Control over Selectivity in Alkene Hydrosilylation Catalyzed by Cobalt(III) Hydride Complexes.

Two new bisphosphine [PCP] pincer cobalt(III) hydrides, [(L 1 )Co(PMe 3 )(H)(Cl)] ( L1 1 , L 1 = 2,6-((Ph 2 P)(Et)N) 2 C 6 H 3 ) and [(L 2 )Co(PMe 3 )(H)(Cl)] ( L2 1 , L 2 = 2,6-(( i Pr 2 P)(Et)N) 2 C 6 H 3 ), as well as one new bissilylene [SiCSi] pincer cobalt(III) hydride, [(L 3 )Co(PMe 3 )(H)(Cl)] ( L3 1 , L 3 = 1,3-((PhC( t BuN) 2 Si)(Et)N) 2 C 6 H 3 ), were synthesized by reaction of the corresponding protic [PCP] or [SiCSi] pincer ligands L 1 H , L 2 H, and L 3 H with CoCl(PMe 3 ) 3 . Despite the similarities in the ligand scaffolds, the three cobalt(III) hydrides show remarkably different performance as catalysts in alkene hydrosilylation. Among the PCP pincer complexes, L1 1 has higher catalytic activity than complex L2 1 , and both catalysts afford anti -Markovnikov selectivity for both aliphatic and aromatic alkenes. In contrast, the catalytic activity for alkene hydrosilylation of silylene complex L3 1 is comparable to phosphine complex L1 1 , but a dependence of regioselectivity on the substrates was observed: While aliphatic alkenes are converted in an anti -Markovnikov fashion, the hydrosilylation of aromatic alkenes affords Markovnikov products. The substrate scope was explored with 28 examples. Additional experiments were conducted to elucidate these mechanisms of hydrosilylation. The synthesis of cobalt(I) complex (L 1 )Co(PMe 3 ) 2 ( L1 7 ) and its catalytic properties for alkene hydrosilylation allowed for the proposal of the mechanistic variations that occur in dependence of reaction conditions and substrates.