row < third row. Lewis acids help accelerate insertions into CO by coordinating to CO and making the carbonyl carbon more electrophilic. For a similar reason, CO ligands bound to electron-poor metal centers undergo insertion more rapidly than CO’s bound to electron-rich metals. Finally, for reasons that are still unclear, one-electron oxidation often increases the rate of CO insertion substantially.
Although the thermodynamics of alkene 1,2-insertion are more favorable for metal-carbon than metal-hydrogen bonds, M–H bonds react much more rapidly than M–C bonds in 1,2-insertions. This fact has been exploited for olefin hydrogenation, which would be much less useful if it had to complete with olefin polymerization (the result of repeated insertion of C=C into M–C) in the same reaction flask! More on that in the next post.
Stereochemistry in CO Insertions
Migratory insertion steps are full of stereochemistry! Configuration at the migrating alkyl group is retained during insertion—a nice piece of evidence supporting a concerted, intramolecular mechanism of migration.
Note that product D is impossible if we only allow the Me group to migrate—the spot trans to the labeled CO is another CO ligand, so that spot can only pick up L if CO migrates (not if Me migrates). On the other hand, product C must have come from the migration of Me, since the Me group has moved from a cis to a trans position relative to the labeled CO in product C. Calderazzo observed products A, B, and C, but not D, supporting a mechanism involving Me migration. Other experiments since support the idea that most of the time, the alkyl group migrates onto CO. Slick, huh?
I won’t address insertions into alkylidenes, alkylidynes, and other one-atom unsaturated ligands in this post, as insertions into CO are by far the most popular 1,1 insertions in organometallic chemistry. In the next post, we’ll dig more deeply into 1,2-insertions of alkenes and alkynes. Thanks for reading!