Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 296

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Heterogeneous or Homogeneous Catalysis? Mechanistic Studies of the Rhodium-Catalyzed Dehydrocoupling of Amine-Borane and Phosphine-Borane Adducts

Jaska, Cory A., Manners, Ian·2004·Journal of the American Chemical Society

Abstract

In depth, comparative studies on the catalytic dehydrocoupling of the amine-borane adduct Me(2)NH.BH(3) (to form [Me(2)N-BH(2)](2)) and the phosphine-borane adduct Ph(2)PH.BH(3) (to form Ph(2)PH-BH(2)-PPh(2)-BH(3)) with a variety of Rh (pre)catalysts such as [[Rh(1,5-cod)(micro-Cl)](2)], Rh/Al(2)O(3), Rh(colloid)/[Oct(4)N]Cl, and [Rh(1,5-cod)(2)]OTf have been performed in order to determine whether the dehydrocoupling proceeds by a homogeneous or heterogeneous mechanism. The results obtained suggest that the catalytic dehydrocoupling of Me(2)NH.BH(3) is heterogeneous in nature involving Rh(0) colloids, while that of Ph(2)PH.BH(3) proceeds by a homogeneous mechanism even when starting with Rh(0) precursors such as Rh/Al(2)O(3). The catalytic dehydrocoupling reactions are thought to proceed by different mechanisms due to a combination of factors such as (i) the greater reducing strength of amine-borane adducts, (ii) the increased ease of dissociation of phosphine-borane adducts, and (iii) phosphine ligation and/or poisoning of active catalytic sites on metal colloids.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ja0478431

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 296

Metadata

Authors
Jaska, C. A., & Manners, I.
Venue
Journal of the American Chemical Society
Published
2004-07-17
Volume
126
Issue
31
Pages
9776-9785
ISSN
  • 0002-7863 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5126
OpenAlex
W2002501218
Cited by
296
References
31
FWCI
8.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.