AbstractIn the polymerization of olefins with Group 4 metallocene dichlorides or dimethyl derivatives as procatalysts the use of polymethylaluminoxane (MAO) as the cocatalyst, especially in extreme excess (102–103 times the metallocene equivalent), has been shown to have an extraordinary accelerating effect on the rate of olefin polymerization, when compared with the cocatalytic action of alkylaluminum halides. In attempts at explaining the greatly superior catalytic activity of MAO in olefin polymerization (the MAO conundrum), hypotheses have generally paralleled the steps involved in the cocatalytic action of RnAlCl3–n, namely the alkylation of Cp2MtCl2, ionization of Cp2Mt(R)Cl into the metallocenium cation, [Cp2Mt–R]+, and anion, [Rn–1AlCl4–n]– and subsequent ion‐pair separation. In order to understand any differences in catalytic action between such cocatalysts, we have studied the individual action of MAO (100 equiv.) and of MeAlCl2 (1–2 equiv.) on each of the Group 4 metallocene derivatives, Cp2TiCl2, Cp2ZrCl2, Cp2Ti(CH3)2 and Cp2Zr(CH3)2. With MeAlCl2 each of the metallocene derivatives appeared to form the cation, [Cp2Mt–CH3]+, with greater (Ti) or lesser (Zr) ease, because an alkyne such as diphenylacetylene was then found to insert into the Mt–CH3 bond stereoselectively. In striking contrast, treatment of each metallocene with MAO gave two reactions very different from MeAlCl2, namely a steady evolution of methane gas upon mixing and a finding upon hydrolytic workup that the diphenylacetylene present had undergone no insertion into the Mt–CH3 bond but instead had been reductively dimerized completely to (E,E)‐1,2,3,4‐tetraphenyl‐1,3‐butadiene. To account for this astonishing difference in chemical behavior between MAO and MeAlCl2 in their cocatalytic activation of Group 4 metallocenes to olefin polymerization, it is necessary to postulate a novel, unique sequence of reaction steps occurring between MAO and the metallocene. If one starts with the metallocene dichloride, then the free TMA present in the MAO would generate the Cp2Mt(CH3)2. This metallocene dimethyl derivative, complexed with an oligomeric MAO unit, would undergo a transfer‐epimetallation with added olefin or acetylene to form a metallacyclopropane or metallacyclopropene, respectively. With added diphenylacetylene the resulting 2,3‐diphenylmetallacyclopropene would be expected rapidly to insert a second alkyne to form the 2,3,4,5‐tetraphenyl‐1‐metallacyclopentadiene. Simple hydrolysis of the latter intermediate would generate (E,E)‐1,2,3,4‐tetraphenyl‐1,3‐butadiene while alternative workup with D2O would give the 1,4‐dideuterio derivative of this butadiene. Both such expectations were confirmed by experiment. In the case of added olefin, similar metallacyclopropane and metallacyclopentane intermediates should be produced until ring opening of the latter five‐membered ring leads to an open‐chain zwitterion, a process having ample precedent in the research of Gerhard Erker. The solution to the MAO conundrum then, namely the extraordinary cocatalytic activity of MAO in olefin polymerization by metallocenes, lies in the unique catalytic activation of the Group 4 metallocene dimethyl derivative, which occurs by transfer‐epimetallation of the olefin monomer by the Cp2Mt(CH3)2–MAO complex. The most advantageous Lewis acidic sites in the MAO–oligomeric mixture for such metallocene–MAO complexation are suggested to be terminal Me2Al–O–AlMe– segments of an open‐chain oligomer. (© Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 69451 Weinheim, Germany, 2005)
Read full abstract
Feb 17, 2022
Corentin Magnoux + 1
Open Access
