Lukas Tendera, Thomas Schaub, Mirjam J. Krahfuss, Maximilian W. Kuntze‐Fechner, Udo Radius

• Investigations concerning the reactivity of Ni(0) complexes [Ni(NHC)\(_{2}\)] of NHCs (N‐heterocyclic carbene) of different steric demand, Mes\(_{2}\)Im (= 1,3‐dimesitylimidazoline‐2‐ylidene) and iPr\(_{2}\)Im (= 1,3‐diisopropyl‐imidazoline‐2‐ylidene), with olefins, ketones and aldehydes are reported. The reaction of [Ni(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)] 1 with ethylene or methyl acrylate afforded the complexes [Ni(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐C\(_{2}\)H\(_{4}\))] 3 and [Ni(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐(C,C)‐H\(_{2}\)C=CHCOOMe)] 4, as it wasInvestigations concerning the reactivity of Ni(0) complexes [Ni(NHC)\(_{2}\)] of NHCs (N‐heterocyclic carbene) of different steric demand, Mes\(_{2}\)Im (= 1,3‐dimesitylimidazoline‐2‐ylidene) and iPr\(_{2}\)Im (= 1,3‐diisopropyl‐imidazoline‐2‐ylidene), with olefins, ketones and aldehydes are reported. The reaction of [Ni(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)] 1 with ethylene or methyl acrylate afforded the complexes [Ni(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐C\(_{2}\)H\(_{4}\))] 3 and [Ni(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐(C,C)‐H\(_{2}\)C=CHCOOMe)] 4, as it was previously reported for [Ni\(_{2}\)(iPr\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{4}\)(µ‐(η\(^{2}\):η\(^{2}\))‐COD)] 2 as a source for [Ni(iPr\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)]. In contrast to 2, complex 1 does not react with sterically more demanding olefins such as tetramethylethylene, 1,1‐diphenylethylene and cyclohexene. The reaction of [Ni(NHC)\(_{2}\)] with more π‐acidic ketones or aldehydes led to formation of complexes with side‐on η\(^{2}\)‐(C,O)‐coordinating ligands: [Ni(iPr\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐O=CH\(^{t}\)Bu)] 5, [Ni(iPr\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐O=CHPh)] 6, [Ni(iPr\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐O=CMePh)] 7, [Ni(iPr\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐O=CPh\(_{2}\))] 8, [Ni(iPr\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐O=C(4‐F‐C\(_{6}\)H\(_{4}\))\(_{2}\))] 9, [Ni(iPr\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐O=C(OMe)(CF\(_{3}\)))] 10 and [Ni(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐O=CHPh)] 11, [Ni(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐O=CH(CH(CH\(_{3}\))\(_{2}\)))] 12, [Ni(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐O=CH(4‐NMe\(_{2}\)‐C\(_{6}\)H\(_{4}\)))] 13, [Ni(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐O=CH(4‐OMe‐C\(_{6}\)H\(_{4}\)))] 14, [Ni(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐O=CPh\(_{2}\))] 15 and [Ni(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(η\(^{2}\)‐O=C(4‐F‐C\(_{6}\)H\(_{4}\))\(_{2}\))] 16. The reaction of 1 and 2 with these simple aldehydes and ketones does not lead to a significantly different outcome, but NHC ligand rotation is hindered for the Mes\(_{2}\)Im complexes 3, 4 and 11–16 according to NMR spectroscopy. The solid‐state structures of 3, 4, 11 and 12 reveal significantly larger C\(_{NHC}\)‐Ni‐C\(_{NHC}\) angles in the Mes\(_{2}\)Im complexes compared to the iPr\(_{2}\)Im complexes. As electron transfer in d\(^{8}\)‐ (or d\(^{10}\)‐) ML\(_{2}\) complexes to π‐acidic ligands depends on the L–M–L bite angle, the different NHCs lead thus to a different degree of electron transfer and activation of the olefin, aldehyde or ketone ligand, i.e., [Ni(iPr\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)] is the better donor to these π‐acidic ligands. Furthermore, we identified two different side products from the reaction of 1 with benzaldehyde, trans‐[Ni(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)H(OOCPh)] 17 and [Ni\(_{2}\)(Mes\(_{2}\)Im)\(_{2}\)(µ\(_{2}\)‐CO)(µ\(_{2}\)‐η\(^{2}\)‐C,O‐PhCOCOPh)] 18, which indicate that radical intermediates and electron transfer processes might be of importance in the reaction of 1 with aldehydes and ketones.…