1. Olefin Metathesis
1950s – In the presence of various organometallo compounds, olefin metathesis (where the R groups of olefins were swapped with the other) occurred
1970s – Chauvin and colleagues proposed mechanism that seemed to fit
Like a dance
1980s – Schrock and Grubbs synthesized the first metallo-carbene compounds that were air sensitive and shown to catalyze olefin metathesis
Three types of olefin metathesis
Ring closing metathesis (RCM)
Ring opening metathesis (ROM)
Cross metathesis (CM)
Image from Greco, G.E. Nobel Chemistry in the Laboratory. J. Chem. Ed. 2007,84(12), 1996

2. Selectivity Model for CM
Experiments done by Chatterjee et al showed that the various olefin metathesis substrates could be classified by their relative reactivity
Type I: formed homodimers rapidly
Type II: formed homodimers slowly
Type III: didn’t form homodimers, participate in CM
Type IV: spectator olefin, no CM reaction
Reacting two olefins from different groups could yield stereospecific, easily predictable products in good yield
Reactivity of olefins depended on things such as sterics as well as deactivating electron-withdrawing groups
Chatterjee, A. K. A General Model for Selectivity in Olefin Metathesis. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125,

3. Hypothesis
In testing out the selectivity model, by reacting a type I (allyl chloride) and type II olefin (4-fluoro-β-nitrostyrene), a predictable product can be obtained.

4. Olefin Metathesis Catalysts
Schrock and Grubbs
Air sensitive
Initially were molybdenum and ruthenium based, respectively
Both won 2005 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for work in olefin metathesis, along with Chauvin
Images from Pappenfus, T. M. Synthesis and Catalytic Activity of Ruthenium-Indenylidene Complexes for Olefin Metathesis, J. Chem. Ed. 2007, 84 (12),

5. Ruthenium Catalysts, continued
Ruthenium indenylidene complexes
Can be synthesized from commercially available diphenyl propargyl alcohol, synthetic precursors are all relatively air stable, when not in solution
Catalytic properties similar to classic Grubbs, if not superior
Synthesis methods are also relatively simple
The 1a and 1b in this case is what I refer to in the following slides.
Images from Pappenfus, T. M. Synthesis and Catalytic Activity of Ruthenium-Indenylidene Complexes for Olefin Metathesis, J. Chem. Ed. 2007, 84 (12),

6. Methods Synthesis of RuCl2(PPh3)3 Synthesis of 1a and 1b CM reaction
Reflux RuCl3·3H2O with triphenylphosphine under argon in a 1:6 molar ratio for 3 hours, filter out black crystals, wash with anhydrous ether.
Synthesis of 1a and 1b
1a:
Reflux diphenyl propargyl alcohol with RuCl2(PPh3)3 (2:1 equivalents) in a positive argon atmosphere for 2.5 hours, with THF as the solvent. Remove solvent via rotary evaporation, redissolve dark red residue in CH2Cl2, recrystallize with hexanes, slowly. Filter out solid, store in desiccator.
1b:
Stir 1a and tricyclohexane in a 1:3.3 equivalent ratio under a positive argon atmosphere for 1.5 hours, with dichloromethane as the solvent. Remove solvent via rotary evaporation, added hexanes and stir for another 30 minutes. Filter out brown-orange solid, store in desiccator.
CM reaction
Reflux styrene, allyl chloride and 1b in a 1:1:0.01 ratio overnight.
Characterization methods
NMR & IR, as well as TM for the RuCl2(PPh3)3
Synthesis methods taken from Parry, R. W. Tris(triphenylphospine)dichlororuthenium(II) Inorganic Syntheses. 1970, XII, as well as Pappenfus, T. M. Synthesis and Catalytic Activity of Ruthenium-Indenylidene Complexes for Olefin Metathesis, J. Chem. Ed. 2007, 84 (12),

7. Data: NMR spectra for 1a and 1b, literature
Pappenfus is actually a professor at the University of Minnesota. He wrote the protocol for the synthesis of the ruthenium indenylidene complexes for use of the students he taught. Literature spectra, in this case, is actually spectra that he obtained from his students.
1a in chloroform-d
1b in chloroform-d
All reference spectra obtained from Pappenfus, T. M. Synthesis and Catalytic Activity of Ruthenium-Indenylidene Complexes for Olefin Metathesis, J. Chem. Ed. 2007, 84 (12),

8. Results: NMR spectra of 1a and 1b, experimental
We ran out of chloroform-d in the lab, so I couldn’t exactly take the NMR spectra in chloroform-d. This might have slightly affected the shifts. The spectra of my synthesized 1a and 1b match closely enough with the literature spectra that I’m fairly certain I synthesized the right products. Also, the physical appearance of these compounds (i.e. the colors) matched closely with the descriptions in the literature.
1a in benzene-d
1b in benzene-d

9. Data: Literature IR spectra of 1a and 1b

10. Result: Experimental IR spectra of 1a and 1b
I felt that here, I probably used too much nujol and the absorptions from the nujol might have drowned out any characteristic absorptions. Also, I don’t understand why there aren’t very many peaks in the regions of lower wavenumber.
1a with nujol
1b with nujol

11. Data: Allyl Chloride impurities
The allyl chloride I used in my reaction actually had a lot of impurities in it, accounting for the broad peaks in the upfield regions. Apparently allyl chloride needs to be refrigerated and the stock that I used was not.
Used allyl chloride in benzene-d
Allyl chloride without impurities, benzene-d

12. Results: Product vs 1b + reagents
For determining whether or not a reaction took place, I could only rely on NMR. I took an NMR of the product, which was a solid on the bottom of the roundbottom flask, and compared it with 1b+allyl chloride+ the styrene. In retrospect, it probably would have been more useful to just take an NMR of 1b + the styrene. Because the allyl chloride is a liquid, it’s possible that the allyl chloride had just evaporated, leaving behind the solids, without a reaction having taken place. It’s pretty clear from the NMR spectra above that the only difference between the two is the presence of the allyl chloride hydrogen peaks.
Product in benzene-d
1b + reagents in benzene-d

13. Results: % Yields RuCl2(PPh3)3 (Yield: 0.5059 g) 1a (Yield: 0.1944 g)
RuCl3·H2O used: g (0.641 mmoles, limiting reagent)
triphenylphosphine used: g (3.807 mmoles)
% yield: 82.3%
TM: ˚C, literature indicates ˚C
1a (Yield: g)
RuCl2(PPh3)3 used: g (0.378 mmoles, limiting reagent)
Diphenyl propargyl alcohol used: g (0.727 mmoles)
% yield: 58.0%
1b (Yield: g)
1a used: g (0.172 mmoles, limiting reagent)
Tricyclohexylphosphine used: g (0.596 mmoles)
% yield: 89.9%
Literature value of Tm obtained from Parry, R. W. Tris(triphenylphospine)dichlororuthenium(II) Inorganic Syntheses. 1970, XII,

14. Discussion
The ruthenium indenylidene complexes synthesized, based on the NMRs, seem to be the desired complexes
The IRs are less conclusive
Nujol absorptions seem to drown out any characteristic absorptions (peaks at , and cm-1)
Nujol peaks referenced from

15. Did a reaction occur? NMR seems to indicate it did
However, it’s also possible that the difference in NMRs is due to the presence of liquid allyl chloride in the “pre-reaction” NMR taken
Theoretically, the allyl chloride is highly reactive and should have reacted with the styrene
Normally, styrenes are part of the Type II group, and is also reactive in CM reactions. However, it’s possible that the presence of the nitro group directly attached to the C=C bond highly reduced its reactivity

16. Other possible reasons for no reaction
Many of the intermediates, though fairly air stable, will react with air in the presence of water.
The purity of the catalyst is unknown, possible that it was much less than 1% molar of the reagents
Even if the catalyst were pure, it’s possible that 1% molar is insufficient to catalyze the reaction overnight.
When the CM reaction beaker was refluxed, the solvent evaporated very quickly, had to turn off the heating mantle
It’s possible that since allyl chloride is fairly volatile, it evaporated before the reaction could take place.
The effectiveness of the ruthenium indenylidene complexes has only been shown in RCM and ROM.

17. Conclusions Chatterjee et al’s model of CM selectivity is still valid
Although the results of this experiment are not conclusive, the model is also not disproven
This model of CM selectivity could open paths to new synthetic routes to important organic compounds, such as various drugs (i.e. epothilones, antitumor agents)

18. Conclusions: ways to improve
Find olefins of different reactivities that are both solid
Also, olefins that are not deactivated by electron withdrawing groups
Product of CM should have distinctive properties from the reagents, either physical or spectral
Possibly work with different catalysts which are known to have high reactivity in CM reactions
Procure correct NMR solvent, to compare with literature

19. References
Casey, C. P Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Development of the Olefin Metathesis Method in Organic Synthesis. J. Chem. Ed. 2006, 82 (2),
Chatterjee, A. K. A General Model for Selectivity in Olefin Metathesis. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125,
Fürstner, A. Indenylidene Complexes of Ruthenium: Optimized Synthesis, Structure Elucidation, and Performance as Catalysts for Olefin Metathesis – Application to the Synthesis of the ADE- Ring System of Nakadomarin A. Chem. Eur. J. 2001, 7 (22),
Pappenfus, T. M. Synthesis and Catalytic Activity of Ruthenium- Indenylidene Complexes for Olefin Metathesis, J. Chem. Ed. 2007, 84 (12),
Parry, R. W. Tris(triphenylphospine)dichlororuthenium(II) Inorganic Syntheses. 1970, XII,