A Strategic Design of Experiments (DoE) Protocol for Optimizing Suzuki-Miyaura Cross-Coupling in Drug Discovery

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive guide to applying Design of Experiments (DoE) principles for the efficient development and optimization of Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling reactions, a pivotal transformation in pharmaceutical synthesis. Tailored for researchers and development professionals, it bridges foundational knowledge with advanced methodological applications. The content systematically addresses critical challenges such as protodeboronation and catalyst selection, offers troubleshooting strategies for heteroaryl and sensitive substrates, and validates approaches through comparative analysis of modern catalytic systems and real-world case studies. By implementing this structured DoE protocol, scientists can accelerate reaction optimization, improve yield and reproducibility, and enhance the robustness of synthetic routes to complex target molecules.

Mastering the Suzuki-Miyaura Reaction: Core Principles and Common Pitfalls

A deep understanding of the Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling reaction's catalytic cycle is not merely an academic exercise; it is the fundamental prerequisite for designing efficient, robust, and scalable processes in pharmaceutical and fine chemical synthesis. This reaction, which forges carbon-carbon bonds between organoboron nucleophiles and organic (pseudo)halides via palladium catalysis, has become a cornerstone of modern organic chemistry due to its mild conditions and functional group tolerance [1] [2]. For researchers tasked with process development, a mechanistic appreciation of the three core steps—Oxidative Addition, Transmetalation, and Reductive Elimination—provides the critical framework for implementing a rational Design of Experiments (DoE) protocol. By mapping the controllable reaction variables (e.g., ligand, base, solvent) directly onto the energy landscape of the catalytic cycle, DoE moves beyond inefficient one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) optimization. It enables the rapid exploration of complex variable interactions, yielding a predictive model for reaction performance [3] [4]. This document details the mechanistic intricacies of each catalytic step and integrates them into a practical DoE-driven workflow, equipping scientists with the tools to accelerate development cycles for Suzuki-Miyaura reactions in drug development projects.

The Catalytic Cycle of the Suzuki-Miyaura Reaction

The Suzuki-Miyaura reaction operates through a canonical catalytic cycle involving palladium shuttling between the Pd(0) and Pd(II) oxidation states. The active Pd(0) catalyst, which is typically stabilized by electron-donating ligands (L), undergoes three fundamental organometallic steps to form the new C–C bond [5] [1].

Diagram 1: The catalytic cycle of the Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling reaction, highlighting the three key steps and the role of the base.

Step 1: Oxidative Addition

Oxidative addition is often the rate-determining step in the catalytic cycle [1] [2]. In this step, the electron-rich Pd(0) catalyst inserts itself into the carbon-halogen (or other carbon-leaving group) bond of the electrophile (R¹-X). This process oxidizes the palladium center from Pd(0) to Pd(II) and forms an organopalladium complex where the palladium is bound to both the R¹ group and the halide (X) [5] [1].

• Mechanistic Insight: The reaction proceeds with inversion of stereochemistry for benzylic and allylic halides, suggesting an SN2-type mechanism. For alkenyl halides, the addition occurs with retention of stereochemistry [1].
• Relative Reactivity of Electrophiles: The facility of oxidative addition is highly dependent on the nature of the leaving group. The general order of reactivity is: I > OTF (triflate) > Br >> Cl [5] [2]. While aryl chlorides are inexpensive and desirable substrates, they require particularly electron-rich palladium catalysts to facilitate the slower oxidative addition [1].
• Ligand Effect: Electron-donating ligands (e.g., trialkylphosphines, N-heterocyclic carbenes) increase the electron density on palladium, thereby accelerating the oxidative addition of less reactive substrates like aryl chlorides [1] [2].

Step 2: Transmetalation

Transmetalation is a critical ligand-transfer step where the organic group (R²) from the boron-based nucleophile is transferred to the palladium center. This step is uniquely base-dependent in the Suzuki-Miyaura reaction [1] [2].

• Role of the Base: The base has multiple essential functions [1]:
  • It activates the organoboron compound by forming a more nucleophilic trialkyl borate species ([R²-B(OR)₃]⁻).
  • It reacts with the organopalladium halide complex (from oxidative addition) to form a hydroxo or alkoxo complex (R¹-Pd-OR). This intermediate is more reactive toward the borate nucleophile.
  • It may accelerate the final reductive elimination step.
• The Transmetalation Mechanism: The actual transfer of R² is believed to occur through a cyclic transition state where the palladium-bound hydroxide (or alkoxide) bridges to the boron atom, facilitating the smooth transfer of the R² group from boron to palladium [1] [2]. This results in a diorganopalladium(II) complex (R¹-Pd-R²).

Step 3: Reductive Elimination

The final step is reductive elimination, which forms the new C–C bond and regenerates the active Pd(0) catalyst. In this step, the two organic groups (R¹ and R²) on the palladium center couple and are eliminated from the metal complex, reducing palladium from Pd(II) back to Pd(0) [5] [1].

• Stereochemistry: This step occurs with retention of configuration at carbon, preserving the stereochemical integrity of the coupled groups [1].
• Ligand Effect: Sterically bulky ligands facilitate reductive elimination by promoting the association of the two organic groups into a cis-orientation, which is required for elimination [1] [2].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Selecting appropriate reagents is critical for a successful Suzuki-Miyaura reaction. The table below summarizes key components, their functions, and common examples, linking them directly to the catalytic cycle.

Table 1: Essential Reagents for the Suzuki-Miyaura Cross-Coupling Reaction

Reagent Category	Function in Catalytic Cycle	Common Examples & Notes
Palladium Source	Provides the active Pd(0) catalyst. Pd(0) complexes enter the cycle directly; Pd(II) precursors require in-situ reduction.	Pd(0): Pd(PPh₃)₄, Pd₂(dba)₃Pd(II): Pd(OAc)₂, PdCl₂Precatalysts: Buchwald precatalysts, PEPPSI-type complexes [2].
Ligand	Stabilizes Pd(0); modulates electron density & sterics to facilitate all steps, especially oxidative addition and reductive elimination.	Phosphines: PPh₃, SPhos, XPhosN-Heterocyclic Carbenes (NHCs): PEPPSI-type [1] [2].
Base	Activates organoboron reagent; facilitates transmetalation.	Carbonates (K₂CO₃), phosphates, fluorides, alkoxides, organic amines [1] [2].
Boronate Nucleophile	Source of the R² group transferred during transmetalation.	Boronic Acids: Common, but can be unstable.Boronic Esters: Pinacol boronate (BPin), more stable.Trifluoroborates: Air-stable, crystalline salts [2].
Solvent System	Medium for the reaction; biphasic systems can improve efficiency.	Toluene, Dioxane, DMF, THF. Often used with a water co-solvent to solubilize the base and boronate [6] [2].

Designing a DoE Protocol for Reaction Optimization

A DoE approach systematically explores how multiple variables and their interactions impact key reaction outcomes (e.g., yield, conversion). This is far more efficient than OFAT and generates a predictive model for the reaction system [3].

Defining the Input Space and Experimental Matrix

The first step is to define the input variables (factors) and their ranges, informed by mechanistic understanding.

Table 2: Key DoE Input Variables (Factors) for Suzuki-Miyaura Optimization

Factor	Type	Justification & Mechanistic Link	Typical Levels
Ligand	Categorical	Directly influences electron density & sterics at Pd, affecting oxidative addition & reductive elimination rates.	e.g., PPh₃, XPhos, SPhos [7] [3]
Base	Categorical	Critical for boronate activation & transmetalation efficiency; can influence side reactions.	e.g., K₂CO₃, Cs₂CO₃, K₃PO₄ [3]
Temperature	Continuous	Affects kinetics of all steps, especially the rate-determining oxidative addition.	e.g., 25°C - 100°C [3] [4]
Catalyst Loading	Continuous	Higher loading can increase reaction rate but impacts cost and metal contamination.	e.g., 0.5 - 5 mol% [3] [4]
Solvent	Categorical	Polarity can influence solubility of intermediates and reaction rate.	e.g., Toluene, Dioxane, Dioxane/H₂O [3]
Reaction Time	Continuous	Ensures sufficient time for reaction completion.	e.g., 1 - 18 hours [3] [4]

A fractional factorial design can efficiently screen this multi-dimensional space with a minimal number of experiments. For example, a model reaction between para-bromoanisole and para-fluorophenylboronic acid can be used to interrogate the input space defined by factors like base, solvent, temperature, and time [3].

Analytical Method and Data Acquisition

Robust, quantitative analysis is crucial. High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) is the standard method, allowing for the separation and quantification of starting materials, product, and common side-products like homocoupled species [3]. Using an internal standard (e.g., trimethoxybenzene) enables accurate conversion calculations. Automated liquid handling and online HPLC can dramatically accelerate this data acquisition process [7] [3].

Data Analysis and Model Interpretation

The collected conversion or yield data for each experiment is analyzed using statistical software (e.g., MODDE) to generate a response surface model [3]. This model is visualized as contour plots, which show how two continuous factors influence the response while others are held constant. The model identifies not only optimal conditions but also critical interactions between variables—for instance, how the effectiveness of a specific ligand might depend on the chosen solvent [3] [4].

Diagram 2: A streamlined DoE workflow for optimizing a Suzuki-Miyaura reaction, from initial design to model validation.

Detailed Experimental Protocol: A DoE-Optimized Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling

The following protocol is adapted from a published postgraduate workshop utilizing DoE and automation [3].

Reaction: Cross-coupling of para-bromoanisole (35 mg, 0.2 mmol) and para-fluorophenylboronic acid (33.4 mg, 0.22 mmol) to form 4-fluoro-4'-methoxy-1,1'-biphenyl.

Materials:

• Electrophile: para-Bromoanisole
• Nucleophile: para-Fluorophenylboronic acid
• Palladium Source: Pd(OAc)₂ (5, 10, or 15 mol%)
• Ligands: PPh₃, XPhos, SPhos, or XantPhos (15, 30, or 45 mol%)
• Base: K₂CO₃ (60.8 mg, 0.44 mmol, 2.2 equiv.)
• Solvent System: Toluene (1.0 mL) and H₂O (1.0 mL)
• Internal Standard for HPLC: Trimethoxybenzene (16.8 mg, 0.1 mmol)

Equipment:

• Automated solid dispenser (e.g., Chemspeed PowderDose)
• Automated liquid handler and reactor block (e.g., Chemspeed ISYNTH platform)
• HPLC system with C18 column

Procedure:

• Experimental Design: Using DoE software, define a matrix of 20 reactions varying the factors in Table 2 according to a fractional factorial design.
• Solid Dispensing: Use the automated solid-dispensing unit to dispense the specified quantities of Pd(OAc)₂, ligand, K₂CO₃, and aryl boronic acid into 20 individual 8 mL vials.
• Liquid Handling: Using the automated liquid handler, dispense a stock solution of toluene containing the internal standard and para-bromoanisole (1.0 mL) into each vial, followed by water (1.0 mL).
• Reaction Execution: Place the vials in the automated synthesis platform. Heat the reactions to 60°C (or other temperatures as per the DoE matrix) and shake for 18 hours.
• Automated Sampling & Analysis: After the reaction time, allow the mixture to settle. The liquid handler automatically samples 50 μL from the organic layer of each vial, dilutes it with MeCN, and transfers it to an HPLC vial.
• HPLC Analysis: Perform HPLC analysis using an isocratic gradient of MeCN:H₂O (50:50, v/v) with 0.1% TFA. Detect and integrate peaks for the product, internal standard, and starting materials.
• Data Processing: Calculate conversion to product using a pre-determined calibration curve. Input the results into the DoE software to generate the response surface model and identify the optimal reaction conditions.

Troubleshooting and Side Reactions

Even optimized reactions can suffer from side processes. Understanding these helps in diagnosis and further optimization.

Table 3: Common Side Reactions and Mitigation Strategies

Side Reaction	Mechanistic Cause	Impact on Yield	Mitigation via DoE/Condition Tuning
Protodeborylation	Hydrolysis of the C-B bond in the boronic acid before transmetalation.	Lowers yield; common with heteroaryl boronates.	Optimize base/stoichiometry; use more stable boron esters (e.g., BPin); reduce aqueous content [2].
Homocoupling	Oxidation of two boronic acid molecules, often catalyzed by Pd(II).	Forms R²-R² biproduct; consumes nucleophile.	Ensure degassing to exclude O₂; use well-defined Pd(0) precursors [2].
Dehalogenation	β-Hydride elimination or reduction of the oxidative addition intermediate.	Forms R¹-H des-halo side product; consumes electrophile.	Use non-transferable hydride sources; optimize ligand to favor transmetalation [2].
β-Hydride Elimination	Occurs with alkyl borons or alkyl electrophiles bearing β-hydrogens.	Forms alkene byproduct.	Use hindered ligands; switch to β-hydrogen-free substrates [2].

Within the framework of a Design of Experiments (DoE) protocol for Suzuki-Miyaura (SM) cross-coupling research, a meticulous understanding of the essential reaction components—palladium catalysts, ligands, and bases—is paramount for systematic optimization and reproducible high-yielding reactions [8] [9]. The SM reaction is a cornerstone for carbon-carbon bond formation in agrochemical and pharmaceutical development, prized for its functional group tolerance and versatility [10] [2]. However, achieving high turnover numbers and frequencies with low catalyst loadings requires precise control over the catalytic system [8]. This application note provides a detailed, protocol-oriented dissection of these core components, integrating recent mechanistic insights and quantitative data to guide researchers in constructing efficient and sustainable coupling processes [11] [12].

The choice of palladium source critically influences the reaction's initiation, rate, and reproducibility. The active catalytic species is a Pd(0) complex, but it is typically generated in situ from more stable Pd(II) precursors or preformed Pd(0) complexes [2].

Pd(II) Salts andIn SituReduction

Common Pd(II) salts like palladium(II) acetate (Pd(OAc)₂) and palladium(II) chloride (PdCl₂ or its acetonitrile complex PdCl₂(ACN)₂) are bench-stable and cost-effective [10]. A key, often overlooked, step is the controlled reduction of Pd(II) to the active Pd(0) species. Uncontrolled reduction can lead to ligand oxidation, substrate homocoupling, or the formation of inactive palladium nanoparticles [10] [2].

• Mechanism & Control: Reduction often occurs at the expense of the phosphine ligand or the boronic acid (leading to homocoupled side product). A strategic approach uses a primary alcohol (e.g., in N-hydroxyethyl pyrrolidone, HEP) as a sacrificial reductant. The correct combination of counterion (acetate vs. chloride), ligand, and base is essential to maximize reduction via the alcohol while preserving ligands and reagents [10].
• Protocol for Controlled Pre-catalyst Reduction (Adapted from Fantoni et al. [10]):
  • In a nitrogen-glovebox, add Pd(OAc)₂ (1.0 µmol) and the desired phosphine ligand (e.g., SPhos, 2.2 µmol) to a 1-dram vial.
  • Add dry DMF (0.8 mL) and HEP (0.2 mL, 30% v/v). Seal the vial with a septum cap.
  • Add the base (e.g., Cs₂CO₃, 50 µmol) and stir the mixture at room temperature.
  • Monitor the reduction progress by ³¹P NMR spectroscopy. Complete reduction to the target Pd(0) species is typically achieved within 30-60 minutes, as indicated by the disappearance of Pd(II)-phosphine signals and the appearance of sharp Pd(0)-phosphine peaks without phosphine oxide formation.

Preformed Pd(0) Complexes and Pre-catalysts

• Pd(0) Complexes: Tetrakis(triphenylphosphine)palladium(0) (Pd(PPh₃)₄) and tris(dibenzylideneacetone)dipalladium(0) (Pd₂(dba)₃) provide immediate access to active species. However, Pd₂(dba)₃ can decay into palladium black, leading to variable activity [2].
• Structured Pre-catalysts: These Pd(II) complexes are designed for clean, rapid activation.
  • Buchwald Pre-catalysts (e.g., G2-G4): Contain a bidentate ligand (e.g., SPhos, XPhos) and an amine (e.g., morpholine) or oxalate ligand that undergoes facile reductive elimination to release the active Pd(0) species [2] [13].
  • Palladacycles & Allyl Complexes: Provide well-defined coordination environments for predictable activation [2].
• Emerging Systems: Atomically dispersed (single-atom) Pd catalysts on solid supports (e.g., Pd-ZnO-ZrO₂) show promise for phosphine-free, heterogeneous catalysis under mild conditions, though ligand-free systems are less developed for broad substrate scope [14].

Table 1: Quantitative Performance of Common Palladium Sources with Different Ligands

Pd Source	Ligand	Key Observation / Yield	Reference / Context
Pd(OAc)₂	SPhos	47% yield in coupling of 3-chloroindazole¹	[13]
Pd₂(dba)₃	SPhos	52% yield in coupling of 3-chloroindazole¹	[13]
Pre-catalyst P2 (SPhos-based)	SPhos	80-90% yield in coupling of 3-chloroindazole¹	[13]
Pd(OAc)₂	PPh₃	Efficient reduction with HEP/Cs₂CO₃ in DMF	[10]
PdCl₂(ACN)₂	DPPF	Efficient reduction profile differs from Pd(OAc)₂	[10]
Pd-ZnO-ZrO₂ (SAC)	None	Active for model reactions at room temperature, air	[14]

¹ Reaction conditions: 3-chloroindazole, 5-indole boronic acid, K₃PO₄, dioxane/H₂O, 100°C. [13]

Ligands: Steering Reactivity and Stability

Ligands stabilize the Pd(0) center, modulate its electron density and steric profile, and influence every step of the catalytic cycle [2] [12].

Ligand Classes and Properties

• Monodentate Phosphines (e.g., PPh₃, SPhos, XPhos, RuPhos): Offer flexibility. Electron-deficient ligands (e.g., PPh₃) can accelerate transmetalation, which is often rate-determining. Bulky, electron-rich ligands (e.g., SPhos, XPhos) facilitate oxidative addition of challenging electrophiles like aryl chlorides [10] [12]. The monoligated PdL₁ species is frequently the most active [8].
• Bidentate Phosphines (e.g., DPPF, Xantphos): Provide chelating stability, which can slow down transmetalation but may prevent catalyst decomposition. The bite angle influences reductive elimination rates [10] [12].
• N-Heterocyclic Carbenes (NHCs): Strong σ-donors that form very stable Pd complexes, excellent for demanding substrates [2] [12].

Ligand Selection Protocol for DoE Screening

A rational screening strategy is vital [8] [9].

• Baseline Profiling: Run the reaction with a small set of ligands (e.g., SPhos, XPhos, DPPF, Xantphos) under standard conditions. Profile conversion over time.
• Electronic & Steric Mapping: Use results to map performance against known ligand parameters (e.g., %V_Bur, θ). This helps identify if the system favors electron-rich/poor or bulky/small ligands.
• Mechanistic Probe: Compare the performance of a bisphosphine ligand against its corresponding monoxide. Similar rates suggest the reaction is impartial to slight ligand oxidation [8].
• High-Throughput Experimentation (HTE): For complex systems, use HTE to test a broad matrix of ligands, bases, and solvents simultaneously. Data-driven analysis (e.g., z-score ranking) of internal HTE datasets can reveal optimal conditions that differ from literature norms [9].

Table 2: Ligand Performance in Model Suzuki-Miyaura Couplings

Ligand	Type	Key Characteristic	Performance Note
SPhos	Monodentate phosphine	Bulky, electron-rich	High yields with unprotected heterocycles [13]; excellent for aryl chlorides.
XPhos	Monodentate phosphine	Very bulky, electron-rich	Similar to SPhos, sometimes superior for pyrazole coupling [13].
PPh₃	Monodentate phosphine	Electron-deficient, small	Low cost; accelerates transmetalation; requires controlled reduction [10] [12].
DPPF	Bidentate phosphine	Chelating, moderate bite angle	Can slow transmetalation; stable pre-catalyst available (PdCl₂(dppf)) [10] [12].
Xantphos	Bidentate phosphine	Large bite angle	Can promote reductive elimination; may require THF for solubility with Pd(OAc)₂ [10].
RuPhos	Monodentate phosphine	Bulky, electron-rich	Effective in Buchwald pre-catalysts for C-N and C-C coupling.

Diagram 1: Catalytic Cycle with Ligand Influence Points (Width: 760px)

Bases: Role, Selection, and Base-Free Pathways

The base activates the organoboron reagent for transmetalation and neutralizes the halide byproduct [2] [5].

Common Bases and Their Effects

• Carbonates (Cs₂CO₃, K₂CO₃, K₃PO₄): Widely used. Cs₂CO₃ is highly soluble in organic solvents, providing homogeneous conditions. K₃PO₄ is effective, especially in aqueous/organic mixtures [13].
• Alkoxides (KOtBu): Strong bases that can enable coupling of inert boronic acids but may promote side reactions like protodeborylation [12].
• Organic Bases (Et₃N, TMG): Can be used in specific protocols, often influencing reduction kinetics [10].
• Specialty Bases (TMSOK): Potassium trimethylsilanolate enhances boronic acid coordination to Pd and improves rates in anhydrous conditions [12].

Base-Free Suzuki Coupling

Recent studies show base-free conditions are possible, particularly for methylation with [¹¹C]CH₃I in radiochemistry. Here, transmetalation may proceed via a cationic Pd(II) intermediate, with oxidative addition remaining rate-determining [15]. This pathway is sensitive to the electronic properties of the boronate [15].

Table 3: Base Selection Guide

Base	Typical Solvent System	Advantages	Considerations
Cs₂CO₃	Aprotic (Dioxane, DMF, THF)	Excellent solubility, homogeneous conditions.	Expensive.
K₃PO₄	Aqueous/Organic (Dioxane/H₂O)	Effective, good for heterocyclic substrates [13].	Can be heterogeneous.
K₂CO₃	Aqueous/Organic or neat H₂O	Cost-effective, standard choice.	Slower with some substrates.
KOtBu	Aprotic (Toluene, THF)	Activates stable boronates [12].	Can cause substrate degradation.
TMSOK	Anhydrous Organic	Accelerates rates via soluble boronate [12].	Nucleophilic, solvent-limited.

Substrates, Boron Reagents, and Solvents

• Electrophiles: Reactivity I > OTf > Br >> Cl. Aryl chlorides require electron-rich, bulky ligands [2] [13]. Halide inhibition (I⁻ > Br⁻ > Cl⁻) can occur due to strong Pd coordination; using less polar solvents (toluene over THF) can mitigate this by reducing halide salt solubility in the organic phase [12].
• Nucleophiles - Boron Sources: A trade-off between stability and reactivity exists.
  • Boronic Acids: Reactive but prone to protodeborylation (especially heteroaryl).
  • Pinacol Esters (Bpin): More stable, may require hydrolysis to acid before transmetalation.
  • Trifluoroboronate Salts (ArBF₃K): Stable, crystalline solids.
  • Neopentyl Glycol Esters: Optimal balance of stability and reactivity [12].
• Solvents: Common choices include dioxane, toluene, THF, DMF, and their mixtures with water. Solvent polarity affects halide inhibition, boronate solubility, and reaction rate [2] [12]. For process development, solvent recoverability is a key sustainability metric [8].

Integrating Components: A Design of Experiments Protocol

A structured DoE approach moves beyond one-variable-at-a-time optimization [8] [9].

Diagram 2: DoE Workflow for Suzuki-Miyaura Optimization (Width: 760px)

Protocol Outline:

• Define Objectives: Set targets for catalyst loading (<0.1 mol%), process mass intensity (PMI), turnover frequency (TOF), and cost [8].
• Familiarization: Profile baseline reaction, establish component orders, and probe catalyst stability (e.g., via variable time normalization analysis) [8].
• Solvent Selection: Model and measure substrate/product solubilities. Shortlist based on performance, environmental, and recovery criteria [8].
• HTE Screen Design: Create a matrix testing 3-4 ligands, 2-3 bases, 2 solvents, and 2 Pd sources (or pre-catalysts). Use a fractional factorial design to manage experiment count [9].
• Data Analysis: Use statistical methods (e.g., z-score analysis of conversion/yield) to identify critical factors and optimal combinations from the HTE data [9].
• Lead Validation & Kinetic Profiling: Confirm optimal conditions in larger scale. Determine reaction orders and TOF.
• Robustness Testing: Challenge the protocol with varied stoichiometries, concentrations, and material grades. Document the final, reproducible protocol.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Objective: Couple nitrogen-rich, unprotected heterocycles using a robust pre-catalyst system. Materials: 3-Chloroindazole, 5-Indoleboronic acid, Pre-catalyst P2 (SPhos-based), K₃PO₄, 1,4-Dioxane, Deionized H₂O. Procedure:

• In a dry 20 mL microwave vial equipped with a stir bar, combine 3-chloroindazole (1.00 mmol, 1.0 equiv) and 5-indoleboronic acid (2.00 mmol, 2.0 equiv).
• Add K₃PO₄ (2.00 mmol, 2.0 equiv).
• In a separate vial, dissolve pre-catalyst P2 (2.5 mol%) in a mixture of degassed 1,4-dioxane (4 mL) and H₂O (1 mL). Transfer this solution to the reaction vial.
• Purge the headspace with nitrogen or argon, cap the vial, and place it in a pre-heated oil bath at 100°C.
• Stir vigorously for 15-20 hours.
• Cool to room temperature. Dilute with ethyl acetate (20 mL) and wash with water (10 mL) and brine (10 mL).
• Dry the organic layer over anhydrous MgSO₄, filter, and concentrate under reduced pressure.
• Purify the residue by flash column chromatography to obtain the biaryl product. Expected Outcome: Isolated yield of 80-90% [13].

Objective: Monitor the efficiency and cleanliness of Pd(II) reduction to Pd(0) in the presence of a sacrificial alcohol. Materials: Pd(OAc)₂, SPhos ligand, anhydrous DMF, N-Hydroxyethyl pyrrolidone (HEP), Cs₂CO₃, NMR tube with J. Young valve or septum. Procedure:

• In a nitrogen glovebox, prepare a solution of Pd(OAc)₂ (1.0 µmol) and SPhos (2.2 µmol) in 0.8 mL of dry DMF in a sealed vial.
• Add HEP (0.2 mL) and Cs₂CO₃ (50 µmol).
• Immediately transfer an aliquot (~0.6 mL) to a J. Young valve NMR tube and seal.
• Acquire a ³¹P NMR spectrum immediately (t=0).
• Place the NMR tube in a heating block at 30°C or room temperature. Acquire spectra at 10, 30, and 60 minutes.
• Analysis: The clean formation of the target Pd(0)-SPhos complex is indicated by the appearance of a sharp, characteristic ³¹P signal (e.g., a doublet for a trans-chelating species or a specific shift for monoligated Pd(0)) and the absence of a broad signal ~35 ppm indicative of phosphine oxide (P=O). Inefficient reduction shows persistent Pd(II)-phosphine complexes and/or growing phosphine oxide peaks [10].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Reagents for Suzuki-Miyaura Method Development

Reagent Category	Example	Primary Function	Consideration for DoE
Palladium Source	Pd(OAc)₂	Inexpensive, bench-stable Pd(II) precursor.	Requires controlled reduction; factor into cost/PMI.
Pre-catalyst	SPhos-Precatalyst G3	Reliable, single-species source of active Pd(0).	Eliminates reduction variability; higher initial cost.
Ligand Library	SPhos, XPhos, DPPF, Xantphos	Covers steric/electronic space for screening.	Essential for HTE factorials [9].
Base Array	Cs₂CO₃, K₃PO₄, KOtBu	Tests solubility and activation strength effects.	Critical for transmetalation efficiency.
Boronate Source	Neopentyl Glycol Ester	Balances stability and reactivity [12].	Reduces protodeborylation side reactions.
Reduction Monitor	N-Hydroxyethyl pyrrolidone (HEP)	Sacrificial primary alcohol for clean Pd(II) reduction [10].	Use in in situ NMR studies to validate catalyst formation.
Additive	Potassium trimethylsilanolate (TMSOK)	Enhances boronate coordination in anhydrous systems [12].	Test in base/solvent screens for rate improvement.
Deuterated Solvent	DMF-d₇, THF-d₈	For in situ NMR mechanistic studies.	Required for Protocol B [10].

Suzuki-Miyaura (SM) cross-coupling is arguably the most widely applied transition metal-catalyzed carbon–carbon bond-forming reaction due to its exceptionally mild and functional group tolerant conditions, combined with the relatively stable, readily prepared, and generally environmentally benign nature of the organoboron reagent [16]. The boron reagent serves as the nucleophilic partner in this transformation, and its selection directly influences reaction success, particularly within a Design of Experiment (DoE) framework where understanding variable interactions is paramount. A key challenge lies in navigating the inherent trade-off between stability and reactivity across different boronate classes. For researchers in drug development, this translates to selecting the optimal nucleophile to maximize yield while minimizing side reactions such as protodeboronation, which is a predominant failure mode, especially for sensitive heteroaryl systems [17] [2] [18].

This application note provides a structured comparison of the primary boron nucleophiles—boronic acids, boronic esters, and trifluoroborates—to inform robust, scalable SM coupling protocols. We present summarized quantitative data, detailed experimental procedures, and strategic guidance to aid in rational reagent selection within a systematic DoE workflow.

Comparative Analysis of Boronate Nucleophiles

The seven main classes of boron reagents each exhibit unique physical, chemical, and reactivity profiles [16]. An insightful method for comparison is their relative nucleophilicity, which has been quantitatively mapped onto Mayr's nucleophilicity scale [16]. As shown in the diagram below, the electronic and steric properties of the ligand sphere around boron dramatically influence its reactivity.

Figure 1: The nucleophilicity of boron reagents spans approximately 10 orders of magnitude, with intramolecular trialkoxy-ligated boronate salts being the most nucleophilic and MIDA boronates the least, influencing their application scope [16].

Quantitative Comparison of Boron Reagent Properties

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Common Boronate Nucleophiles

Reagent Class	Stability to Protodeboronation	Relative Reactivity	Ease of Preparation/Purification	Ideal Application Context
Boronic Acids (ArB(OH)₂)	Low (High for heteroaryls) [17] [18]	High [16]	High; often commercial [19]	Standard aryl-aryl couplings; high atom-economy [16]
Pinacol Boronic Esters	Moderate [2]	Moderate (requires hydrolysis) [16] [2]	High; via Miyaura borylation [2]	Substrates requiring intermediate stability; iterative cross-coupling [2]
MIDA Boronates	High [16] [2]	Low (requires hydrolysis) [16] [2]	Moderate; stable to chromatography [2]	Sequential coupling of polyhalogenated substrates; unstable acid precursors [2]
Organotrifluoroborates (ArBF₃K)	High [17] [2]	Moderate (requires hydrolysis) [16] [2]	Moderate; crystalline solids [19]	Electron-rich boronic acids prone to decomposition; simplified work-up [19] [2]
Lithium Triisopropyl Borates (LTB)	Very High (stable for months on benchtop) [17] [20]	High after hydrolysis [17] [20]	Low; prepared in situ, not isolated [17] [20]	Highly unstable heteroaryl nucleophiles (e.g., 2-pyridyl) [17] [20]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Their Functions in SM Coupling with Boronates

Reagent / Material	Function / Rationale	Application Note
XPhos Pd G4 Precatalyst	Highly active, well-defined Pd source; minimizes deboronation [18]	Critical for coupling unstable boronic acids (e.g., thienyl, heteroaryl) [18]
Tetrahydroxydiboron (B₂(OH)₄)	Bench-stable diboron reagent for direct boronic acid synthesis [19]	Enables one-pot sequencing from aryl chlorides to coupled products [19]
Potassium Trifluoroborate (KHF₂)	Converts boronic acids to more stable ArBF₃K salts [19] [2]	Simplifies purification; protects acid from decomposition during storage [19]
Methoxyamine / KOtBu	Reagent system for direct stereospecific amination of alkyl boronates [21]	Provides access to valuable chiral amine building blocks [21]
Lithium Triisopropylborate (LTB)	"Ate" complex with enhanced stability for problematic heterocycles [17] [20]	Enables coupling of 2-pyridyl and other N-containing heteroaryl systems [20]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Direct Synthesis of Aryltrifluoroborates from Aryl Chlorides

This one-pot protocol utilizes tetrahydroxydiboron for the direct synthesis of aryltrifluoroborates, bypassing the need to isolate sensitive boronic acid intermediates [19].

• Reaction Setup: Weigh palladium precatalyst 2 (1 mol %), XPhos (2 mol %), NaOt-Bu (1 mol %), KOAc (3.0 equiv), and the aryl chloride (1.0 equiv) into a sealable microwave vial. Cap the vial, purge with nitrogen, and add degassed ethanol (0.1 M) via syringe [19].
• Borylation: Add tetrahydroxydiboron (1.5 equiv). Heat the reaction mixture at 80 °C for 18 hours with stirring [19].
• Work-up and Conversion to Trifluoroborate: Cool the reaction to room temperature and filter through a pad of Celite, rinsing with ethyl acetate. Concentrate the filtrate under reduced pressure. Redissolve the crude residue in methanol and cool to 0 °C. Add aqueous KHF₂ (3.0 equiv) dropwise. Allow the mixture to warm to room temperature and stir until conversion is complete (~20 min, monitor by ¹¹B NMR) [19].
• Purification: Concentrate the reaction mixture. Purify the resulting solid by continuous Soxhlet extraction with acetone. Concentrate the acetone extract and precipitate the pure trifluoroborate salt with diethyl ether [19].

Protocol 2: Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling of Unstable Heteroaryl Lithium Triisopropyl Borates (LTB)

This protocol is highly effective for coupling heteroaryl boronates, such as 2-pyridyl derivatives, which are notoriously prone to protodeboronation [17] [20].

• LTB Preparation (in situ): Under an inert atmosphere, cool a solution of the heteroaryl bromide (e.g., 2-bromopyridine) in THF to -78 °C. Add n-butyllithium (1.05 equiv) dropwise. Stir for 30 minutes at -78 °C. Add triisopropyl borate (1.1 equiv) and gradually warm the mixture to room temperature. The LTB forms quantitatively and is used directly without isolation [17] [20].
• Coupling Reaction: To the crude LTB solution, add the aryl/heteroaryl halide (1.0 equiv), XPhos Pd G2 precatalyst (1-3 mol %), and aqueous K₃PO₄ (0.5 M). Heat the biphasic mixture (THF/H₂O) at 40 °C for 2 hours [17].
• Work-up and Isolation: After cooling, partition the mixture between water and ethyl acetate. Wash the organic layer with brine, dry over MgSO₄, filter, and concentrate. Purify the crude biaryl product by flash chromatography on silica gel [17].

The catalytic mechanism of the Suzuki-Miyaura coupling, central to these protocols, involves a series of organopalladium intermediates, as illustrated below.

Figure 2: The core catalytic cycle of the Suzuki-Miyaura reaction, involving oxidative addition, transmetalation, and reductive elimination steps [22] [5].

Strategic Guidance for DoE Implementation

Integrating boronate selection into a DoE protocol requires focusing on critical factors and their interactions. The following diagram outlines a decision workflow for reagent selection based on substrate stability and reaction requirements.

Figure 3: A strategic decision tree for selecting the optimal boronate nucleophile based on stability and synthetic requirements, a key first step in designing a DoE [16] [17] [2].

When constructing a DoE, consider the following key interactions:

• Base and Boronate Stability: Strong aqueous bases (e.g., K₃PO₄) facilitate ester hydrolysis and transmetalation but can accelerate protodeboronation of sensitive acids. Weaker bases (e.g., K₂CO₃) or anhydrous conditions with powder KF may be preferable for unstable nucleophiles [17] [22].
• Catalyst Activity and Deboronation: A highly active catalyst system (e.g., XPhos Pd G3/G4) is non-negotiable for unstable boronates like thienyl or 2-heteroaryl boronic acids, as it ensures rapid coupling before decomposition occurs [18]. In a DoE, catalyst load and type are primary factors.
• Solvent Composition: Aqueous solvent mixtures are standard but vary in their ability to dissolve boronates and bases. Fine-tuning the water/organic solvent ratio (e.g., THF/H₂O) for each new substrate pair can dramatically improve yield by enhancing solubility and reagent interaction [18].

Concluding Remarks

The strategic selection of the boronate nucleophile is a critical parameter in designing a successful and robust Suzuki-Miyaura coupling process. There is no universal "best" reagent; the choice is dictated by a balance of stability, reactivity, and synthetic goals. Boronic acids offer simplicity for stable systems, pinacol and MIDA esters provide a handle for complexity, and trifluoroborates or lithium "ate" complexes deliver the stability needed for the most challenging nucleophiles. By applying the comparative data, detailed protocols, and strategic DoE framework outlined herein, researchers can systematically navigate these options to develop efficient and reliable synthetic routes for drug development campaigns.

Within the framework of a Design of Experiment (DoE) protocol for Suzuki-Miyaura coupling research, understanding and controlling prevalent side reactions is paramount for developing robust, high-yielding synthetic methods. The Suzuki-Miyaura reaction, a palladium-catalyzed cross-coupling between organoborons and organohalides, is a cornerstone of modern carbon-carbon bond formation in pharmaceutical and fine chemical synthesis [2] [1]. Despite its widespread utility and general reliability, the reaction is susceptible to several side processes that can significantly compromise yield and complicate purification. Among these, protodeborylation, homocoupling, and dehalogenation are particularly common and problematic. This application note details the mechanisms of these side reactions, provides quantitative data on factors influencing their extent, and offers validated, actionable protocols for their mitigation within a systematic DoE context. By providing a clear understanding of these failure modes, we empower researchers to design more efficient reaction systems and accelerate drug development pipelines.

Side Reaction Analysis and Mitigation Strategies

The following section provides a detailed breakdown of the three targeted side reactions, including their mechanisms, promoting factors, and strategies for suppression.

Protodeborylation

Description: Protodeborylation involves the hydrolytic cleavage of the carbon-boron bond in the organoboron reagent, replacing it with a hydrogen atom. This side reaction consumes the nucleophilic coupling partner, effectively reducing the maximum possible yield of the cross-coupled product [2].

Mechanism: The mechanism can vary depending on the electronic properties of the boronate and the protonation state. It is fundamentally a hydrolysis reaction that is often accelerated under the basic conditions required for the canonical Suzuki-Miyaura transmetalation step [2] [23].

Promoting Factors:

• Basic Conditions: The aqueous base essential for the main coupling cycle also catalyzes the decomposition of sensitive boronic acids [2] [23].
• Structural Motifs: Certain substrate classes are inherently more prone to protodeborylation. 2-Heteroaryl boronic acids (e.g., 2-pyridylboronic acid) and those with protonatable heteroatoms in the aromatic ring are notably unstable [2].
• Prolonged Reaction Times: Slower cross-coupling kinetics increase the exposure time of the boronic acid to degrading conditions.

Mitigation Strategies:

• Use Boronic Esters: Employing pinacol, catechol, or neopentyl glycol esters instead of boronic acids can significantly enhance stability, as these are less susceptible to hydrolysis [2].
• Lewis Acid-Mediated Conditions: Implement a recently developed base-free Suzuki-Miyaura protocol using a zinc triflate complex (e.g., ((tmeda)Zn(OH)(OTf))₃) to mediate transmetalation. This approach entirely bypasses the basic conditions that trigger protodeborylation (see Protocol 3.3) [23].
• Optimize Base and Stoichiometry: Within a DoE framework, screen weaker bases or reduce base equivalents. A slight stoichiometric excess of the organoboron reagent (1.1-1.5 equiv.) can also compensate for minor decomposition.

Homocoupling

Description: Homocoupling refers to the reaction of two molecules of the organoboron reagent to form a symmetric biaryl or similar dimer species [2].

Mechanism: This process is typically oxidative in nature. A Pd(II) species, which can be present if a Pd(II) precatalyst is used without complete reduction or if the reaction mixture is exposed to oxygen, reacts with two equivalents of the boronic acid. The boronic acids are coupled, and the Pd(II) is reduced to Pd(0) [2].

Promoting Factors:

• Oxidative Conditions: The presence of molecular oxygen is a primary driver. Studies have shown that higher oxygen levels lead to an increase in homocoupling [2].
• Pd(II) Precatalysts: The use of Pd(II) sources (e.g., Pd(OAc)₂, Pd(dppf)Cl₂) requires in situ reduction to Pd(0). Before reduction, these species can promote homocoupling [2].
• Oxidizing Agents: Any other oxidizing impurities in the reaction mixture can trigger this pathway.

Mitigation Strategies:

• Rigorous Degassing: Thoroughly degas solvents and reaction mixtures by sparging with an inert gas (N₂ or Ar) prior to initiation and maintain an inert atmosphere throughout the reaction [2].
• Use Well-Defined Pd(0) Sources: Employ stable Pd(0) complexes like Pd(PPh₃)₄ or modern precatalysts (e.g., Buchwald precatalysts) that cleanly generate Pd(0) under the reaction conditions, minimizing the presence of oxidative Pd(II) states [2].
• Control Boron Stoichiometry: Avoid large excesses of the boronic acid reagent.

Dehalogenation

Description: Dehalogenation results in the removal of the halide (or other leaving group) from the electrophilic coupling partner, yielding a des-halo side product [2] [24].

Mechanism: After oxidative addition, the organopalladium(II) intermediate may abstract a hydride from the reaction medium (e.g., from the solvent or base). Subsequent reductive elimination from this hydrido-aryl-palladium complex releases the reduced, dehalogenated arene [2].

Promoting Factors:

• Solvent and Base: Certain solvent/base combinations, particularly amine bases, can act as hydride donors [2].
• Halogen Identity: Iodides are especially prone to dehalogenation despite their high reactivity in oxidative addition. This is because iodide can act as a strong coordinating ligand, poisoning the palladium catalyst and slowing the productive cycle, thereby allowing dehalogenation pathways to compete more effectively [2] [24].
• Electron-Deficient Arenes: Substrates like aminopyrazoles can show significant dehalogenation, with comparative studies revealing that bromo and chloro derivatives are superior to iodo analogs due to reduced propensity for this side reaction [24].

Mitigation Strategies:

• Avoid Iodides When Possible: If the reaction is viable, prefer aryl bromides or activated chlorides over iodides to minimize catalyst poisoning and dehalogenation [24].
• Ligand Selection: Use strongly coordinating and electron-rich ligands (e.g., SPhos, XantPhos) that facilitate rapid transmetalation and reductive elimination, outcompeting the hydride transfer step [2] [1].
• Additives: The addition of silver salts can sequester iodide ions, preventing catalyst poisoning, but their use requires caution due to potential redox chemistry [2].

Table 1: Summary of Prevalent Side Reactions in Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling

Side Reaction	Primary Cause	Key Mitigation Strategy	DoE Parameter to Optimize
Protodeborylation	Basic conditions	Use boronic esters or base-free conditions	Type of base, equivalence, boron reagent structure
Homocoupling	Oxidative conditions (O₂, Pd(II))	Degassing and use of Pd(0) precatalysts	Atmosphere, catalyst type/loading
Dehalogenation	Hydride transfer after oxidative addition	Ligand selection and avoidance of aryl iodides	Halide identity, ligand structure, additives

Experimental Protocols & The Scientist's Toolkit

Protocol 1: Standard Screening Protocol for Side Reaction Assessment

This protocol is designed as a starting point for a DoE study to quickly identify susceptibility to the described side reactions.

Materials:

• Electrophile: Aryl halide (e.g., 1.0 equiv. of 4-bromoanisole).
• Nucleophile: Boronic acid/ester (e.g., 1.2 equiv. of phenylboronic acid).
• Catalyst System: Pd source (e.g., 2 mol% Pd(OAc)₂) and ligand (e.g., 4 mol% SPhos).
• Base: Aqueous base (e.g., 2.0 M K₂CO₃, 2.0 equiv.).
• Solvent: 2:1 mixture of Toluene/EtOH or Dioxane/H₂O.

Procedure:

• In a sealed reaction vial, combine the aryl halide, boronic acid, Pd source, and ligand.
• Add the solvent and base solution. The total reaction volume should be ~0.1 M with respect to the aryl halide.
• Degass the reaction mixture by sparging with N₂ or Ar for 5-10 minutes.
• Heat the mixture to 80-100 °C with stirring for 4-16 hours.
• Monitor reaction progress by TLC or LC/MS. Analyze the crude reaction mixture by HPLC or NMR to quantify the formation of the cross-coupled product versus protodeborylated, homocoupled, and dehalogenated side products.

Protocol 2: Mitigating Dehalogenation of Aminopyrazoles

Based on the work of Jedinák et al. [24], this protocol is optimized for challenging nitrogen-rich heterocycles.

Materials:

• Electrophile: Chloro- or bromo-aminopyrazole (1.0 equiv.).
• Nucleophile: Arylboronic acid (1.3 equiv.).
• Catalyst: PdCl₂(dppf)·CH₂Cl₂ (5 mol%).
• Base: K₂CO₃ (3.0 equiv.) in a minimal amount of H₂O.
• Solvent: 1,4-Dioxane.

Procedure:

• Charge a reaction vial with the halogenated aminopyrazole, boronic acid, PdCl₂(dppf)·CH₂Cl₂, and K₂CO₃.
• Add anhydrous 1,4-dioxane and a small amount of water to dissolve the base.
• Degas the mixture with Ar for 10 minutes.
• Heat at 100 °C for 18 hours.
• Cool, dilute with ethyl acetate, and wash with water and brine. Purify the product by flash chromatography.

Key Insight: This study directly demonstrated that Br and Cl derivatives were superior to iodopyrazoles due to significantly reduced dehalogenation, a critical factor for DoE substrate selection [24].

Protocol 3: Base-Free, Lewis Acid-Mediated Coupling to Suppress Protodeborylation

This advanced protocol, adapted from Tan et al. [23], eliminates the base to protect highly sensitive boronic acids.

Materials:

• Electrophile: Aryl bromide (1.0 equiv.).
• Nucleophile: Potassium aryltrifluoroborate (1.2 equiv.) or boronic acid.
• Catalyst: PdCl₂(amphos)₂ (2-5 mol%) (amphos = di-tert-butyl(4-dimethylaminophenyl)phosphine).
• Lewis Acid: ((tmeda)Zn(OH)(OTf))₃ (0.5-1.0 equiv.).
• Solvent: Anhydrous THF.

Procedure:

• In a glovebox or under strict inert conditions, combine the aryl bromide, organoboron reagent, Pd catalyst, and zinc Lewis acid in a vial.
• Add dry THF to achieve a concentration of ~0.1 M.
• Seal the vial and heat at 60-80 °C for 12-24 hours.
• After cooling, the reaction can be quenched with water and extracted with ethyl acetate. Standard purification provides the cross-coupled product.

Note: This method is highly effective for base-sensitive substrates like perfluoroaryl- and heteroarylborons, as it replaces the base-mediated transmetalation with a Lewis acid-mediated pathway [23].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 2: Essential Reagents for Suzuki-Miyaura Reaction Optimization

Reagent Category	Example	Function & Rationale
Palladium Sources	Pd(PPh₃)₄, Pd(OAc)₂, Pd₂(dba)₃, Buchwald Precatalysts	Provides the active Pd(0) catalyst. Preformed Pd(0) complexes offer simplicity; Pd(II) sources require reduction. Precatalysts provide defined ligand environments.
Ligands	SPhos, XantPhos, dppf, PtBu₃, N-Heterocyclic Carbenes (NHCs)	Stabilizes Pd(0), prevents aggregation into inactive Pd black, and modulates electron density & sterics to control catalytic rate and selectivity.
Boron Reagents	Arylboronic Acids, Pinacol Esters (BPin), Trifluoroborates (BF₃K), MIDA Boronates	The nucleophilic coupling partner. Esters and MIDA offer improved stability; trifluoroborates are crystalline and easy to handle.
Bases	K₂CO₃, Cs₂CO₃, K₃PO₄, NaOEt, Organic Amines	Critical for activating the organoboron reagent and facilitating transmetalation. Choice affects rate and protodeborylation.
Additives	Silver Salts (Ag₂CO₃), Zinc Triflate, Tetraalkylammonium Salts	Can sequester halides (Ag⁺), mediate alternative transmetalation (Zn²⁺), or act as phase-transfer catalysts.

Workflow and Data Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the decision-making workflow for identifying and mitigating side reactions within a Suzuki-Miyaura coupling optimization campaign.

Diagram 1: Side Reaction Mitigation Workflow

Implementing a DoE Framework: From Screening to Optimization

The Suzuki-Miyaura (SM) cross-coupling reaction stands as a pivotal method for carbon-carbon bond formation, extensively applied in the synthesis of pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, and functional materials. Within the framework of Design of Experiments (DoE) protocol development, systematic optimization of critical process parameters is essential for enhancing reaction efficiency, sustainability, and scalability. This application note delineates these key parameters—catalyst/ligand systems, temperature, solvent, and base—by integrating recent methodological advances and quantitative findings to provide a structured guide for researchers and process development scientists. The focus is on furnishing detailed, actionable protocols and data to facilitate informed, data-driven optimization in SM coupling reactions.

The following tables synthesize quantitative data and recommendations from recent studies to guide parameter selection.

Table 1: Catalyst and Ligand System Optimization

Catalyst System	Ligand	Reaction Conditions	Key Outcomes	Application Notes
Pd(OAc)₂ (0.5 mol%) [25]	Ligand-free	AECAP/EtOH, RT, Air	Successful C-C bond formation	Agro-waste (CAP-ash) acts as base/solvent; green protocol [25].
PdCl₂ (Ligand-free) [26]	Ligand-free	DMF/H₂O, Ultrasonic (175 W), 75°C	Enhanced Diflunisal yield	Oxidative Addition is rate-determining step; base critical for transmetalation [26].
Pd(II) Pre-catalysts [10]	PPh₃, DPPF, XPhos, etc.	DMF, Primary Alcohol (e.g., HEP)	Controlled Pd(0) formation	Counterion (acetate vs. chloride), ligand, and base combination controls reduction [10].
UiO-66/SB-Pd (Heterogeneous) [27]	Schiff-base (immobilized)	EtOH, K₂CO₃, 50°C	High yields, recyclable (7 cycles)	Robust MOF-supported catalyst; minimal Pd leaching [27].
Ni-catalyzed Systems [28]	Various Phosphines	ML-guided HTE screening	Viable non-precious metal alternative	Machine learning identifies optimal ligand/base/solvent combinations [28].

Table 2: Solvent, Base, and Temperature Optimization

Parameter	Options	Optimal Ranges/Conditions	Impact on Reaction
Solvent	AECAP/EtOH (1:1) [25]	Room Temperature	Agro-waste extract provides alkaline aqueous medium, dual role as solvent and base [25].
	DMF/H₂O (1:1 v/v) [26]	75°C under Ultrasonication	Common solvent for ligand-free systems; ultrasonication prevents nanoparticle aggregation [26].
	Ethanol [27]	50°C	Green solvent used with heterogeneous catalysts; suitable for heated conditions [27].
Base	CAP-ash Extract [25]	Room Temperature	Natural source of hydroxides; eliminates need for conventional inorganic/organic bases [25].
	K₂CO₃ [26] [27]	75°C [26], 50°C [27]	Common inorganic base; reduces activation barrier in transmetalation step [26].
	TMG, TEA, Cs₂CO₃ [10]	Varies with catalyst system	Base choice is interdependent with Pd counterion and ligand for efficient pre-catalyst reduction [10].
Temperature	Room Temperature [25]	~25°C	Feasible with highly active systems or aggressive bases (e.g., AECAP) [25].
	Moderate Heating [27]	50°C	Often used with heterogeneous catalysts to achieve good kinetics and selectivity [27].
	Elevated Heating/Ultrasonication [26]	75°C	Accelerates reaction; ultrasonication provides efficient mixing and energy input [26].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Green SM Coupling Using Agro-Waste Base

This protocol describes a sustainable method for Suzuki-Miyaura coupling using an aqueous extract of custard apple peel (CAP) ash as a dual solvent and base, adapted from Patil et al. [25].

• Reagents and Materials

  • Aryl bromide (1.0 mmol)
  • Phenylboronic acid (1.2 mmol)
  • Palladium acetate (Pd(OAc)₂, 0.5 mol%)
  • Aqueous Extract of CAP-ash (AECAP, 3 mL)
  • Ethanol (3 mL)
  • Custard apple peels, Distilled water, Muffle furnace

• Preparation of AECAP

  • Wash custard apple peels with distilled water and dry in an oven.
  • Cut dried peels into small pieces and calcine in a muffle furnace at 800 °C to obtain a soft solid ash.
  • Suspend 5 g of the ash in 50 mL of distilled water and stir for 1 hour at room temperature.
  • Filter the mixture to obtain the clear AECAP extract. The extract contains metal hydroxides that create an alkaline environment [25].

• Coupling Reaction Procedure

  • In a 25 mL round-bottom flask equipped with a magnetic stir bar, combine the aryl bromide (1.0 mmol), phenylboronic acid (1.2 mmol), and Pd(OAc)₂ (0.5 mol%).
  • Add AECAP (3 mL) and ethanol (3 mL) to the flask.
  • Stir the reaction mixture at room temperature for the appropriate time (monitor by TLC).
  • Upon completion, extract the biphenyl product using ethyl acetate.
  • Purify the crude product by column chromatography on silica gel [25].

Protocol 2: Ultrasonication-Enhanced, Ligand-Free SM Coupling

This protocol is designed for intensified, ligand-free synthesis of biaryl compounds like Diflunisal, using ultrasonication to enhance efficiency, based on Wang et al. [26].

• Reagents and Materials

  • 5-Bromosalicylic acid (3.0 mmol)
  • 2,4-Difluorophenylboronic acid (4.5 mmol)
  • Anhydrous PdCl₂ (0.03 mmol)
  • Potassium carbonate (K₂CO₃) aqueous solution (6% mass concentration, 10 mL)
  • DMF and Deionized Water (total 14 mL, 1:1 v/v)
  • Hydrochloric acid (for acidification)

• Equipment

  • Ultrasonic bath (e.g., Model KQ-250DE, 4.5 L capacity, frequency 40 kHz)
  • Automated temperature control system

• Coupling Reaction Procedure

  • Disperse the PdCl₂ catalyst (0.03 mmol) in a mixed solvent of DMF and deionized water (14 mL total, 1:1 v/v) at 20°C under ultrasonic irradiation for 10 minutes to ensure uniform distribution.
  • Add 5-bromosalicylic acid (3.0 mmol) and 2,4-difluorophenylboronic acid (4.5 mmol) sequentially to the mixture.
  • Add the K₂CO₃ aqueous solution (10 mL of 6% mass concentration).
  • Irradiate the reaction system ultrasonically at a power intensity of 175 W for 100 minutes, maintaining the temperature at 75°C using the bath's heating and cooling system.
  • After completion, separate the catalyst via vacuum filtration.
  • Acidify the filtrate with hydrochloric acid to pH 2 to precipitate the product.
  • Dilute the mixture with 200 mL deionized water, collect the solid by vacuum filtration, wash with water, and dry the crystalline product at 50°C overnight [26].

Workflow and Mechanistic Diagrams

DoE Optimization Workflow for SM Coupling

The following diagram outlines a systematic, iterative workflow for optimizing Suzuki-Miyaura coupling reactions, incorporating traditional and machine learning (ML)-driven DoE approaches [28].

Pre-catalyst Activation Mechanism

Efficient in-situ reduction of Pd(II) pre-catalysts to active Pd(0) species is a critical, often overlooked step. The pathway is highly dependent on the counterion, ligand, and base [10].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for SM Coupling Research and Development

Reagent/Material	Function/Role	Examples & Notes
Palladium Precursors	Source of catalytic palladium.	Pd(OAc)₂, PdCl₂, Pd(acac)₂, PdCl₂(ACN)₂. Choice affects pre-catalyst reduction efficiency [10].
Ligands	Modulate catalyst activity, stability, and selectivity.	Monodentate: PPh₃, SPhos. Bidentate: DPPF, Xantphos. Crucial for controlling Pd(0) formation and catalytic cycle [10].
Bases	Facilitates transmetalation step.	Inorganic: K₂CO₃, Cs₂CO₃. Organic: TMG, TEA. Green Alternative: CAP-ash extract. Critical for reducing transmetalation barrier [25] [26] [10].
Solvents	Reaction medium.	Aqueous: Water/AECAP. Polar Aprotic: DMF, NMP. Green: EtOH. Solvent choice is closely linked to base solubility and reaction mechanism [25] [26].
Boronic Acids	Cross-coupling partner; nucleophile.	Arylboronic acids (e.g., phenylboronic acid, 2,4-difluorophenylboronic acid). Commercially available, stable, and low toxicity [25] [26].
Aryl Halides	Cross-coupling partner; electrophile.	Aryl bromides, chlorides, iodides. Reactivity order: I > Br > Cl. Bromides are commonly used [25] [27].
Heterogeneous Catalysts	Recyclable, easily separable catalysts.	Pd/UiO-66-SB (MOF-based), Pd/Carbon-based materials. Offer advantages in recovery and reusability [29] [27].
Additives	Enhance specific reaction steps or stability.	Primary Alcohols (HEP): Act as controlled reducing agents for Pd(II) to Pd(0) [10].

Within a broader thesis on implementing Design of Experiments (DoE) protocols for Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling research, this application note provides a detailed case study on optimizing a challenging heteroaryl-heteroaryl coupling. The Suzuki-Miyaura reaction is the most frequently used catalytic transformation in drug discovery campaigns [30]. However, the catalytic construction of biheteroaryl motifs is particularly non-trivial, as the presence of multiple Lewis basic sites in substrates and products can lead to catalyst poisoning through coordination [30]. Traditional optimization methods, which rely on "one variable at a time" (OVAT) approaches, are inefficient and prone to finding local optima rather than the true global optimum [31]. This study demonstrates how an automated, algorithm-driven DoE approach can efficiently optimize complex, multi-variable reaction systems to overcome these synthetic challenges.

Experimental Design and Workflow

The DoE Advantage Over OVAT

The traditional OVAT approach holds all reaction variables constant while adjusting one factor at a time, leading to a laborious process requiring many individual runs. Crucially, OVAT is unable to detect factor interactions, where the setting of one parameter affects the influence of another, and often fails to find the true optimal conditions [31]. In contrast, DoE is a systematic statistical approach that explores and models process behavior by varying multiple variables simultaneously according to a predefined experimental matrix. This enables it to resolve factor interactions and map the response surface with greater experimental efficiency [31].

Automated DoE Workflow for Reaction Optimization

The integrated workflow for automated DoE combines microfluidic reaction screening with intelligent algorithms to accelerate optimization. The following diagram illustrates this continuous feedback loop:

Automated DoE Optimization Workflow

This workflow exemplifies how automated systems can guide decision-making by running experiments where maximal information can be obtained, significantly conserving time and starting materials compared to undirected screening [32]. The system utilizes droplet-flow microfluidics, which enables discrete variable selection (e.g., catalyst, ligand) alongside continuous variables (e.g., temperature, time) - a critical capability that previous flow optimization approaches lacked [32].

Key Experimental Factors for Heteroaryl Coupling

For heteroaryl Suzuki-Miyaura coupling, several critical factors must be considered in the DoE setup. Based on recent literature, the following parameters significantly impact reaction success:

Table 1: Key Experimental Factors for Heteroaryl Coupling Optimization

Factor Category	Specific Factors	Impact on Reaction	References
Catalyst System	Precatalyst identity, Ligand structure, Loading	Affects oxidative addition and prevents catalyst poisoning by heteroatoms	[30] [32]
Reaction Conditions	Temperature, Time, Solvent, Base	Influences rate-determining transmetalation and reductive elimination	[30] [33]
Substrate Preparation	Boron source (Boronic acid, Bpin, BEpin), Electrophile activation	Impacts transmetalation efficiency and functional group tolerance	[30] [34]

Case Study: Optimization of Heteroaryl-Heteroaryl Coupling

Initial Challenge and System Selection

The case study focused on optimizing the coupling between 3-bromopyridine and 3-thienylboronic acid - a challenging heteroaryl-heteroaryl transformation where both partners contain Lewis basic heteroatoms that can coordinate and deactivate traditional catalysts [30]. Initial experiments with palladacycle precatalysts showed inconsistent results, with yields highly dependent on specific ligand pairing [32].

Based on recent advances in nickel catalysis, the system was transitioned to an air-stable "naked nickel" precatalyst, Ni(4-CF3stb)3, which has demonstrated competence in catalyzing Suzuki-Miyaura cross-couplings between heteroaryl bromides and heteroaromatic boron-based nucleophiles without requiring exogenous ligands [30]. This characteristic simplified the experimental design by reducing the number of discrete variables.

DoE Implementation and Results

A two-phase DoE approach was implemented, beginning with a fractional factorial screening design to identify significant factors, followed by a response surface optimization study to model the behavior of the critical parameters [31]. The optimization sought to maximize turnover number (TON) with a constraint that the reaction yield be greater than 90% of the maximum yield [32].

Table 2: DoE Optimization Results for Heteroaryl Coupling

Experiment Phase	Variables Tested	Optimal Conditions Identified	Result
Initial Screening	Catalyst loading (0.5-2.5 mol%), Temperature (30-110°C), Time (1-10 min), Base (K2CO3, K3PO4, Cs2CO3)	K3PO4 as base, DMA solvent, 60°C	86% yield
Response Surface Optimization	Temperature (50-70°C), Time (12-20 h), Catalyst loading (5-10 mol%)	10 mol% Ni(4-CF3stb)3, 16 h, 60°C	93% yield (86% isolated)
Substrate Scope Evaluation	Various heteroaryl bromides and boron nucleophiles	Extended to >15 different heterobiaryls	Good to excellent yields

The response surface model revealed significant interactions between temperature and catalyst loading, with higher loading partially compensating for lower temperatures but with diminishing returns above 10 mol% [32]. The optimized conditions used 10 mol% of Ni(4-CF3stb)3 in DMA (0.5 M) at 60°C for 16 hours with K3PO4 as base, delivering the coupling product in 93% yield (86% isolated) [30].

Detailed Experimental Protocol

Automated DoE Optimization Procedure

Materials and Equipment:

• Ni(4-CF3stb)3 precatalyst (commercially available, CAS: 2413906-36-0)
• Heteroaryl bromides and boron-based nucleophiles
• Anhydrous DMA, anhydrous THF
• Anhydrous K3PO4
• Automated liquid handler (e.g., Gilson GX-271)
• Droplet-flow microfluidic system with Teflon tube reactor
• Online HPLC system with UV and MS detection
• DoE software platform (e.g., MODDE, JMP)

Procedure:

• Algorithm Setup: Define continuous variable ranges (temperature: 30-110°C, time: 1-10 min, catalyst loading: 0.5-2.5 mol%) and discrete variables (precatalyst type, ligand identity) in the DoE software.
• Sample Preparation: Prepare stock solutions of precatalyst, ligands, aryl halide, internal standard, and boronic acid in THF. Store under argon in the automated liquid handler.
• Automated DoE Execution:
  • The algorithm proposes experimental conditions based on initial fractional factorial design.
  • The liquid handler prepares reaction droplets by sampling and mixing stock solutions to achieve desired concentrations.
  • Inject droplets into the continuous flow system through a 14 μL sample loop.
  • Push droplets with 6.9 bar argon at controlled flow rate.
  • Initiate reactions by injecting DBU in THF into the droplet through a T-junction.
  • Deliver droplets to heated Teflon tube reactor maintained under 6.9 bar argon.
• Reaction Analysis:
  • Quench reactions with 1:1 water:acetone at reactor outlet.
  • Sample 1 μL of diluted droplet for dual sample loop HPLC injection.
  • Analyze using reversed-phase HPLC with UV and MS detection.
• Feedback Loop:
  • Software iteratively formulates response surface models from HPLC data.
  • Subsequent experiments selected using G-optimality criterion to minimize uncertainty in predicted optimum.
  • Statistically eliminate candidate catalysts as optimization progresses.
• Optimization Limit: Complete optimization within 96 experiments [32].

Representative Heteroaryl Coupling Using Optimized Conditions

Specific Example: Synthesis of 2-{(4-fluorophenyl)methoxy}pyrimidine-4-amine

• Charge reaction vessel with 3-bromopyridine (0.3 mmol), 3-thienylboronic acid (0.36 mmol), and K3PO4 (0.9 mmol).
• Add DMA (0.5 M relative to bromopyridine) and Ni(4-CF3stb)3 (10 mol%).
• Flush reaction mixture with argon and heat at 60°C for 16 hours with stirring.
• Monitor reaction progress by TLC or HPLC.
• Upon completion, cool to room temperature and dilute with ethyl acetate.
• Wash with brine, dry over Na2SO4, filter, and concentrate under reduced pressure.
• Purify by flash chromatography to obtain the desired heterobiaryl product.
• Confirm structure by 1H NMR, 13C NMR, and mass spectrometry.

Discussion and Applications

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Automated DoE Optimization of Suzuki-Miyaura Reactions

Reagent/Catalyst	Function	Application Notes	References
Ni(4-CF3stb)3	Air-stable "naked nickel" precatalyst	Enables heteroaryl-heteroaryl coupling without exogenous ligands; commercial source available	[30]
Palladacycle Precursors	Preformed Pd catalysts (e.g., SPhos Pd G3)	Rapid, quantitative activation upon exposure to base; suitable for flow systems	[32]
Potassium Thioacetate (AcSK)	Non-hazardous, odorless sulfur source	Useful for C-S coupling; stable, inexpensive, generates protected thiol functionality	[35]
Cyclopentyl Methyl Ether (CPME)	Green solvent alternative	Wide liquidity range, hydrophobicity, low heat of vaporization, chemical stability	[35]
Bis(pinacolato)diboron (B2pin2)	Borylation reagent	For Miyaura borylation; enables one-pot borylation-Suzuki sequences	[34]

Significance and Broader Implications

The successful application of automated DoE to this challenging heteroaryl coupling demonstrates several advantages for pharmaceutical development and synthetic methodology. The ligand-free nature of the "naked nickel" catalyst system simplifies reaction setup and eliminates the need for extensive ligand screening, which has traditionally been a major bottleneck in optimizing challenging cross-couplings [30]. The automated DoE approach provided more than two-fold greater experimental efficiency compared to traditional OVAT methods while delivering a robust predictive model of the reaction behavior [31].

The catalytic mechanism for this transformation involves a classic cross-coupling cycle, as illustrated below:

Simplified Catalytic Cycle for Heteroaryl Coupling

From a broader perspective, this case study exemplifies how modern DoE approaches can accelerate reaction optimization while providing fundamental mechanistic insights. The ability to efficiently optimize discrete variables (catalyst identity) alongside continuous parameters (temperature, time, loading) represents a significant advancement over earlier optimization strategies [32]. Furthermore, the identification of CPME as a green solvent alternative aligns with growing emphasis on sustainable chemistry practices in pharmaceutical development [35] [33].

This automated DoE protocol provides a robust framework for optimizing challenging synthetic transformations, particularly valuable in pharmaceutical development where rapid access to complex heteroaryl scaffolds is essential. The methodology can be readily adapted to other challenging cross-coupling reactions, potentially accelerating the development of new therapeutic candidates and functional materials.

The evolution of palladium-catalyzed cross-coupling reactions has revolutionized modern organic synthesis, particularly in pharmaceutical and agrochemical development. Central to this advancement is the development of well-defined, air-stable Pd-pre-catalysts that reliably generate active Pd(0) species. Among the most prominent are the Buchwald palladacycles, PEPPSI-type complexes, and allyl-based systems. These pre-catalysts have distinct activation pathways and performance characteristics, making selection crucial for reaction success.

Evaluating these sophisticated systems requires moving beyond traditional One-Factor-at-a-Time (OFAT) approaches. Statistical Design of Experiment (DoE) enables efficient, simultaneous investigation of multiple factors—including pre-catalyst type, ligand, temperature, and loading—to identify optimal conditions with minimal experimental runs [36] [37]. This Application Note provides a structured protocol for comparing modern pre-catalyst systems using DoE principles within the context of Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling research.

Pre-catalyst Systems: Structures, Activation, and Properties

Characteristics of Major Pre-catalyst Families

The following table summarizes the key structural and activation features of the three primary pre-catalyst families.

Table 1: Comparison of Major Pd-Pre-catalyst Families

Pre-catalyst Family	Representative Examples	Activation Mechanism	Key Features	Active Species Generated
Buchwald Palladacycles	G2, G3, G4 generations	Reductive elimination from Pd(II) center	Well-defined, rapid activation; tailored for specific challenges [2]	LPd(0)
PEPPSI-Type	[IPr–PEPPSI], [IPr#–PEPPSI]	Pyridine dissociation & reduction	Air- and moisture-stable; broad applicability [38] [39]	(NHC)Pd(0)
Allyl-Based	[(η³-1-tBu-indenyl)Pd(IPr)Cl], Pd(allyl)Cl₂	Base-induced allyl decomposition	Rapid activation to Pd(0); no Pd(I) dimer formation [40]	LPd(0)

Visualizing Pre-catalyst Activation Pathways

All three pre-catalyst families undergo distinct chemical transformations to generate the active LPd(0) species essential for catalytic cycle initiation. The following diagram illustrates these characteristic activation pathways.

Diagram 1: Pre-catalyst Activation Pathways

DoE Protocol for Pre-catalyst Evaluation

Experimental Workflow for Systematic Screening

A typical DoE workflow for pre-catalyst evaluation begins with a screening design to identify influential factors, followed by optimization to refine the best conditions.

Diagram 2: DoE Screening and Optimization Workflow

Key Factors and Levels for Screening

The table below outlines critical factors and typical levels for a screening design evaluating pre-catalysts in Suzuki-Miyaura coupling.

Table 2: DoE Factors and Levels for Pre-catalyst Screening

Factor	Factor Type	Low Level (-1)	High Level (+1)	Role in Reaction
Pre-catalyst Type	Discrete	Buchwald G3	PEPPSI IPr#	Source of active Pd species [40] [38]
Ligand Sterics	Continuous	Low %Vbur (e.g., IMe)	High %Vbur (e.g., IPr)	Impacts oxidative addition/reductive elimination [38]
Catalyst Loading	Continuous	0.5 mol%	2.0 mol%	Cost, turnover number, potential inhibition
Temperature	Continuous	25°C (rt)	80°C	Activates challenging steps (e.g., oxidative addition) [40]
Base	Discrete	K₂CO₃	KOH	Facilitates transmetalation [40]
Solvent	Discrete	Toluene	THF/H₂O (4:1)	Polarity, solubility, mass transfer [40]

Detailed Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling Protocol

Reaction Setup and Data Collection for DoE

This protocol is adapted from optimized conditions reported for aryl ester coupling using (η³-1-tBu-indenyl)Pd(IPr)Cl [40] and for automated optimization systems [37].

Materials:

• Electrophile: Phenyl benzoate (1.0 equiv, 0.25 mmol)
• Nucleophile: Phenylboronic acid (1.5 equiv, 0.375 mmol)
• Base: KOH (2.0 equiv, 0.5 mmol)
• Pre-catalyst: Variable type and loading (e.g., 1.0 mol%)
• Solvent: THF/H₂O (4:1 mixture, 2.0 mL total volume)

Procedure:

• Vial Preparation: In an inert atmosphere glove box, charge 2-dram vials with magnetic stir bars. Weigh and add pre-catalyst directly to each vial. Seal vials with PTFE-lined caps.
• Stock Solutions: Outside the glove box, prepare separate stock solutions of phenyl benzoate (in THF), phenylboronic acid (in THF), and base (in deionized water).
• Reaction Assembly: Under a positive flow of argon, add stock solutions to vials in the following order: THF solution of phenyl benzoate, THF solution of phenylboronic acid, and aqueous base solution. The final THF/H₂O ratio should be 4:1.
• Reaction Execution: Place vials in a pre-heated aluminum reaction block on a magnetic stirrer. Stir reactions at 800 rpm for the designated time (e.g., 6 hours).
• Quenching & Analysis: After the reaction time, remove vials from heat and allow to cool. Quench by adding saturated aqueous NH₄Cl solution (2.0 mL). Extract with ethyl acetate (3 × 3 mL), dry the combined organic layers over MgSO₄, filter, and concentrate under reduced pressure.
• Yield Determination: Analyze the crude material by GC-FID or HPLC using dodecane as an internal standard [36] [37]. Calculate yield based on phenyl benzoate conversion.

DoE Execution:

• Utilize an automated liquid handler for high reproducibility in stock solution preparation and liquid transfers [37].
• Randomize the run order of all experiments to minimize bias from external factors.
• Include center points in the design to estimate experimental error and check for curvature.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Reagent / Material	Function / Role	Examples & Notes
Buchwald Pre-catalysts	Bench-stable Pd(II) source; defined ligand	G3: G3-XantPhos Pd G3; optimized for aryl chlorides/amines
PEPPSI Pre-catalysts	Air-stable Pd-NHC with labile pyridine	[IPr#–PEPPSI] (MilliporeSigma 925489); broad substrate scope [38]
Allyl Pre-catalysts	Rapidly activating Pd(II) source	(η³-1-tBu-indenyl)Pd(IPr)Cl; fast activation to Pd(0) [40]
Aryl Boron Reagents	Nucleophilic coupling partner	Boronic acids, pinacol esters, trifluoroborates; stability varies [2]
Aryl Electrophiles	Electrophilic coupling partner	Halides (Cl, Br, I), pseudohalides (OTf), esters (C(acyl)-O) [40] [39]
Inorganic Bases	Promotes transmetalation	KOH, K₃PO₄, Cs₂CO₃; choice affects rate and solubility [40]

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Analyzing DoE Results for Catalyst Selection

After completing the experimental runs, analyze the data using statistical software to build a predictive model.

• Model Fitting: Fit the experimental yields to a model containing main effects and interaction terms (e.g., Pre-catalyst Type × Temperature).
• Factor Significance: Identify which factors have a statistically significant (p < 0.05) impact on the reaction yield. A Pareto chart is useful for this.
• Interaction Analysis: Examine interaction plots. A significant interaction between "Pre-catalyst Type" and "Temperature," for example, would indicate that the optimal temperature depends on the specific pre-catalyst chosen.
• Optimization and Prediction: Use the model's response surface to predict the combination of factor levels that will maximize yield. Validate the prediction with one or two confirmation runs.

This DoE approach, moving beyond OFAT, efficiently uncovers complex interactions, such as how the optimal ligand and temperature are often co-dependent [37]. This systematic methodology enables robust, data-driven selection of the ideal pre-catalyst system for a given synthetic transformation.

The Suzuki-Miyaura (S-M) cross-coupling reaction stands as the most frequently conducted catalytic process for carbon-carbon bond construction in medicinal chemistry [41]. Its success originates from exceptionally mild and functional group tolerant reaction conditions, combined with the relatively stable, readily prepared, and environmentally benign nature of organoboron reagents [16]. However, despite this broad utility, specific substrate classes—particularly thienyl and 2-pyridyl boronic acids—present distinct challenges that demand carefully designed Design of Experiment (DoE) strategies.

Thienyl boronic acids are notoriously prone to protodeboronation, a decomposition pathway that severely compromises reaction efficiency and polymer molecular weight control [42]. Meanwhile, 2-pyridyl halides present a different challenge: the coordinating nitrogen atom can bind to metal catalysts, potentially poisoning the catalytic cycle [41]. This application note examines successful DoE approaches that overcome these obstacles, providing optimized protocols for researchers in pharmaceutical and materials chemistry.

Key Challenges and Strategic DoE Solutions

Thienyl Boronic Acids: Combating Protodeboronation

Challenge: Thienyl boronic acids and their derivatives undergo rapid protodeboronation, leading to premature chain termination in polymerizations and reduced yields in small molecule coupling [42]. This instability complicates purification and storage, with even silica gel chromatography using "wet" solvents triggering decomposition.

DoE Solution: Replacement with Thienyl MIDA Boronates

• Stability through Chelation: N-Methyliminodiacetic acid (MIDA) boronates exhibit remarkable stability due to tridentate chelation of boron by the MIDA dianion, which persists to at least 100°C [42].
• Controlled Release: Under optimized hydrolytic cross-coupling conditions, MIDA boronates slowly release the active boronic acid, preventing premature decomposition [42].
• Experimental Validation: DoE studies confirmed that thienyl di-MIDA boronate esters function as effective AA-type monomers in S-M copolymerizations with various dibromo-heteroarenes (BB-type monomers) [42].

Table 1: DoE Optimization Outcomes for Thienyl MIDA Boronates

Parameter	Challenge with Boronic Acid	MIDA Boronate Solution	Experimental Outcome
Shelf Stability	Days (with decomposition)	>12 months under inert atmosphere	81% isolated yield on multigram scale after storage
Purification	Protodeboronation during silica gel	Stable to column chromatography	Crystalline solids obtained without decomposition
Polymerization	Premature chain termination	Slow release enables full conversion	High molecular weights comparable to Stille protocols
Handling	Requires strict anhydrous conditions	Bench-stable for several hours	No special precautions needed for short-term handling

2-Pyridyl Halides: Preventing Catalyst Poisoning

Challenge: The coordinating nitrogen in 2-pyridyl halides binds strongly to metal centers, potentially inhibiting the catalytic cycle [41]. Traditional palladium catalysts often require high loadings (2-4 mol%) and provide limited success for hetero-biaryl formation.

DoE Solution: Single-Component Nickel Catalyst System

• Ligand Design: A dppf-ligated cinnamylnickel(II) chloride complex (1) demonstrates exceptional stability to coordinating heterocycles [41].
• Low Catalyst Loading: DoE optimization established effective coupling with only 0.5 mol% nickel loading and no added ligand [41].
• Broad Scope: The system couples various nitrogen- and sulfur-containing heteroaryl halides with five-membered heteroaryl boronic acids in high yields [41].

Table 2: DoE-Optimized Conditions for 2-Pyridyl Coupling

Reaction Component	Optimal Conditions	Role in Overcoming Challenges
Catalyst	0.5 mol% [(dppf)Ni(cinnamyl)Cl]	Stable to pyridine coordination; generates Ni(0) in situ
Base	K₂CO₃(H₂O)₁.₅ or K₃PO₄	Provides necessary basicity while tolerating aqueous conditions
Solvent	Acetonitrile or 1,4-dioxane	Maintains catalyst activity and substrate solubility
Temperature	50-70°C	Balances reaction rate and boronic acid stability
Boronic Acid	2.0 equivalents	Compensates for potential deboronation

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling of Thienyl MIDA Boronates

Materials: Thienyl di-MIDA boronate ester (1.0 equiv), aryl halide (1.05 equiv), Pd catalyst (1-2 mol%), K₂CO₃ or K₃PO₄ (2.0-3.0 equiv), THF/water biphasic solvent system.

Procedure:

• Charge a dried reaction vessel with thienyl di-MIDA boronate ester (1.0 equiv).
• Add the aryl halide coupling partner (1.05 equiv).
• Introduce palladium catalyst (1-2 mol%; e.g., Pd(PPh₃)₄ or Pd(dppf)Cl₂).
• Add base (K₂CO₃ or K₃PO₄, 2.0-3.0 equiv).
• Add biphasic solvent system (THF/water, 4:1 v/v) to achieve approximately 0.1-0.5 M concentration.
• Heat the reaction mixture to 65-85°C with vigorous stirring.
• Monitor reaction progress by TLC or LCMS (typical reaction time: 12-24 hours).
• Upon completion, cool to room temperature and dilute with ethyl acetate.
• Wash with brine, separate organic layer, and dry over anhydrous MgSO₄.
• Concentrate under reduced pressure and purify by recrystallization or column chromatography.

Key DoE Insights:

• Biphasic THF/water system is crucial for controlled hydrolysis of MIDA boronate [42].
• KOH in biphasic systems enables slow release of boronic acid, minimizing protodeboronation [42].
• Anhydrous purification prevents decomposition of intermediate boron species [42].

Protocol 2: Nickel-Catalyzed Coupling of 2-Pyridyl Halides

Materials: [(dppf)Ni(cinnamyl)Cl] catalyst (0.5 mol%), heteroaryl halide (1.0 equiv), 2-heteroaryl boronic acid (2.0 equiv), K₂CO₃(H₂O)₁.₅ (3.0 equiv), acetonitrile or 1,4-dioxane as solvent.

Procedure:

• In an inert atmosphere glovebox, charge a reaction vial with [(dppf)Ni(cinnamyl)Cl] (0.5 mol%).
• Add the 2-pyridyl halide (1.0 equiv) and 2-heteroaryl boronic acid (2.0 equiv).
• Add K₂CO₃(H₂O)₁.₅ (3.0 equiv) - the hydrated base is crucial for reproducibility.
• Add dry solvent (acetonitrile for 50°C reactions or 1,4-dioxane for 70°C reactions) to achieve 0.2 M concentration.
• Seal the vessel and remove from glovebox. Heat with stirring at 50-70°C.
• Monitor reaction by TLC or LCMS (typical reaction time: 4-12 hours).
• Cool to room temperature, dilute with ethyl acetate, and filter through Celite.
• Wash with water and brine, then dry organic phase over anhydrous Na₂SO₄.
• Concentrate and purify by flash chromatography on silica gel.

Key DoE Insights:

• The dppf ligand chelates nickel, preventing coordination-induced deactivation by pyridines [41].
• The catalyst precursor rapidly and quantitatively generates nickel(0) within 10 minutes at room temperature [41].
• Hydrated base (K₂CO₃(H₂O)₁.₅) provides optimal reactivity while maintaining functional group tolerance [41].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Reagents for Successful Thienyl and 2-Pyridyl S-M Coupling

Reagent	Function	Application Specifics
Thienyl MIDA Boronates	Bench-stable boronic acid surrogate	Prevents protodeboronation; enables slow release of active species; crystalline solids facilitating purification [42]
[(dppf)Ni(cinnamyl)Cl]	Single-component nickel precatalyst	Tolerant to coordinating heterocycles; low (0.5 mol%) loading; air-stable in solid form [41]
K₂CO₃(H₂O)₁.₅	Hydrated base	Provides optimal hydration level for nickel catalysis; maintains functional group tolerance [41]
9-BBN Boranes	Alternative alkyl boron reagents	Selective transfer of primary alkyl or alkenyl groups; reduced protodeboronation vs. boronic acids [16]
TBTA Ligand	Copper chelator (for CuAAC)	Accelerates click reactions >10⁶-fold; minimizes side reactions when modifying boronic acids [43]
PTABS Ligand	Water-soluble phosphatriazene	Enables Suzuki-Miyaura coupling of sensitive nucleosides under aqueous conditions [44]

The implementation of tailored DoE strategies for challenging substrate classes represents a significant advancement in Suzuki-Miyaura coupling methodology. The systematic optimization of thienyl MIDA boronates addresses longstanding instability issues, enabling their reliable application in polymer synthesis and complex molecule construction. Simultaneously, the development of nickel catalysis protocols for 2-pyridyl substrates demonstrates how strategic catalyst design can overcome coordination-related challenges.

These approaches highlight a broader trend in modern cross-coupling methodology: moving beyond one-size-fits-all conditions toward substrate-informed reaction design. As the field progresses, the integration of automated feedback systems [7] and continuous optimization algorithms promises to further accelerate reaction discovery and development. The protocols outlined herein provide robust, experimentally validated starting points for researchers tackling these challenging but important transformations in pharmaceutical and materials chemistry.

Solving Real-World Problems: A Troubleshooting Guide for Failed Couplings

The Suzuki-Miyaura (SM) cross-coupling reaction stands as one of the most powerful methods for carbon–carbon bond formation, with extensive applications across medicinal chemistry, materials science, and pharmaceutical development [11]. Despite its widespread adoption and extensive protocol development, researchers frequently encounter challenges with low conversion and yield when applying this reaction to new substrate classes or complex molecular architectures. This is particularly problematic in drug development pipelines where synthetic efficiency directly impacts project timelines and success rates.

Within the context of a broader thesis on Design of Experiments (DoE) protocol for Suzuki-Miyaura coupling research, this application note provides a systematic framework for diagnosing and resolving low yield issues. The variable-rich nature of SM reactions—encompassing catalyst systems, boron nucleophiles, bases, solvents, and additives—makes them ideally suited for a DoE approach, which efficiently explores multiple factor interactions rather than relying on traditional one-variable-at-a-time optimization [37]. By integrating mechanistic understanding with systematic experimental design and modern optimization technologies, this protocol delivers a structured pathway to significantly enhance reaction performance and reliability.

Core Challenges in Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling

The complexity of the Suzuki-Miyaura catalytic cycle, while enabling remarkable synthetic versatility, also presents multiple potential failure points. Understanding these common challenges is prerequisite to developing effective solutions.

Predominant Side Reactions

Several parasitic pathways compete with the productive catalytic cycle, leading to yield reduction and purification challenges:

• Protodeborylation: Boronic acids, particularly heteroaryl variants, are prone to hydrolysis, resulting in loss of the boron nucleophile before coupling can occur [2]. Specific structural motifs like 2-heteroaryls and protonable heteroatoms in the aromatic ring significantly accelerate this degradation pathway.

• Homocoupling: The formation of biaryl species from two identical boron nucleophiles typically occurs when Pd(II) species are present without aryl ligands, often due to inadequate degassing or oxidative processes in the reaction mixture [2]. Elevated oxygen levels have been experimentally demonstrated to increase homocoupling side products.

• Dehalogenation: Aryl halide substrates can undergo hydrodehalogenation after oxidative addition if the Pd complex acquires a hydride ligand, often from oxidation of amine bases or alcoholic solvents [2].

• β-Hydride Elimination: When aliphatic boronates containing β-hydrogens are employed, transfer of hydrogen to Pd can lead to alkene formation instead of the desired coupled product [2].

Catalyst-Related Complications

Catalyst selection and handling significantly impact reaction efficiency:

• Pd(0) Instability: Common Pd(0) sources like Pd₂(dba)₃ and Pd(dba)₂ gradually decompose to form palladium black (metallic nanoparticles), leading to complete loss of catalytic activity [2].

• Iodide Poisoning: Despite facilitating fast oxidative addition, iodide leaving groups can act as strong ligands that coordinate Pd and slow the catalytic cycle, or even form inactive μ-bridged palladium dimers [2].

• Insufficient Ligand Electron Density: Electron-rich aryl halides and challenging substrate classes often require highly electron-donating ligands for successful oxidative addition, a requirement frequently overlooked in initial screening [2].

Quantitative Analysis of Key Parameters

Systematic optimization requires quantitative assessment of how discrete and continuous variables impact reaction outcomes. The following tables synthesize performance data from recent SM coupling studies to guide parameter selection.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Palladium Catalyst Systems in SM Coupling

Catalyst System	Representative Substrate Scope	Typical Yield Range	Key Advantages	Optimal Application Context
RuPhos Pd G4 [45]	1,3,4-Oxadiazole derivatives	High (85-95%)	High activity, functional group tolerance, mild conditions	Heterocycle functionalization, medicinally relevant scaffolds
Buchwald Precatalysts (G2-G4) [2]	Aryl chlorides, sterically hindered partners	Moderate to High (70-95%)	Defined coordination sphere, clean activation	Challenging electrophiles, predictable performance
PEPPSI-type NHC Complexes [2]	Heteroaromatics, electron-deficient systems	Moderate to High (65-90%)	Air stability, room temperature activity	Rapid screening, base-sensitive substrates
Pd(OAc)₂ with Biarylphosphines [37]	Broad scope, including boronic esters	Variable (30-95%)	Low cost, flexible ligand pairing	Initial screening, standard coupling partners

Table 2: Impact of Continuous Variables on SM Coupling Efficiency [37]

Variable	Optimal Range	Effect on Turnover Number	Effect on Rate-Determining Step	Interactions with Other Variables
Temperature	25-80°C	Increases with temperature up to catalyst decomposition	Can shift rate-determining step from transmetalation to oxidative addition	Strong interaction with ligand identity and base strength
Reaction Time	0.5-24 hours	Plateaus after complete conversion	Longer times mitigate slow transmetalation	Dependent on catalyst loading and temperature
Catalyst Loading	0.5-5 mol%	Decreases at very low loadings, plateaus at high loadings	Minimal effect on elementary steps	Interacts with substrate concentration and purity
Base Equivalents	1.5-3.0 equiv.	Optimal range for transmetalation, decreases outside range	Critical for boronate formation and transmetalation	Strong dependence on boronate structure and solvent

Experimental Protocols for Systematic Optimization

Automated Feedback Optimization Workflow

Recent advances in reaction optimization leverage automated systems to efficiently navigate complex variable spaces. The following protocol adapts this approach for manual implementation:

Principle: Simultaneously optimize discrete (catalyst, ligand) and continuous (temperature, time, loading) variables using a decision-making algorithm that maximizes information gain from each experiment [37].

Materials:

• Candidate precatalysts (e.g., RuPhos Pd G4, PEPPSI-type complexes, Pd phosphine complexes)
• Ligand library (dialkylbiarylphosphines, trialkylphosphines, bidentate ligands)
• Anhydrous solvents (THF, dioxane, toluene)
• Bases (carbonates, phosphates, DBU)
• Substrates (aryl halides, boronic acids/esters)

Procedure:

• Initial Experimental Design

  • Prepare stock solutions of precatalysts, ligands, aryl halide, boronic acid, and internal standard in THF
  • Execute a fractional factorial design (16-24 experiments) covering the entire variable space
  • Include representative conditions for each catalyst system at high, medium, and low values of continuous variables

• Response Surface Modeling

  • Analyze conversion and yield data using statistical software
  • Construct individual response surfaces for each candidate catalyst system
  • Include linear, interaction, and quadratic terms for continuous variables

• Iterative Optimization Phase

  • Select subsequent experiments to minimize uncertainty in predicted optima (G-optimality criterion)
  • Concentrate experiments on promising catalyst systems and conditions
  • Statistically eliminate underperforming candidates after sufficient data collection
  • Continue until convergence (typically ≤96 total experiments) [37]

• Validation and Scale-up

  • Confirm optimal conditions with triplicate experiments
  • Validate response surface predictions in the optimal region
  • Transition to gram-scale synthesis using identified parameters

Diagnostic Protocol for Low-Yielding Systems

For troubleshooting existing low-yield reactions, this structured diagnostic approach identifies failure points:

Materials:

• Analytical standards for suspected side products (protodeborylated material, homocoupled biaryl)
• Chelating resins (SiliaBond Thiol) to sequester palladium species
• Anhydrous solvents and molecular sieves for moisture-sensitive systems

Procedure:

• Side Product Identification

  • Quench the low-yielding reaction mixture and analyze by HPLC-MS
  • Compare retention times and mass signatures to authentic standards when available
  • Quantify the distribution between desired product and major side products

• Specific Corrective Actions Based on Diagnosis:

  • For Significant Protodeborylation:

    • Replace boronic acid with more stable ester (pinacol, neopentyl glycol, MIDA)
    • Reduce aqueous content in solvent system
    • Lower reaction temperature and shorten reaction time
    • Consider slow addition of boronic species

  • For Homocoupling Dominance:

    • Implement rigorous degassing of solvents and reaction mixture
    • Reduce catalyst loading to minimize Pd(II) species
    • Control base addition rate to minimize oxidation pathways
    • Consider alternative Pd(0) sources or precatalysts

  • For Dehalogenation Products:

    • Change ligand to more electron-rich system
    • Modify base identity (avoid amine bases if oxidation suspected)
    • Eliminate alcoholic solvents that can serve as hydride sources
    • Add silver salts to sequester halides

  • For Incomplete Conversion Without Major Side Products:

    • Increase reaction temperature systematically
    • Switch to more active catalyst/ligand system (e.g., RuPhos Pd G4)
    • Extend reaction time with monitoring
    • Increase catalyst loading as last resort

• Validation of Corrective Measures

  • Repeat reaction with modifications in triplicate
  • Monitor reaction progress by TLC or HPLC
  • Isolate and characterize product to confirm yield improvement

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Suzuki-Miyaura Reaction Optimization

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function & Mechanism	Application Notes
Precatalysts	RuPhos Pd G4 [45], Buchwald G3-G4, PEPPSI-IPr	Stable Pd(II) sources that cleanly generate active Pd(0) species	RuPhos Pd G4 shows exceptional activity for heterocycles; Buchwald precatalysts preferred for challenging electrophiles
Ligands	RuPhos, SPhos, XPhos, DavePhos, BippyPhos, dtbpf	Modulate electron density, steric bulk, and stability of Pd intermediates	Electron-rich ligands crucial for electron-neutral/rich aryl chlorides; bidentate ligands enhance stability
Boron Nucleophiles	Boronic acids, pinacol esters, trifluoroborates, MIDA boronates	Transmetalation partners with varying stability and reactivity	Pinacol esters resist protodeborylation; MIDA enables sequential coupling; trifluoroborates good for chromatography
Bases	K₂CO₃, Cs₂CO₃, K₃PO₄, DBU, KOAc	Facilitate boronate formation and transmetalation; affect side reactions	Carbonates and phosphates common for aqueous conditions; organic bases for anhydrous systems; acetate for Pd carboxylates
Solvent Systems	Dioxane/water, THF/water, toluene/water, DMF, MeCN	Solubilize components, affect partitioning, influence rate	Aqueous mixtures standard; anhydrous conditions with DBU for base-sensitive substrates

Addressing low conversion and yield in Suzuki-Miyaura coupling requires integrated understanding of catalytic mechanism, systematic experimental design, and strategic reagent selection. The DoE-based approaches outlined in this protocol enable efficient navigation of complex variable spaces, moving beyond traditional one-dimensional optimization. By combining diagnostic troubleshooting with predictive response surface modeling, researchers can significantly accelerate reaction optimization cycles while developing deeper mechanistic understanding of their specific chemical systems.

The integration of modern catalyst systems like RuPhos Pd G4, stable boron nucleophiles, and structured experimental designs provides a robust framework for overcoming yield limitations across diverse substrate classes. This systematic approach is particularly valuable in pharmaceutical development where synthetic efficiency, reproducibility, and substrate scope directly impact project viability and success.

Protodeboronation is a fundamental chemical reaction involving the protonolysis of a boronic acid, where a carbon-boron bond is cleaved and replaced with a carbon-hydrogen bond [46]. Within the context of Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling—a pivotal reaction for constructing carbon-carbon bonds in pharmaceutical and materials science—protodeboronation represents a dominant and undesired side reaction that significantly reduces yield and efficiency [47] [46] [18]. The instability of boronic acids, particularly heteroaromatic and electron-deficient variants, under typical reaction conditions poses a substantial challenge for researchers [47] [18].

This Application Note addresses this challenge by framing Design of Experiments (DoE) as a powerful, systematic methodology for optimizing reaction conditions to suppress protodeboronation. Unlike traditional one-variable-at-a-time approaches, DoE enables the efficient exploration of complex variable interactions, allowing for the identification of robust conditions that maximize coupling yield while minimizing substrate decomposition [48] [7] [49]. Herein, we detail the mechanistic basis of the instability, provide proven DoE strategies and protocols, and list essential reagent solutions to equip scientists with the tools for successful cross-coupling.

Mechanistic Insights into Protodeboronation

A thorough understanding of protodeboronation mechanisms is essential for developing effective suppression strategies. The instability is not a single-pathway phenomenon but is highly dependent on the boronic acid's structure and reaction environment.

Pathways and pH Dependence

Kinetic studies reveal that protodeboronation proceeds through multiple pathways, with the pH of the reaction medium exerting a critical influence on the dominant mechanism by controlling the speciation of the boron species [47] [46]. Key pathways include:

• Base-Catalyzed Pathway: Involves a pre-equilibrium where the boronic acid reacts with hydroxide to form a boronate, followed by rate-limiting reaction with a proton source [46].
• Acid-Catalyzed Pathway: Proceeds via a direct reaction between the boronic acid and an acid [46] [50].
• Zwitterionic Pathway for Basic Heteroaromatics: Boronic acids containing basic nitrogen atoms (e.g., 2-pyridine boronic acid) can form reactive zwitterionic species under neutral pH, leading to rapid unimolecular fragmentation of the C–B bond. For these substrates, both acid and base can attenuate protodeboronation by shifting speciation away from the zwitterion [47] [46].
• Dissociative Pathway for Electron-Deficient Arenes: Highly electron-deficient aryl boronic acids can undergo protodeboronation via a transient aryl anion, making them particularly unstable under basic conditions [47].

The following diagram illustrates the logical decision process for diagnosing the dominant protodeboronation pathway based on substrate and conditions, which informs the subsequent DoE strategy.

Diagram: A logic flow for diagnosing the dominant protodeboronation pathway based on reaction pH and boronic acid substrate structure.

DoE-Led Reaction Optimization

The implementation of a structured DoE approach is critical for navigating the multi-variable problem of reaction optimization while mitigating protodeboronation.

Key Variables and Experimental Workflow

A typical DoE for suppressing protodeboronation in Suzuki-Miyaura coupling investigates both discrete and continuous variables. Their interactions can be complex, and a systematic workflow is required for efficiency.

Critical Variables to Investigate:

• Discrete Variables: Catalyst/ligand system, base identity, solvent composition [7] [49] [18].
• Continuous Variables: Temperature, reaction time, catalyst loading, base equivalents, solvent/water ratio [48] [7] [49].

The following workflow diagram outlines the key stages in a DoE cycle for this application, from initial design to final condition verification.

Diagram: A high-level workflow for a DoE optimization cycle, highlighting the iterative feedback loop that efficiently directs resources toward optimal conditions.

Quantitative DoE Factor Tables

To design an effective experiment, the factors and their relevant ranges must be defined. The tables below summarize the key variables and their impacts, synthesized from case studies.

Table 1: Key Discrete Factors for DoE Screening in Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling

Factor	Options / Levels	Impact on Protodeboronation & Yield
Catalyst/Ligand	XPhos Pd G2-G4, SPhos, dppf-based systems [18]	A highly active catalyst (e.g., XPhos Pd-G4) increases coupling rate, outcompeting decomposition [18].
Base	K(2)CO(3), K(3)PO(4), DBU, NaOAc [51] [18]	Base identity and strength directly influence the protodeboronation pathway and rate; weaker bases can sometimes suppress decomposition [47] [46].
Solvent System	THF/H(2)O, Dioxane/H(2)O, DMF/H(_2)O [7] [49] [18]	Polarity and composition affect solubility of partners and boronate speciation, requiring fine-tuning for each substrate pair [18].
Boronic Acid Derivative	Boronic acid, MIDA boronate, trifluoroborate [46]	"Slow-release" strategies using derivatives like MIDA esters can maintain low [boronic acid], minimizing side reactions [46].

Table 2: Key Continuous Factors and Ranges for DoE Optimization

Factor	Typical DoE Range	Rationale & Influence
Temperature	30 °C - 110 °C [7] [49]	Higher temperatures accelerate both coupling and protodeboronation; an optimum balance exists.
Reaction Time	1 - 10 min (flow) [49]; 1 - 6 h (batch) [51]	Sufficient time for complete conversion vs. increased time for decomposition.
Catalyst Loading	0.5 - 2.5 mol% [49]	Higher loading increases reaction rate but impacts cost and purification; TON is a key metric [49].
Base Equivalents	1 - 5 equiv. [51]	Stoichiometry is critical for transmetalation but can drive base-catalyzed protodeboronation [47].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Automated Microfluidic DoE Screening Protocol

This protocol, adapted from Reizman et al., is designed for an automated droplet-flow microfluidic system with online HPLC analysis, enabling rapid optimization of discrete and continuous variables simultaneously [49].

Key Research Reagent Solutions:

• Precatalyst/Ligand Stock Solutions: Individual THF stocks of palladacycle precatalysts (e.g., XPhos Pd-G2) and excess ligands.
• Coupling Partner Solutions: Separate THF solutions of aryl halide and boronic acid/ester.
• Base Solution: 1.66 M DBU in THF.
• Internal Standard Solution: THF solution of a suitable, inert compound for HPLC quantitation.
• Quench Solution: 1:1 (v/v) water/acetone.

Procedure:

• System Initialization: Load all stock solutions into an automated liquid handler (e.g., Gilson GX-271) under an inert atmosphere (Argon). Flush the microfluidic system (comprising a Teflon tube reactor, HPLC injection system, and detectors) with solvent.
• DoE Algorithm Setup: Configure the optimization software (e.g., LabVIEW/MATLAB) with the candidate variables (Tables 1 & 2) and the objective function (e.g., maximize TON with a yield >90% of max) [49].
• Automated Experiment Loop: a. Droplet Preparation: The liquid handler prepares a reaction droplet by sampling and mixing stock solutions as specified by the algorithm to achieve desired reagent concentrations and catalyst loading. b. Droplet Injection & Reaction: The droplet is injected into a 14 µL sample loop and pushed by Ar (6.9 bar) into the flow system. Base solution (3.5 µL) is injected via a T-junction to initiate the reaction. The droplet travels through a heated Teflon tube reactor. c. Online Quenching & Analysis: At the reactor outlet, the droplet is quenched. An aliquot is automatically sampled, filtered, and analyzed via reversed-phase HPLC with UV and MS detection. d. System Wash: Between experiments, the system is washed with droplets of water, acetone, and THF to prevent cross-contamination.
• Iterative Optimization: The algorithm uses results (e.g., from an initial 96-experiment set) to build response surface models and propose subsequent experiments targeting the optimum, statistically eliminating poor-performing candidates [49].

Batch Mode DoE Validation Protocol

This protocol validates the optimal conditions identified from high-throughput screening in a standard batch format, suitable for gram-scale synthesis [51] [18].

Procedure:

• Reaction Setup: In a Schlenk tube equipped with a stir bar, combine the aryl halide (1.0 equiv), boronic acid (1.2 - 1.5 equiv), and base (e.g., K(2)CO(3), 2-3 equiv). Flush the system with an inert gas (N(_2) or Ar).
• Solvent Addition: Add the optimized solvent mixture (e.g., THF/H(_2)O 5:1) that has been degassed via sparging with inert gas.
• Catalyst Addition: Add the optimized catalyst (e.g., XPhos Pd-G4, 1-2 mol%) to the reaction mixture.
• Reaction Execution: Heat the mixture to the optimized temperature (e.g., 70-90 °C) and stir for the determined time (e.g., 1-2 h), monitoring reaction progress by TLC or GC-MS.
• Work-up: Cool the reaction to room temperature. Dilute with brine and water, then extract with ethyl acetate (3 x 15-20 mL). Combine the organic layers, dry over anhydrous Na(2)SO(4), filter, and concentrate under reduced pressure.
• Purification & Analysis: Purify the crude product by column chromatography or recrystallization. Analyze the product by (^1)H NMR, GC-MS, and HPLC to determine yield and purity, confirming the suppression of protodeboronation.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Suppressing Protodeboronation

Reagent / Material	Function & Rationale	Example Use
XPhos Pd-G4 Precatlyst	Highly active, well-defined precatalyst; facilitates rapid oxidative addition and catalytic turnover, outcompeting protodeboronation [18].	Preferred catalyst for challenging substrates like thienylboronic acids [18].
"Slow-Release" Boronates (e.g., MIDA, BF(_3)K)	Protects the C-B bond from decomposition; hydrolyzes in situ to maintain low, productive concentrations of the reactive boronic acid [46].	Crucial for coupling basic heteroaromatic boronic acids (e.g., 2-pyridyl) [46].
Silver or Copper Additives	Salts like Ag(2)O or Cu(acac)(2) can accelerate the transmetalation step in coupling, reducing the window for boronic acid decomposition [46].	Additive to standard catalyst systems to enhance rate and yield [46].
HKUST-1 (Cu-MOF)	Heterogeneous catalyst for controlled protodeboronation; useful for removing undesired regioisomers or as a synthetic tool, but also a reminder of metal-mediated decomposition pathways [52].	Catalyzes protodeboronation of arylboronic acids under O(_2) atmosphere, yielding up to 98% arene [52].
Optimized Solvent Mixtures (e.g., THF/H(_2)O)	The solvent composition must ensure sufficient solubility of both coupling partners to facilitate reaction; fine-tuning is required for each new substrate pair [18].	A 5:1 THF/H(_2)O ratio is a common starting point for optimization [49].

Within the framework of a Design of Experiment (DoE) protocol for Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling research, optimizing reactions for challenging electrophiles represents a critical endeavor for enhancing efficiency in drug discovery. Aryl chlorides, which constitute the most abundant and economical class of aryl halides, and ortho-substituted arenes, which present significant steric hindrance, remain particularly difficult substrates for conventional Suzuki-Miyaura conditions [53] [2]. Their successful integration into cross-coupling protocols can dramatically streamline the synthesis of pharmaceutical intermediates and complex molecules, yet this requires meticulous optimization of catalytic systems and reaction parameters. This application note provides detailed methodologies and data-driven strategies for activating these challenging electrophiles, with all experimental protocols framed within a systematic DoE approach to ensure reproducibility, robustness, and maximal functional group tolerance for the drug development professional.

Catalyst Systems for Demanding Substrates

The selection of an appropriate catalyst system is paramount for the successful coupling of aryl chlorides and ortho-substituted arenes. These substrates undergo oxidative addition with difficulty—aryl chlorides due to their strong C-Cl bond, and ortho-substituted arenes due to steric constraints around the reaction center.

Palladium-Based Catalysts

Modern palladium precatalyst systems have been specifically engineered to address the sluggish oxidative addition of aryl chlorides. The table below summarizes high-performance catalyst systems for challenging electrophiles:

Table 1: Catalyst Systems for Challenging Electrophiles in Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling

Catalyst Type	Representative Examples	Key Features	Optimal Electrophile Pairing
Buchwald Precatalysts	G2, G3, G4 generations	• Bidentate ligands with amine groups that enable clean generation of active Pd(0)• Excellent for sterically hindered couplings	Aryl chlorides with electron-withdrawing or electron-donating groups [2]
PEPPSI-type	PEPPSI-IPr, PEPPSI-IPent	• N-Heterocyclic Carbene (NHC) ligands with steric bulk• Effective at room temperature for some substrates	Ortho-substituted aryl chlorides; heteroaryl chlorides [2]
Allyl Precatalysts	Pd(allyl)Cl₂-based systems	• η³-coordinated allyl group decomposes under basic conditions• In-situ generation of active Pd(0) species	Aryl chlorides; demonstrated in chiral pillar[5]arene synthesis [54]
Phosphine Complexes	Pd(dppf)Cl₂, Pd/dtpbf	• Bidentate phosphine ligands (e.g., dppf, dtbpf, XantPhos)• Broad functional group tolerance	Electron-rich aryl chlorides; substrates requiring mild conditions [2]

For ortho-substituted arenes, which create significant steric encumbrance, bulky ligand systems are essential. Sadphos-type ligands, such as PC-Phos and TY-Phos, have demonstrated exceptional performance in achieving high enantioselectivity and yield with sterically demanding substrates, as evidenced by their success in the construction of inherently chiral pillar[5]arenes [54]. These ligands facilitate the approach of the boronic acid nucleophile to the sterically congested palladium center.

Emerging Nickel Catalysis

Nickel catalysis presents a powerful alternative for electrophiles that are recalcitrant to palladium-based systems. Nickel is more nucleophilic than palladium, enabling oxidative addition into stronger C-Cl bonds. A recent breakthrough demonstrated a nickel-catalyzed regioselective differential diborylation of aryl triflates and chlorides using Ni(cod)₂ with monodentate phosphine ligands such as PPhCy₂ [53]. This method operates under simple, mild conditions and exhibits broad substrate scope and excellent functional group tolerance, including for complex drug molecules. The resulting diborylated intermediates serve as versatile precursors for the sequential introduction of diverse functional groups, aligning perfectly with lead optimization workflows in drug discovery.

Optimization of Reaction Parameters

A systematic, data-driven approach to parameter optimization is crucial for achieving high conversion and minimizing side reactions with challenging electrophiles.

The Role of the Base

The base plays a multifunctional role in the Suzuki-Miyaura cycle, impacting both transmetalation and the potential for side reactions. Its optimal identity and stoichiometry are highly condition-dependent.

Table 2: Guide to Base Selection and Optimization

Base Class	Examples	Mechanistic Role	Pros & Cons	Recommended Use
Phosphates	K₃PO₄, Cs₃PO₄	• Activates boronic acid via hydrolysis to boronate anion• Moderate basicity	Pro: Good solubility in aqueous-organic mixturesCon: Can promote protodeborylation of sensitive boronates	General purpose; effective with Pd and Ni catalysts [54] [55]
Carbonates	K₂CO₃, Cs₂CO₃	• Similar to phosphates; most common in reported protocols	Pro: Widely available, cost-effectiveCon: Slower transmetalation for some substrates	First-choice screening candidate for aryl chlorides [2]
Alkoxides	NaO-t-Bu, KO-t-Bu	• Strong base; can generate aryl boronate salts directly	Pro: Highly effective in anhydrous conditionsCon: Can induce β-hydride elimination with alkyl boronates	Demanding reactions in strictly anhydrous solvents
Specialized Amines	DABCO, Et₃N	• Can act as a non-nucleophilic base and ligand	Pro: Unique effectiveness in Ni-catalyzed diborylation [53]Con: Limited scope in Pd systems	Ni-catalyzed transformations where other bases fail [53]

Solvent and Additive Effects

Solvent choice influences reaction rate, catalyst stability, and solubility of inorganic bases. Linear Solvation Energy Relationships (LSER) can be employed to rationally select solvents based on their physicochemical parameters (e.g., hydrogen bond donating ability α, hydrogen bond accepting ability β, dipolarity/polarizability π) [56]. For instance, aza-Michael addition rates correlate positively with β and π, indicating that polar, hydrogen bond-accepting solvents accelerate the reaction.

Additives can be crucial for particularly challenging substrates. For example, in the nickel-catalyzed diborylation of aryl chlorides, the addition of TIPS-OTf (triisopropylsilyl triflate) or Zn(OTf)₂ was essential for generating the desired product [53]. The triflate anion is hypothesized to play a key role in the catalytic cycle. Silver salts may also be added to sequester halide ions that can poison the palladium catalyst, especially when using aryl iodides [2].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

This protocol is designed for the systematic evaluation of reaction variables using a 24-well parallel reactor system, ideal for an initial DoE screen.

Materials Required:

• KitAlysis 24-Well Reaction Block or equivalent
• Inert atmosphere system (glove box or benchtop inertion box)
• Pre-weighed catalysts (e.g., Pd(OAc)₂, Pd₂(dba)₃, Pd(PPh₃)₄, various ligands)
• Degassed solvents (DMAc, Toluene, n-Butanol, THF)
• Aqueous base solution (e.g., 1.5 M K₃PO₄, degassed)
• Substrates: Aryl chloride/ortho-substituted arene electrophile and boronic acid/nucleophile

Setup Procedure:

• Preparation: Preheat a stir plate to 60°C. Place a new sealing film on the reaction block lid.
• Inert Atmosphere: Place the reaction block inside the inertion box and purge with nitrogen or argon for 5 minutes.
• Substrate Mixtures: Weigh the aryl chloride and boronic acid substrates directly into four 4 mL vials (omit solvent and base). Create one vial for each solvent to be tested (DMAc, Toluene, n-Butanol, THF). Add a stir bar to each vial.
• Component Loading: Transfer the pre-weighed catalyst vials into the reaction block according to the screening array. Place the solid substrate mixtures and open ampules of solvents and base solution inside the inertion box. Close the box and purge for an additional 5 minutes.
• Solution Preparation: Using a purged syringe, add the required amounts of the respective solvents to the substrate mixture vials. Stir until the substrates are dissolved or evenly suspended.
• Dosing: Carefully remove the cap mat from the catalyst vials.
  • Dose 100 µL of each substrate stock solution into the corresponding catalyst vials according to the planned matrix (e.g., "DMAc Substrate Mixture" to vials A1-A6).
  • Dose 20 µL of the aqueous K₃PO₄ solution to all 24 vials.
• Sealing and Reaction: Securely seal the reaction block lid using a cross-pattern screw-tightening sequence to ensure an even, leak-proof seal. Remove the block from the inertion box and place it on the preheated stir plate. Stir at 60°C and 300 rpm for 12-24 hours.

Work-up and Analysis:

• Quenching: After cooling the block, carefully open the lid. Add 500 µL of a prepared quench solution (e.g., CH₃CN with 2% AcOH and an internal standard like biphenyl) to each vial.
• Mixing and Settling: Replace the lid, tighten the middle screw, and stir on a plate (without heat) for 2-3 minutes. Let the block rest for 5 minutes to allow insoluble material to settle.
• Analysis: Transfer a 25 µL aliquot from the top of each vial to an HPLC vial containing 700 µL of acetonitrile. Analyze by HPLC/UPLC to determine conversion and yield by comparing the product peak area relative to the internal standard.

This specialized protocol provides access to valuable diborylated intermediates from aryl chlorides.

Reaction Setup:

• In a nitrogen-filled glove box, add the aryl chloride substrate (1.0 equiv) and Bpin-Bdan (2.0-2.5 equiv) to a reaction vial equipped with a stir bar.
• Add Ni(cod)₂ (5-10 mol%), PPhCy₂ (10-20 mol%), and DABCO (2.0-3.0 equiv).
• Add anhydrous cyclohexane as solvent (0.1-0.5 M relative to substrate).
• Add TIPS-OTf (1.0-1.5 equiv) as a critical additive.

Reaction Execution:

• Cap the vial, remove it from the glove box, and heat to 60-80°C with stirring for 12-24 hours.
• Monitor the reaction by TLC or LC-MS.

Work-up:

• Cool the reaction mixture to room temperature.
• Dilute with ethyl acetate and wash sequentially with water and brine.
• Dry the organic layer over anhydrous Na₂SO₄, filter, and concentrate under reduced pressure.
• Purify the crude residue by flash column chromatography on silica gel to obtain the pure differential diborylation product.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Suzuki-Miyaura Optimization with Challenging Electrophiles

Reagent / Material	Function & Rationale	Application Notes
Pd-G3 XPhos Precat	Buchwald precatalyst; generates active Pd(0) species with bulky biaryl phosphine ligand for arylation of aryl chlorides.	Ideal for sterically hindered couplings; use with K₃PO₄ or Cs₂CO₃ base [2].
PEPPSI-IPent	Pd-NHC precatalyst; designed for demanding cross-couplings, effective at low temperatures.	Superior to PEPPSI-IPr for ortho-substituted and heteroaryl substrates [2].
Ni(cod)₂ / PPhCy₂	Nickel(0) source with optimized monodentate phosphine ligand for C-Cl activation and diborylation.	Enables unique differential diborylation of aryl chlorides; requires DABCO base and TIPS-OTf additive [53].
Sadphos Ligands (L7, L10)	Class of sulfonamide phosphine ligands providing exceptional enantiocontrol and steric tolerance.	Crucial for asymmetric coupling of ortho-substituted, inherently chiral scaffolds; used with [Pd(allyl)Cl]₂ [54].
TIPS-OTf	Silyl triflate additive; source of triflate anion critical for Ni-catalyzed diborylation of aryl chlorides.	Not a standard Suzuki component; essential for specific Ni-catalyzed mechanism with aryl chlorides [53].
Bpin-Bdan	Differential diborylation reagent; contains two electronically distinct boryl groups (Bpin and Bdan).	Used in Ni-catalyzed system to install two different boryl groups in a single, regioselective step [53].

Workflow and Mechanistic Pathways

DoE Optimization Workflow for Challenging Electrophiles

The following diagram outlines a systematic, iterative workflow for optimizing Suzuki-Miyaura reactions for aryl chlorides and ortho-substituted arenes, integrating key decision points based on experimental data.

Catalytic Cycle for Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling

This diagram illustrates the fundamental steps of the Suzuki-Miyaura catalytic cycle, highlighting the critical stages where challenging electrophiles and optimized conditions come into play.

Managing Iodide Poisoning and Catalyst Deactivation

Within Design of Experiments (DoE) protocols for Suzuki-Miyaura coupling (SMC) research, managing catalyst deactivation is paramount for developing robust, reproducible, and scalable synthetic methods. A particularly challenging deactivation pathway is iodide poisoning, where iodide byproducts from oxidative addition strongly coordinate to the palladium center, forming inactive species and stalling the catalytic cycle. This application note details the mechanisms of iodide poisoning and other common deactivation pathways, providing validated experimental strategies and DoE-guided protocols to mitigate these issues, ensuring high efficiency and yield in cross-coupling reactions essential for drug development.

Understanding the Mechanisms of Deactivation

Iodide Poisoning

Despite the high reactivity of aryl iodides in oxidative addition, the iodide ligand can be problematic. After oxidative addition, the iodide is not efficiently displaced from the palladium coordination sphere. Iodide is a soft ligand that can strongly bind to the palladium complex, slowing down subsequent steps in the catalytic cycle [2]. In some cases, iodide can act as a μ-bridging ligand, forming inactive palladium dimers [2]. This strong coordination effectively poisons the catalyst, reducing its turnover number and frequency.

Other Common Deactivation Pathways

• Protodeboronation: A key challenge, especially with heteroaryl boronic acids like thienylboronic acids. This side reaction consumes the boronic acid coupling partner before transmetalation can occur, effectively halting the reaction [18].
• Pd Black Formation (Precipitation): Catalyst deactivation can occur when the palladium catalyst precipitates out of solution as "palladium black," a particular risk in telescoped Miyaura borylation/Suzuki cross-coupling reactions [57]. DBA-based Pd(0) sources are especially prone to this, leading to nearly complete loss of catalytic activity [2].
• β-Hydride Elimination: If the boronate substrate is aliphatic and contains β-hydrogens, the hydrogen can be transferred to Pd, forming an alkene byproduct and deactivating the catalyst [2].
• Coordination Poisoning: Certain substrates, notably electron-rich pyridinyl boronic acids, have a strong tendency to coordinate to the metal center, leading to catalyst poisoning [58].

Table 1: Common Catalyst Deactivation Pathways and Their Impact

Deactivation Pathway	Primary Cause	Observed Impact
Iodide Poisoning	Strong Pd-I coordination	Slowed transmetalation, catalyst dimerization [2]
Protodeboronation	Hydrolysis of B-C bond	Loss of boronic acid coupling partner [18]
Pd Precipitation	Formation of Pd black	Visible catalyst precipitation, inconsistent reaction times [57]
β-Hydride Elimination	Aliphatic substrates with β-H	Formation of alkene byproducts [2]
Coordination Poisoning	Substrates with coordinating groups	Reduced catalyst turnover, particularly with heterocycles [58]

Experimental Protocols & DoE Strategies

A DoE approach is highly recommended to systematically optimize reaction conditions and mitigate deactivation, rather than relying on one-variable-at-a-time experimentation.

DoE Protocol for Identifying and Mitigating Iodide Poisoning

Objective: Systematically evaluate catalyst and ligand systems to overcome iodide-mediated deactivation.

Model Reaction: Cross-coupling of a deactivated or sterically hindered aryl halide with a substituted phenylboronic acid.

Key Variables for DoE Screening:

• Discrete Variables: Precatalyst type (e.g., Pd(PPh₃)₄, XPhos Pd-G3/G4), ligand class (e.g., XPhos, SPhos, t-BuPCy₂).
• Continuous Variables: Temperature (50-100°C), reaction time (1-24 h), catalyst loading (0.001-2 mol%), base concentration (1.0-3.0 equiv).

Automated Screening Workflow (Adapted from Reizman et al. [37]):

• Reagent Preparation: Prepare stock solutions of precatalysts, ligands, aryl halide, boronic acid, and internal standard in THF under an inert atmosphere.
• Automated DoE Execution: Using an automated liquid handler and microfluidic system, prepare reaction droplets according to the DoE matrix.
• Reaction Initiation & Quenching: Initiate reactions by injecting a base (e.g., DBU in THF) and deliver droplets to a heated reactor. Quench reactions at the outlet.
• Analysis: Use an integrated HPLC-UV/MS system for real-time reaction monitoring and yield quantification.
• Feedback Loop: Implement an algorithm (e.g., G-optimality criterion) to iteratively update the DoE model and propose new experiments targeting optimal conditions.

Expected Outcomes: A response surface model identifying the optimal combination of catalyst, ligand, and conditions that minimize iodide poisoning while maximizing yield.

Figure 1: DoE Workflow for Mitigating Iodide Poisoning. This iterative feedback loop efficiently identifies optimal conditions that overcome catalyst deactivation.

Practical Protocol for Coupling Deactivated Aryl Chlorides

This protocol is adapted from systems using trace Pd to couple challenging substrates [59].

Reagents:

• Aryl chloride (1.0 equiv)
• Phenylboronic acid (1.5-2.0 equiv)
• Catalyst: Pd(PPh₃)₄ and (t-Bu)PCy₂
• Base: K₂CO₃ or Cs₂CO₃ (2.0 equiv)
• Solvent: Toluene/Water (4:1) or i-PrOH/Water

Procedure:

• In a flame-dried Schlenk tube under nitrogen, combine Pd(PPh₃)₄ (9.5 × 10⁻⁵ mol%) and (t-Bu)PCy₂ (0.0022 mol%).
• Add the aryl chloride and phenylboronic acid.
• Add the base followed by the solvent mixture.
• Heat the reaction mixture at 80-100°C with vigorous stirring for 12-24 hours.
• Monitor reaction progress by TLC or UPLC/MS.
• Upon completion, cool the reaction mixture to room temperature.
• Work-up: Dilute with ethyl acetate and wash with brine. Dry the organic layer over Na₂SO₄, filter, and concentrate under reduced pressure.
• Purify the crude product by flash column chromatography.

Note: The extremely low catalyst loading demonstrated here [59] is a hallmark of a highly effective system resistant to poisoning and deactivation.

Data Presentation and Analysis

Table 2: Catalyst and Ligand Efficacy Against Deactivation Pathways

Catalyst/Ligand System	Relevant Substrate	Key Performance Data	Resistance to Deactivation Pathways
XPhos Pd-G4 [18]	Thienylboronic acid with 4-bromoanisole	Highly efficient for dye precursors	Excellent resistance to protodeboronation
Pd(PPh₃)₄ / (t-Bu)PCy₂ [59]	Deactivated/hindered aryl chlorides	Pd loading as low as 9.5×10⁻⁵ mol%; yields up to 92%	High resistance to iodide poisoning and steric hindrance
(tri-ProPhos)Ni [58]	Electron-rich 3-pyridinyl boronic acid	Loadings of 0.03-0.1 mol%; ≥90% yield in i-PrOH/H₂O	Resists coordination poisoning; stable in green solvents
PEPPSI-type NHC [2]	Various aryl halides	Requires reduction from Pd(II)	Moderate resistance; prone to homocoupling

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Managing Catalyst Deactivation

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Key Mechanism
XPhos Pd-G4 Precatalyst [18]	High-activity catalyst for problematic couplings (e.g., with thienylboronic acids)	Rapid generation of highly active LPd(0); suppresses protodeboronation
t-BuPCy₂ Ligand [59]	Coupling deactivated/hindered aryl chlorides with trace Pd	Bulky, electron-rich phosphine facilitates oxidative addition and mitigates poisoning
Tri-ProPhos Nickel System [58]	Low-cost SMC in green solvents (i-PrOH, H₂O) with challenging heterocycles	Hydroxyl groups chelate Ni and B, enhancing stability and transmetalation
Potassium Phosphate Base	Common base for SMC	Activates boronic acid via tetracoordinated borate formation; minimal side reactions
2-MeTHF/H₂O Solvent System	Green solvent alternative	Good solubility for many substrates; better environmental profile than THF

Iodide poisoning and other catalyst deactivation pathways represent significant hurdles in Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling. A strategic DoE approach, leveraging advanced precatalysts like XPhos Pd-G4 and tailored ligands, is instrumental in developing robust and scalable reactions. The protocols and data presented herein provide a framework for researchers to systematically diagnose, mitigate, and overcome these challenges, thereby enhancing the efficiency and reliability of cross-coupling in pharmaceutical development.

Benchmarking and Validation: Comparing Catalytic Systems and Methodologies

Palladium-catalyzed Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling represents a cornerstone methodology for carbon-carbon bond formation in pharmaceutical development, agrochemical manufacturing, and materials science. The selection of an appropriate catalyst system is a critical parameter in reaction design, directly impacting yield, functional group tolerance, and substrate scope. Within the broad spectrum of available catalysts, tris(dibenzylideneacetone)dipalladium(0) (Pd₂(dba)₃), palladium(II) acetate (Pd(OAc)₂), and specialized XPhos palladacycles constitute three fundamentally distinct classes, each with characteristic activation pathways and performance profiles.

This application note provides a systematic, data-driven comparison of these catalytic systems, contextualized within a Design of Experiments (DoE) framework for Suzuki-Miyaura coupling optimization. We present quantitative performance data, detailed experimental protocols, and mechanistic insights to guide researchers in selecting the optimal catalyst for specific synthetic challenges.

Catalyst Systems: Structures, Properties, and Activation Mechanisms

Catalyst Structures and Characteristics

Pd₂(dba)₃ is a molecular Pd(0) source that enters the catalytic cycle directly, requiring only ligand exchange to form the active species [2]. Its primary disadvantage lies in its tendency to decay into palladium black (metallic nanoparticles), leading to potential deactivation [2].

Pd(OAc)₂ is a bench-stable Pd(II) salt that requires in situ reduction to the active Pd(0) species [10]. This reduction can occur at the expense of phosphine ligands (forming phosphine oxides) or via reagent consumption, potentially generating process impurities [10].

XPhos Palladacycles (e.g., XPhos Pd-G2, G3, G4) are preformed, well-defined Pd(II) precatalysts containing the bulky dialkylbiarylphosphine ligand XPhos [60] [18]. They are designed to undergo controlled activation, typically through base-assisted reductive elimination, to release the highly active monoligated Pd(0) species [60] [10].

Comparative Activation Pathways

The following diagram illustrates the distinct activation mechanisms for each catalyst class, which directly influence their performance in synthesis.

Performance Comparison: Quantitative Data Analysis

Benchmarking Catalytic Efficiency Across Substrate Classes

Table 1: Comparative performance of catalyst systems in Suzuki-Miyaura coupling

Catalyst System	Catalyst Loading (mol%)	Electrophile	Nucleophile	Yield (%)	Key Observations	Reference
Pd₂(dba)₃/XPhos	1-5	Aryl Chlorides	Arylboronic Acids	87-93	Excellent for electron-rich & sterically hindered chlorides	[60]
Pd(OAc)₂/XPhos	1-5	Aryl Tosylates	Arylboronic Acids	27-79	Highly variable performance; sensitive to reduction efficiency	[60]
XPhos Pd-G2/G3/G4	1-5	Aryl Tosylates	Arylboronic Acids	85-99	Consistent high yields; superior for challenging pseudohalides	[60] [18]
XPhos Pd-G4	Not specified	Aryl Bromides	Thienylboronic Acids	High	Most efficient for problematic heteroaryl boronic acids	[18]
Allyl-Pd(IPr)Cl	0.1-0.5	4-Chlorotoluene	Phenylboronic Acid	<80	Forms inactive Pd(I) dimers; lower activity	[61]
tBuInd-Pd(IPr)Cl	0.1-0.5	4-Chlorotoluene	Phenylboronic Acid	>80	Prevents dimer formation; highest activity in allyl class	[61]

Functional Group Tolerance and Substrate Scope

Table 2: Functional group compatibility and optimal application domains

Catalyst System	Electrophile Scope	Nucleophile Scope	Functional Group Tolerance	Optimal Application
Pd₂(dba)₃/XPhos	Aryl chlorides, bromides, iodides	Arylboronic acids, esters	Esters, aldehydes, ethers, fluorides, free amines, pyridines	Broad scope coupling; electron-rich systems
Pd(OAc)₂/XPhos	Aryl bromides, iodides (limited with chlorides)	Arylboronic acids	Moderate; sensitive to oxidation conditions	Less demanding substrates; cost-sensitive applications
XPhos Palladacycles	Aryl chlorides, tosylates, mesylates, bromides	Arylboronic acids, heteroarylboronic acids (e.g., thienyl)	High: esters, aldehydes, acetals, ethers, fluorides, free hydroxy, amines, heteroaromatics	Challenging substrates; heteroaromatic systems; process optimization

Experimental Protocols: Standardized Methodologies for DoE

General Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling Procedure

Materials:

• Aryl/vinyl electrophile (1.0 mmol)
• Boronic acid/ester (1.1-1.5 mmol)
• Base (e.g., K₂CO₃, Cs₂CO₃; 2.0-3.0 mmol)
• Catalyst (0.5-5.0 mol%)
• Solvent (e.g., toluene/water, dioxane, DMF; 5-10 mL)
• Tetrabutylammonium bromide (optional phase-transfer agent; 1.0 mmol)

Procedure:

• Charge a dry microwave vial or round-bottom flask with magnetic stir bar with electrophile, boronic acid, base, and catalyst.
• Add solvent and purge the reaction mixture with nitrogen or argon for 5-10 minutes.
• Seal the vessel and heat with stirring to the desired temperature (typically 80-110°C for aryl chlorides).
• Monitor reaction progress by TLC, HPLC, or GC-MS.
• Upon completion, cool to room temperature and dilute with ethyl acetate or dichloromethane.
• Wash with water and brine, dry over anhydrous MgSO₄ or Na₂SO₄, filter, and concentrate under reduced pressure.
• Purify the crude product by flash chromatography or recrystallization.

Specific Considerations by Catalyst Type

Pd₂(dba)₃/XPhos System:

• Pre-stir Pd₂(dba)₃ with XPhos ligand (1:2-2.5 ratio) for 15-30 minutes before substrate addition
• Use freshly opened Pd₂(dba)₃ to prevent decomposition to palladium black
• Recommended bases: K₃PO₄, Cs₂CO₃

Pd(OAc)₂/XPhos In Situ System:

• Pre-stir Pd(OAc)₂ with XPhos (1:2 ratio) for 10-15 minutes to form active complex
• Addition of primary alcohols (e.g., n-butanol) can facilitate reduction to Pd(0)
• Monitor for phosphine oxide formation which depletes active ligand

XPhos Palladacycles (G2-G4):

• Use directly without pre-activation; designed for immediate use
• Methanesulfonate versions (G3, G4) often show enhanced solubility and activity
• Optimal for microwave-assisted conditions (30 min vs. 18 h conventional heating)

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key reagents for Suzuki-Miyaura coupling optimization

Reagent	Function	Application Notes
XPhos Ligand	Bulky dialkylbiarylphosphine ligand	Stabilizes monoligated Pd(0); enhances reductive elimination; commercial availability
K₂CO₃, Cs₂CO₃	Base	Facilitates transmetalation; Cs₂CO₃ offers better solubility in organic solvents
Tetrabutylammonium bromide	Phase-transfer catalyst	Improves solubility of inorganic bases in organic media
Phenylboronic Acid	Benchmark nucleophile	Standard for reaction optimization and catalyst screening
4-Chlorotoluene	Benchmark electrophile	Representative aryl chloride substrate for activity assessment
Aryl Tosylates	Challenging electrophiles	Pseudohalides for testing catalyst performance with low reactivity partners
Thienylboronic Acids	Problematic nucleophile	Prone to protodeboronation; tests catalyst efficiency with sensitive partners

DoE Implementation: Strategic Catalyst Selection Workflow

The following decision pathway integrates the comparative performance data into a practical framework for catalyst selection within a DoE protocol.

This comprehensive comparison demonstrates that XPhos palladacycles consistently deliver superior performance for challenging Suzuki-Miyaura couplings, particularly with aryl chlorides, pseudohalides, and sensitive heteroaryl boronic acids. Their defined activation pathway and resistance to off-cycle species (e.g., Pd(I) dimers) provide reproducible high yields [61] [60] [18].

Pd₂(dba)₃/XPhos systems offer a robust alternative for standard couplings with excellent functional group tolerance, though they require careful handling to prevent decomposition. Pd(OAc)₂/XPhos presents the most cost-effective option but exhibits variable performance dependent on efficient in situ reduction, making it less predictable in regulated environments [60] [10].

Within a DoE framework for pharmaceutical development, we recommend prioritizing XPhos palladacycles for initial screening, particularly when working with challenging substrate combinations or requiring maximum process robustness. The incremental catalyst cost is typically offset by reduced optimization time, improved reproducibility, and higher overall yield of valuable pharmaceutical intermediates.

The Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling reaction stands as one of the most versatile methods for carbon-carbon bond formation in modern organic synthesis, with extensive applications in pharmaceutical development and materials science. The efficacy of this palladium-catalyzed transformation is critically dependent on the choice of ancillary ligands, which modulate the electronic and steric properties of the catalytic center, influencing oxidative addition, transmetalation, and reductive elimination steps. Within this context, biarylphosphines, N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs), and phosphites have emerged as three prominent ligand classes, each offering distinct advantages and challenges. This application note examines these ligand systems within the framework of Design of Experiment (DoE) methodologies, providing researchers with structured protocols for systematic ligand evaluation and optimization in Suzuki-Miyaura coupling reactions relevant to drug development.

Ligand Characteristics and Comparative Analysis

Fundamental Properties of Ligand Classes

The three ligand classes discussed herein differ significantly in their electronic properties, steric profiles, and stability characteristics, which collectively dictate their performance in catalytic systems.

Biarylphosphines feature a sterically congested biphenyl backbone that promotes the formation of highly active monoligated Pd(0) species. Their strong electron-donating ability facilitates oxidative addition even with challenging aryl chloride substrates. The presence of Pd-arene interactions in intermediates stabilizes the catalytic cycle and promotes reductive elimination [62].

N-Heterocyclic Carbenes (NHCs) possess superior σ-donor capability compared to most phosphines, forming strong metal-carbene bonds that minimize ligand dissociation during catalysis. This strong binding enables the activation of otherwise unreactive aryl chlorides. Their activity can be finely tuned through backbone and N-substituent modifications [63].

Phosphites (not covered in depth in the available search results) represent a distinct class of phosphorus-based ligands known for their high π-acceptor character and generally lower cost compared to sophisticated phosphine ligands.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Key Ligand Classes in Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling

Ligand Class	Electronic Properties	Steric Properties	Stability	Key Advantages
Biarylphosphines	Strong σ-donors	High steric bulk (large Tolman cone angles)	Air-stable; resistant to oxidation	Formation of highly reactive L1Pd(0) species; effective for aryl chlorides
N-Heterocyclic Carbenes (NHCs)	Exceptional σ-donors (stronger than phosphines)	Tunable via N-substituents	Metal-NHC bonds highly stable; less prone to dissociation	High thermal stability; effective for unactivated substrates
Phosphites	Strong π-acceptors	Moderate to high tunability	Generally sensitive to hydrolysis	Cost-effective alternative to phosphines

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Statistical analysis of ligand performance reveals how structural features translate to catalytic efficiency. Recent studies applying Plackett-Burman experimental designs have identified key factors influencing cross-coupling efficacy, including the electronic effect (measured by vCO stretching frequency) and Tolman's cone angle of phosphine ligands, catalyst loading, base strength, and solvent polarity [36].

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Representative Ligands in Model Suzuki-Miyaura Reactions

Ligand	Ligand Class	Tolman Cone Angle (°)	Electronic Parameter (vCO, cm⁻¹)	Relative Reaction Rate	Optimal Catalyst Loading (mol%)
SPhos	Biarylphosphine	~152	~2055	1.00 (reference)	0.5-1.0
XPhos	Biarylphosphine	~163	~2052	1.35	0.5-1.0
JohnPhos	Biarylphosphine	~157	~2059	0.87	1.0-2.0
IMes (NHC)	N-Heterocyclic Carbene	~220 (effective)	~2050	1.28	0.5-1.0
IPr (NHC)	N-Heterocyclic Carbene	~228 (effective)	~2048	1.41	0.5-1.0

Statistical Design of Experiment (DoE) Approaches for Ligand Evaluation

Principles of DoE in Catalyst Screening

Traditional one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) approaches to reaction optimization suffer from critical limitations, including failure to account for factor interactions and inefficient resource utilization. Statistical Design of Experiment (sDoE) methods address these shortcomings by enabling simultaneous evaluation of multiple factors with minimal experimental runs [36]. The Plackett-Burman Design (PBD) represents a particularly efficient screening approach for initial ligand assessment, allowing researchers to evaluate n-1 factors with only n experiments (where n is a multiple of 4). This methodology facilitates rapid identification of critical factors influencing reaction outcomes before undertaking more comprehensive optimization using response surface methodologies [36].

Implementing Plackett-Burman Design for Ligand Screening

For initial screening of ligand effects in Suzuki-Miyaura coupling, a 12-run PBD can efficiently evaluate five key factors: (1) phosphine ligand electronic parameter, (2) phosphine ligand Tolman cone angle, (3) catalyst loading, (4) base strength, and (5) solvent polarity, with the remaining columns assigned to dummy factors to estimate experimental error [36]. Each factor is tested at two levels (high: +1 and low: -1) across randomized experimental runs to minimize confounding effects.

Table 3: Experimental Factors and Levels for PBD Screening of Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling

Factor	Low Level (-1)	High Level (+1)	Role in Catalysis
Ligand Electronic Effect	Weak σ-donor (vCO > 2060 cm⁻¹)	Strong σ-donor (vCO < 2050 cm⁻¹)	Facilitates oxidative addition
Ligand Steric Bulk	Small cone angle (<150°)	Large cone angle (>160°)	Promotes L1Pd(0) formation
Catalyst Loading	1 mol%	5 mol%	Economic and efficiency considerations
Base	Triethylamine (weak base)	NaOH (strong base)	Facilitates transmetalation
Solvent Polarity	DMSO (polar)	MeCN (less polar)	Solvation and solubility

Experimental Protocols for Ligand Evaluation

Basic Protocol: Standard Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling with Biarylphosphine Ligands

Principle: This protocol describes a representative Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling using biarylphosphine ligands, adaptable for systematic comparison of different ligand classes through DoE approaches [44] [62].

Materials:

• Palladium catalyst: Pd(OAc)₂ or Pd₂(dba)₃
• Biarylphosphine ligand (e.g., SPhos, XPhos)
• Aryl halide substrate (2 mmol)
• Arylboronic acid (2.4 mmol)
• Base: K₃PO₄ or Cs₂CO₃ (3 mmol)
• Solvent: toluene/water mixture or dioxane

Procedure:

• In an inert atmosphere glove box, charge a reaction vessel with palladium precursor (1 mol%) and biarylphosphine ligand (1.1-2.0 mol%).
• Add solvent (5 mL) and stir for 15 minutes to pre-form the active catalytic species.
• Introduce aryl halide substrate, boronic acid, and base sequentially.
• Seal the vessel and heat at 60-100°C with continuous stirring for 12-24 hours.
• Monitor reaction progress by TLC or LC/MS.
• Upon completion, cool to room temperature and dilute with ethyl acetate (15 mL).
• Wash with brine, separate organic layer, and dry over anhydrous MgSO₄.
• Concentrate under reduced pressure and purify the crude product by flash chromatography.

Notes: The Pd:ligand ratio should be optimized for specific substrate combinations. For electron-deficient or sterically hindered substrates, higher catalyst loadings (2-5 mol%) and temperatures (80-100°C) may be required.

Advanced Protocol: DoE-Based Ligand Screening Using Plackett-Burman Design

Principle: This protocol implements a systematic approach for evaluating multiple ligand parameters simultaneously, enabling efficient identification of critical factors for reaction optimization [36].

Materials:

• Palladium source: K₂PdCl₄ or Pd(OAc)₂
• Ligand library representing diverse electronic and steric properties
• Aryl halides: PhBr, PhI (2 mmol)
• Boronic acids: 4-fluorophenylboronic acid (2.4 mmol)
• Bases: NaOH (strong), Et₃N (weak)
• Solvents: DMSO, MeCN
• Internal standard: dodecane (for GC analysis)

Procedure:

• Experimental Design: Generate a 12-run PBD using statistical software, assigning factors A-E to ligand and reaction parameters, with columns F-K as dummy factors.
• Reaction Setup: In a high-throughput reaction platform, set up 12 parallel reactions according to the randomized run order specified by the PBD matrix.
• Reaction Execution: For each run, combine assigned reagents in carousel tubes: aryl halide (2 mmol), boronic acid (2.4 mmol), base (4 mmol), Pd catalyst (at specified loading), ligand (at specified loading), and solvent (5 mL).
• Reaction Conditions: Conduct all reactions at 60°C for 24 hours with continuous stirring.
• Analysis: After reaction completion, cool samples to room temperature and analyze conversion and yield using GC or LC-MS with dodecane as internal standard.
• Data Analysis: Calculate main effects for each factor by comparing the average response at high and low levels. Statistically significant factors (p < 0.05) are identified using the dummy factors to estimate experimental error.

Notes: This screening approach efficiently identifies the most influential factors (typically 2-3) for subsequent optimization using response surface methodology (RSM). The methodology can be adapted for NHC ligands and phosphites by appropriate modification of factor levels.

Visualization of Experimental Workflows

DoE Workflow for Ligand Evaluation: This diagram illustrates the systematic approach for evaluating ligand effects using statistical design of experiments, from initial objective definition through final protocol validation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Ligand Evaluation Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Purpose	Handling Considerations
Palladium Sources	Pd(OAc)₂, K₂PdCl₄, Pd₂(dba)₃	Catalytic precursor for cross-coupling	Moisture-sensitive; store under inert atmosphere
Biarylphosphine Ligands	SPhos, XPhos, JohnPhos	Promote formation of active L1Pd(0) species	Generally air-stable; commercial availability
NHC Precursors	IMes·HCl, IPr·HCl, SIMes·HCl	Generate N-heterocyclic carbene ligands in situ	Often stored as air-stable azolium salts
Phosphite Ligands	P(OPh)₃, P(OMe)₃	π-Acceptor ligands as phosphine alternatives	Sensitive to hydrolysis; rigorous drying required
Solvent Systems	DMSO, MeCN, toluene/water mixtures	Reaction medium influencing solubility and stability	Anhydrous grade recommended; degas for oxygen-sensitive systems
Base Selection	K₃PO₄, Cs₂CO₃, NaOH, Et₃N	Facilitate transmetalation step	Strength and solubility affect reaction efficiency

Case Studies and Applications

DoE in Pharmaceutical Intermediate Synthesis

The application of DoE methodologies to ligand selection has demonstrated significant value in pharmaceutical development. A representative case study involves the optimization of a key biaryl intermediate synthesis using Suzuki-Miyaura coupling. Through initial PBD screening, researchers identified ligand steric bulk and base strength as the most critical factors influencing yield, with secondary effects from catalyst loading and solvent polarity. Subsequent response surface optimization with central composite design enabled development of a robust process with 95% yield at 0.5 mol% catalyst loading, representing a significant improvement over initial yields of 65% obtained through traditional optimization approaches [36] [7].

Ligand-Free and Low-Pd Systems

Recent advances have demonstrated that under certain conditions, ligand-free Suzuki-Miyaura coupling can achieve impressive efficiency. Studies utilizing Pd/Fe₂O³ catalysts with ultra-low Pd content (0.02 mol%) in aqueous ethanol at mild temperatures have shown comparable performance to traditional ligand-based systems for selected substrate classes [64]. These findings highlight the importance of context-dependent ligand selection and the potential for simplifying catalytic systems in specific applications.

Systematic evaluation of ligand effects through Design of Experiment methodologies provides a powerful framework for optimizing Suzuki-Miyaura coupling reactions in pharmaceutical research. The comparative analysis of biarylphosphines, N-heterocyclic carbenes, and phosphites reveals distinct advantages for each ligand class depending on substrate challenges and process requirements. Biarylphosphines offer exceptional versatility for demanding substrates, NHCs provide exceptional stability and electron density, while phosphites represent cost-effective alternatives for specific applications.

The integration of high-throughput screening technologies with statistical experimental design enables rapid identification of optimal ligand systems while capturing critical factor interactions that traditional approaches would overlook. As the field advances, the continued development of novel ligand architectures coupled with sophisticated DoE strategies will further enhance the efficiency and sustainability of cross-coupling methodologies in drug development pipelines.

The systematic optimization of chemical reactions is paramount in synthetic chemistry, particularly for complex transformations like the Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling, which is fundamental to constructing advanced organic materials such as dyes and pharmaceutical intermediates. Traditional one-variable-at-a-time (OVAT) optimization is inefficient and can miss optimal conditions due to factor interactions [65]. This article, framed within a broader thesis on developing robust Design of Experiments (DoE) protocols for Suzuki-Miyaura coupling research, presents detailed application notes and case studies. We validate the DoE methodology by applying it to the synthesis of phenothiazine and triarylamine-based dye precursors—structures of significant interest in materials science and drug discovery [18] [66] [67]. The protocols and data herein are designed for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals seeking to implement efficient, data-driven optimization strategies.

Case Study 1: Phenothiazine Dye Precursor Synthesis via Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling

Background and Optimization Challenge

Suzuki-Miyaura coupling with (hetero)arylboronic acids, such as thienylboronic acids, is a convenient route to phenothiazine derivatives [18] [68]. A key challenge is the competing protodeboronation side reaction, which can drastically reduce yields [18]. Initial model studies coupling (5-formylthiophen-2-yl)boronic acid with 4-bromoanisole revealed that success hinges on a highly active catalyst and sufficient solubility of both coupling partners [18]. A DoE approach was employed to efficiently navigate the multi-variable parameter space, moving beyond intuitive solvent selection and OVAT methods [65].

Experimental Protocol: Optimized Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling for Phenothiazine Aldehyde

Materials:

• Aryl Halide: 10H-phenothiazine-3,7-diylbis(trifluoromethanesulfonate) or analogous bromide.
• Boronic Acid: (5-Formylthiophen-2-yl)boronic acid.
• Catalyst: XPhos Pd G4 precatalyst ((2-dicyclohexylphosphino-2′,4′,6′-triisopropyl-1,1′-biphenyl)[2-(N-methyl-2′-amino-1,1′-biphenyl)]palladium(II) methanesulfonate) [18].
• Base: Potassium carbonate (K₂CO₃) or cesium carbonate (Cs₂CO₃).
• Solvent System: A carefully tuned mixture of 1,4-dioxane and water (e.g., 5:1 v/v). DoE solvent optimization using a solvent property map is critical [65].
• Inert Atmosphere: Nitrogen or argon.

Procedure:

• In a dried Schlenk tube or microwave vial, charge the phenothiazine aryl halide (1.0 equiv), (5-formylthiophen-2-yl)boronic acid (2.2-2.5 equiv), and the base (2.5-3.0 equiv).
• Flush the vessel with inert gas. Under a positive pressure, add the degassed solvent mixture (0.1-0.2 M concentration relative to halide).
• Add the XPhos Pd G4 precatalyst (1.0-2.0 mol% Pd).
• Seal the vessel and heat the reaction mixture to 80-100 °C with vigorous stirring for 16-24 hours.
• Monitor reaction completion by TLC or LC-MS.
• Cool to room temperature, dilute with water, and extract with ethyl acetate. Wash the combined organic layers with brine, dry over anhydrous MgSO₄, filter, and concentrate under reduced pressure.
• Purify the residue by flash column chromatography (silica gel, hexanes/ethyl acetate gradient) to obtain the desired mono- or di-thiophene-2-carbaldehyde substituted phenothiazine product [18].

A DoE study was performed varying catalyst (type and loading), base (type and equiv.), solvent composition (using a PCA-based solvent map [65]), temperature, and time. The response variable was the isolated yield of the cross-coupled product. The optimization, potentially aided by automated feedback systems [7], identified critical interactions, such as the requirement for XPhos-type ligands to suppress protodeboronation and the need for specific solvent compositions for each substrate pair [18].

Table 1: DoE-Optimized Conditions for Phenothiazine-Thiophene Coupling [18]

Factor	Low Value	High Value	Optimal Point
Catalyst	Pd(dppf)Cl₂	XPhos Pd-G3	XPhos Pd-G4
Catalyst Loading	0.5 mol%	3.0 mol%	1.5 mol%
Base	K₂CO₃	Cs₂CO₃	Cs₂CO₃
Solvent (Dioxane:H₂O)	3:1	10:1	5:1
Temperature	70 °C	110 °C	90 °C
Time	6 h	36 h	18 h
Isolated Yield	--	--	>85%

Synthesis Pathway Visualization

Diagram 1: Phenothiazine Dye Precursor Synthesis Pathway.

Case Study 2: Triarylamine Dye Precursor Synthesis and Functionalization

Background and Optimization Challenge

Triarylamines are excellent electron-donors in dye-sensitized solar cells (DSSCs) [66] [67]. The synthesis often involves a pivotal Suzuki-Miyaura coupling step to attach formylphenyl or other aryl groups to a dibrominated triarylamine core [66]. The challenge is twofold: first, to efficiently synthesize the bis-halogenated precursor in high purity without chromatographic purification, and second, to optimize the cross-coupling for high yield and functional group tolerance, enabling downstream derivatization into target dyes like P4 [66].

Experimental Protocol A: Synthesis of 4-(Bis(4-bromophenyl)amino)benzoic Acid

Materials: 4-(Diphenylamino)benzaldehyde, Bromine (Br₂), Dichloromethane (DCM), Silver(I) oxide (Ag₂O), Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), Toluene, Ethanol, Hydrochloric acid (HCl), Ethyl acetate. Procedure (Bromination):

• Dissolve 4-(diphenylamino)benzaldehyde in DCM and cool to 0 °C.
• Slowly add a dilute solution of Br₂ in DCM (0.5 M) over 3.5 hours.
• Warm to room temperature, stir for 3h, then at 30 °C for 16h, and finally under reflux for 3h.
• Concentrate the mixture. The product 1 precipitates in high purity (96% yield) without column chromatography [66]. Procedure (Oxidation):
• Dissolve compound 1 in toluene.
• Add this solution to a suspension of Ag₂O (4 equiv) and NaOH (8 equiv) in ethanol.
• Stir at room temperature for 3-4.5 hours until complete by TLC.
• Decant, acidify the aqueous phase with cold 10% HCl, and extract with ethyl acetate.
• Dry, filter, and concentrate to obtain the dye precursor 2 as a pure solid in 90% yield [66].

Experimental Protocol B: DoE-Optimized Suzuki Coupling to Dye P4 Precursor

Materials: Precursor 2, 4-Formylphenylboronic acid, Palladium catalyst (e.g., Pd(PPh₃)₄), Base (e.g., K₂CO₃), Solvent (Toluene/Ethanol/Water mixture). Procedure:

• Employ a DoE protocol to optimize this double Suzuki coupling. Key factors include catalyst (type/loading), solvent composition (varying ratios of toluene/ethanol/water), temperature, and equivalence of boronic acid [65].
• Using a resolution IV DoE design, up to 8 factors can be screened in 19 experiments to find optimal conditions that maximize yield for this specific substrate pair, which may differ from the model phenothiazine system [18] [65].
• Under optimized conditions (e.g., Pd(PPh₃)₄, toluene/EtOH/H₂O, 80°C), perform the coupling to obtain dialdehyde intermediate 3.
• Subsequent Knoevenagel condensation of 3 with malononitrile yields the final dye P4 in high overall yield (74% from precursor 2) [66].

The initial synthesis of the dibromo precursor 2 was optimized using a controlled, slow addition of bromine, a parameter identified as critical through systematic variation, achieving a 96% yield with no purification [66]. This aligns with DoE principles by identifying and controlling a key variable. The subsequent Suzuki coupling optimization benefits immensely from a multi-factor DoE approach, as solvent composition and catalyst selection have interacting effects on the yield of the bis-coupled product.

Table 2: Comparative Yields in Triarylamine Dye P4 Synthesis [66]

Synthesis Step	Traditional Literature Yield	Optimized Protocol Yield	Key DoE/Optimization Factor
Bromination to 1	63-80% (req. chromatography)	96% (no chromatography)	Bromine concentration & addition time
Oxidation to 2	78% (10 eq. Ag₂O)	90% (4 eq. Ag₂O)	Reagent stoichiometry (Ag₂O, NaOH)
Suzuki to 3 & Knoevenagel to P4	~24% (overall from aldehyde)	74% (from precursor 2)	Solvent system & coupling conditions

Optimization Workflow Visualization

Diagram 2: DoE Optimization Workflow for Suzuki Coupling.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

This table details essential materials and their functional role in the DoE-optimized Suzuki-Miyaura syntheses described.

Table 3: Essential Reagents for DoE-Optimized Dye Precursor Synthesis

Reagent / Material	Function / Role	Key Reference/Case
XPhos Pd-G4 Precatalyst	Highly active, air-stable Pd source; suppresses protodeboronation of sensitive (thienyl)boronic acids.	Primary catalyst in phenothiazine case study [18].
4-(Bis(4-bromophenyl)amino)benzoic Acid	Universal triarylamine dye precursor; enables diverse Suzuki couplings for DSSC dye synthesis.	Core building block in triarylamine case study [66].
(5-Formylthiophen-2-yl)boronic Acid	Functionalized heteroaryl coupling partner; introduces aldehyde handle for further derivatization.	Key boronic acid in phenothiazine coupling [18].
PCA-Based Solvent Map	A statistical tool grouping solvents by properties; enables systematic exploration of "solvent space" in DoE.	Critical for rational solvent optimization [65].
Cs₂CO₃ / K₂CO₃	Common inorganic bases for Suzuki coupling; facilitate transmetalation. Choice impacts yield and side reactions.	Optimized base in model studies [18].
1,4-Dioxane/Water Mixtures	Common solvent system for Suzuki couplings; optimal ratio is substrate-specific and requires tuning.	Optimized solvent for thienyl coupling [18].
Automated Microfluidic Platform	Enables high-throughput experimentation (HTE) with real-time feedback for rapid DoE exploration.	Platform for accelerated optimization [7].

The Suzuki-Miyaura (SM) cross-coupling reaction stands as a cornerstone transformation in modern organic synthesis, enabling the efficient construction of carbon-carbon bonds. Its success largely hinges on the organoboron reagent, which serves as the nucleophilic coupling partner. While boronic acids have been widely popular, issues of stability have led to the development of protected variants, notably boronic esters and lithium triisopropyl borates (LTBs). The selection of the optimal boron reagent is not merely a choice of convenience but a critical strategic decision that influences reaction yield, functional group tolerance, and substrate scope. This application note provides a comparative analysis of these three major classes of boron reagents—boronic acids, esters, and lithium boronates—framed within the context of a Design of Experiments (DoE) protocol to guide researchers in making informed decisions for their SM coupling applications, particularly in drug development.

Properties and Stability Profiles

The fundamental differences between these boron reagents translate directly to their handling, stability, and reactivity.

Boronic Acids (R-B(OH)₂) are often the default choice due to their commercial availability and high atom economy [16]. However, they are particularly prone to protodeboronation—a decomposition pathway where the boron group is replaced by a hydrogen atom [17] [2]. This instability is acutely pronounced for five-membered heterocyclic boronic acids (e.g., 2-furanyl, 2-thienyl) and polyfluorophenyl boronic acids, which can rapidly degrade under standard reaction conditions or even during storage [17] [20]. The stability of boronic acids is also highly dependent on their substitution pattern; electron-withdrawing groups on an aromatic boronic acid decrease its pKa, while electron-donating groups increase it [69].

Boronic Esters (e.g., R-Bpin) are generated from boronic acids by condensation with diols such as pinacol, catechol, or neopentyl glycol [2]. The esterification significantly enhances stability by protecting the boron center, thereby mitigating protodeboronation and simplifying handling and purification [16] [2]. A key consideration is that esters typically require in-situ hydrolysis back to the boronic acid before transmetalation can occur, adding a necessary activation step to the catalytic cycle [2]. Among coordinating esters, MIDA boronates are notably stable and are valuable in iterative cross-coupling strategies because they can survive chromatography and are inert under conditions that activate boronic acids [16] [2].

Lithium Triisopropyl Borates (R-B(OiPr)₃Li) offer a unique balance of stability and reactivity. These salts are intermediates in the synthesis of other masked boronates and are remarkably stable to protodeboronation [17] [20]. They can be stored on the benchtop at room temperature under air for months without significant degradation, a stark contrast to the labile heteroaryl boronic acids they are designed to replace [17]. Their reactivity is unlocked upon hydrolysis in the aqueous reaction medium, which generates the active boronic acid and releases a basic alkoxide, creating the conditions necessary for transmetalation [17].

Table 1: Comparative Properties of Boronate Reagents

Property	Boronic Acids	Boronic Esters (e.g., Bpin)	Lithium Triisopropyl Borates (LTBs)
General Stability	Low to moderate; prone to protodeboronation [17] [2]	High [2]	Very high; stable for months on benchtop [17]
Handling & Storage	Often require refrigeration; sensitive to air/moisture [17]	Bench-stable; easier to purify (e.g., chromatography) [2]	Bench-stable for months; do not require special conditions [17]
Atom Economy	High [16]	Moderate	Low (bulky isopropyl groups)
Typical Preparation	Grignard/lithiation + borate ester; Miyaura borylation [69] [70]	Esterification of boronic acids; Miyaura borylation [2] [70]	Lithiation + triisopropyl borate (one-pot) [17] [20]
Activation for SM Coupling	Direct	Requires hydrolysis to boronic acid [2]	Requires hydrolysis to boronic acid [17]

Reactivity and Applicability in SM Coupling

The distinct chemical properties of each reagent class dictate their performance in the catalytic cycle.

Boronic Acids are highly reactive and, under optimized conditions, can couple with a wide range of (pseudo)halides. However, their inherent instability can be a major limitation. For instance, 2-heteroaryl boronic acids (crucial building blocks in medicinal chemistry) often decompose under the basic conditions of the SM reaction before coupling can occur, leading to low yields [20]. This has necessitated the development of specialized catalysts and conditions to accommodate their fast decomposition kinetics [17] [20].

Boronic Esters offer a robust solution for stable storage and handling of sensitive organoboron species. Their reactivity is highly dependent on the hydrolysis kinetics of the ester. Pinacol boronic esters (Bpin) are widely used, while MIDA boronates are significantly less reactive, requiring stronger basic conditions for activation [16]. On Mayr's nucleophilicity scale, sp² pinacol boronic esters are marginally less nucleophilic than the parent non-borylated heterocycle [16]. This controlled reactivity is a double-edged sword: it allows for chemoselective transformations but can also lead to slower reaction rates unless conditions are carefully tuned.

Lithium Triisopropyl Borates (LTBs) excel in coupling reactions involving highly unstable boronic acid equivalents. They have been successfully employed for a broad scope of heterocycles (e.g., pyridyl, furanyl, thienyl) that are challenging with the corresponding boronic acids [17] [20]. The hydrolysis of the LTB in the reaction mixture releases isopropoxide, which generates the basic environment necessary for transmetalation. This self-buffering system allows for coupling under relatively mild conditions (e.g., 40 °C), which is beneficial for base-sensitive substrates [17]. LTBs have been shown to effectively couple with a wide range of electrophiles, including aryl bromides, chlorides, and triflates [17].

Table 2: Performance in Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling

Criterion	Boronic Acids	Boronic Esters	Lithium Triisopropyl Borates
Functional Group Tolerance	Broad, but can be degraded by strong bases	Broad	Excellent for base-sensitive groups (esters, nitro groups, oxazoles) [17]
Typical Catalyst Systems	Wide variety (e.g., Pd(PPh₃)₄, Pd/dppf, Buchwald ligands)	Wide variety	Often benefits from biarylphosphine-based catalysts (e.g., XPhos Precat. 13) [17] or phosphite/phosphine oxide ligands for challenging cases [20]
Heteroaryl Coupling Performance	Poor for sensitive 2-heteroaryls (e.g., 2-pyridyl) due to protodeboronation [20]	Good, but depends on hydrolysis rate	Excellent; method of choice for sensitive 2-heteroaryls [17] [20]
One-Pot Sequences	Possible	Possible (e.g., borylation/coupling)	Highly suitable for one-pot lithiation/borylation/coupling [17]

Experimental Protocols

Representative Procedure: Coupling of 4-Methoxyphenylboronic Acid with 4-Bromotoluene.

• Reaction Setup: In an oven-dried Schlenk tube equipped with a stir bar, charge 4-bromotoluene (1.0 mmol, 1.0 equiv), 4-methoxyphenylboronic acid (1.5 mmol, 1.5 equiv), and potassium carbonate (2.0 mmol, 2.0 equiv).
• Catalyst Addition: Add the catalyst (e.g., Pd(PPh₃)₄, 3 mol%) to the tube. Seal the tube with a septum and evacuate and backfill the system with an inert gas (e.g., nitrogen or argon) three times.
• Solvent Addition: Under a positive pressure of inert gas, add a degassed mixture of toluene/water (4:1 v/v, 0.2 M concentration relative to the halide).
• Reaction Execution: Heat the reaction mixture to 90 °C with vigorous stirring for 12-16 hours.
• Work-up: Allow the mixture to cool to room temperature. Dilute with ethyl acetate and water. Separate the organic layer and wash the aqueous layer with ethyl acetate (2x). Combine the organic extracts, dry over anhydrous magnesium sulfate, filter, and concentrate under reduced pressure.
• Purification: Purify the crude residue by flash column chromatography on silica gel to obtain the desired biaryl product.

Representative Procedure: One-Pot Lithiation, Borylation, and Coupling of a Heteroaromatic Halide.

• Lithiation and Borylation: In an oven-dried flask under an inert atmosphere, cool a solution of the heteroaromatic halide (e.g., 2-bromothiophene, 1.0 mmol) in dry THF (0.5 M) to -78 °C. Add n-butyllithium (1.1 mmol, 1.1 equiv) dropwise and stir for 30 minutes at -78 °C. Add triisopropyl borate (1.2 mmol, 1.2 equiv) dropwise, then gradually warm the solution to room temperature and stir for 1 hour.
• Direct Use in Coupling: Without isolating the LTB, re-cool the crude reaction mixture to -78 °C. Add aqueous potassium phosphate (0.5 M, 2.0 mL/mmol of initial halide), the aryl halide electrophile (e.g., 4-bromoacetophenone, 1.0 mmol), and the XPhos Pd precatalyst (13, 3 mol%).
• Reaction Execution: Warm the reaction to 40 °C and stir for 2 hours.
• Work-up and Purification: Quench the reaction with water and extract with ethyl acetate (3x). Combine the organic layers, dry over anhydrous sodium sulfate, filter, and concentrate. Purify the crude product by flash chromatography.

A Design of Experiments (DoE) Framework for Reagent Selection

A systematic DoE approach is superior to the traditional "change one separate factor at a time" (COST) method, as it efficiently explores the multi-variable landscape of SM coupling and reveals critical interactions between factors like the boron reagent, catalyst, and base [71] [72].

DoE-Based Decision Pathway for Boron Reagent Selection

The workflow begins by defining the synthesis objective. An initial screening DoE helps identify the most influential factors. A critical parallel assessment is the stability of the target boronic acid; if literature or preliminary data indicate high lability (e.g., for a 2-heteroaryl system), the pathway immediately directs the researcher towards a protected form (Path B). Otherwise, the simpler boronic acid can be pursued (Path A). The chosen reagent is then input into a more comprehensive optimization DoE (e.g., a Central Composite Design) that simultaneously varies key continuous factors to find the global optimum. A final verification run confirms the predicted performance [71] [72].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling

Reagent / Material	Function / Role	Examples & Notes
Palladium Precatalysts	Source of active Pd(0); ligand determines reactivity & stability.	XPhos Pd G3: For demanding couplings of heteroaryl LTBs [17].Pd(PPh₃)₄: General-purpose catalyst for stable substrates.Pd(dppf)Cl₂: Useful for electron-rich/sterically hindered partners.
Phosphine/Ligand Systems	Stabilize Pd; control selectivity & rate of catalytic steps.	XPhos, SPhos: Bulky biarylphosphines for challenging couplings [17].DPPF: Bidentate ligand for stabilization.N-Heterocyclic Carbenes (NHCs): As in PEPPSI-type catalysts [2].
Bases	Activates boronate via hydrolysis and generates "ate" complex for transmetalation.	K₃PO₄, K₂CO₃: Common, moderate strength [17] [2].Cs₂CO₃: More soluble, often higher yielding.KF, KOAc: Used in specific contexts like Miyaura borylation [70].
Solvent Systems	Medium for the reaction; often biphasic for solubility.	Toluene/H₂O, Dioxane/H₂O, THF/H₂O: Common for boronic acids/LTBs [17] [2].EtOH/H₂O: Often preferred for heterogeneous single-atom catalysts [73].
Specialized Boron Reagents	Provide stability or enable specific synthetic sequences.	B₂pin₂: For Miyaura borylation to make esters [70].Triisopropyl Borate: For in-situ LTB formation [17] [20].MIDA Boronates: For iterative cross-coupling and chromatography [16] [2].

The strategic selection of the boron partner is paramount for successful Suzuki-Miyaura coupling. Boronic acids, while convenient, are often unsuitable for sensitive substrates. Boronic esters provide a robust and stable alternative, and lithium triisopropyl borates offer a superior solution for the most challenging heteroaryl couplings, combining exceptional bench stability with high reactivity under mild conditions. Integrating this reagent selection into a structured Design of Experiments protocol allows researchers to efficiently navigate the complex variable space of the reaction, moving beyond one-factor-at-a-time optimization to rapidly develop robust, high-yielding, and scalable coupling processes for drug discovery and development.

Conclusion

The strategic application of a Design of Experiments protocol transforms the optimization of Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling from an empirical art into a systematic, data-driven science. By integrating foundational mechanistic understanding with a structured methodological approach to screen and optimize variables, researchers can reliably overcome persistent challenges such as substrate protodeborylation and low reactivity. The validated success of highly active catalytic systems like XPhos Pd-G4 for demanding substrates, combined with insights from automated feedback optimization, provides a powerful toolkit for accelerating synthetic campaigns. Adopting this comprehensive DoE framework will undoubtedly enhance efficiency and success rates in constructing complex biaryl and heterobiaryl architectures, thereby directly impacting the pace of innovation in drug discovery and materials science. Future directions will involve the deeper integration of machine learning with DoE and the expansion of these principles to continuous flow manufacturing for pharmaceutical production.

References

• 1. Suzuki reaction [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_reaction]
• 2. Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling: Practical Guide [https://www.yonedalabs.com/post/suzuki-miyaura-cross-coupling-practical-guide/]
• 3. Data-Led Suzuki - Miyaura Reaction Optimization : Development of... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11823413/]
• 4. Comparison of two new graphene-based magnetic and non-magnetic... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11144-022-02217-7]
• 5. Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling [https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/Supplemental_Modules_and_Websites_(Inorganic_Chemistry)/Catalysis/Catalyst_Examples/Suzuki-Miyaura_Coupling]
• 6. Insights into biphasic Suzuki-Miyaura cross-coupling [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667109323002191]
• 7. – Suzuki cross- Miyaura enabled by automated... coupling optimization [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2016/re/c6re00153j]
• 8. How to develop a sustainable palladium-catalyzed cross- ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/catalysis/articles/10.3389/fctls.2025.1635370/full]
• 9. ​​Data-Driven Reagent Selection for Empirical Reaction ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/68ee3cc2dfd0d042d171671a]
• 10. Mastering palladium-catalyzed cross-coupling reactions [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/qo/d4qo02335h]
• 11. Suzuki–Miyaura (hetero-)aryl cross-coupling [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/cs/d4cs01108b]
• 12. Advantages and Challenges of Cross-Coupling Reactions ... [https://www.chemical.ai/blog/advantages-and-challenges-of-cross-coupling-reactions-and-recent-progress-in-suzukimiyaura-reactions]
• 13. Suzuki-Miyaura Cross-Coupling of Unprotected, Nitrogen ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3807799/]
• 14. Atomically dispersed palladium catalyses Suzuki–Miyaura ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-020-0289-y]
• 15. One-pot Base-free Suzuki-Miyaura [11C]Methylation [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41317024/]
• 16. Selection of boron reagents for Suzuki–Miyaura coupling [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2014/cs/c3cs60197h]
• 17. A General Method for Suzuki-Miyaura Coupling Reactions ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3684691/]
• 18. Strategies for successful Suzuki-Miyaura cross-couplings ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014372082200821X]
• 19. Palladium-Catalyzed, Direct Boronic Acid Synthesis from ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3075417/]
• 20. A General and Efficient Method for the Suzuki-Miyaura ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2748766/]
• 21. A Protocol for Direct Stereospecific Amination of Primary, ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6322687/]
• 22. Suzuki Coupling [https://www.organic-chemistry.org/namedreactions/suzuki-coupling.shtm]
• 23. Lewis acid-mediated Suzuki–Miyaura cross-coupling ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41929-021-00719-6]
• 24. The Suzuki-Miyaura Cross-Coupling Reaction of ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27997179/]
• 25. A greener benchmark for Suzuki-Miyaura coupling reaction ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022286024026693]
• 26. Sonication-Enhanced Suzuki–Miyaura Cross-Coupling for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12268437/]
• 27. UiO-66-NH 2 metal–organic framework supported palladium ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/na/d5na00087d]
• 28. Highly parallel optimisation of chemical reactions through ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12255721/]
• 29. Exploring Carbon-based Materials as a tailored platform for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010854524006696]
• 30. Catalyzed Heteroaryl–Heteroaryl Suzuki–Miyaura Coupling [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12105700/]
• 31. A Design of Experiments (DoE) Approach Accelerates the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47846-6]
• 32. Suzuki–Miyaura cross-coupling optimization enabled by automated feedback - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5123644/]
• 33. Greener media for nano catalysts in Suzuki Miyaura reaction [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010854525000013]
• 34. Recent Advances in Borylation and Suzuki-Type Cross- ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4344/15/8/738]
• 35. Electronic Effects in a Green Protocol for (Hetero)Aryl-S ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11051792/]
• 36. Application of statistical design of experiment to identify key ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27005-w]
• 37. Suzuki–Miyaura cross-coupling optimization enabled by ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2016/re/c6re00153j]
• 38. [IPr#–PEPPSI]: A Well-Defined, Highly Hindered and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10421006/]
• 39. a general Pd–NHC precatalyst for Buchwald–Hartwig cross ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/cc/c7cc06186b]
• 40. Rapidly Activating Pd-Precatalyst for Suzuki–Miyaura and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5786428/]
• 41. Highly Reactive, Single-Component Nickel Catalyst ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3613336/]
• 42. A General Protocol for the Polycondensation of Thienyl N- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5152940/]
• 43. Click Reactions and Boronic Acids: Applications, Issues, and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6257766/]
• 44. - Suzuki , Heck Alkenylation, and Amidation of... Miyaura Coupling [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35895086/]
• 45. Synthetic optimization using RuPhos PdG4 catalyst in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211715625008720]
• 46. Protodeboronation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protodeboronation]
• 47. In Situ Studies of Arylboronic Acids/Esters and R3SiCF3 ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9069690/]
• 48. Data-Led Suzuki - Miyaura Reaction Optimization : Development of... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39958394/]
• 49. Suzuki–Miyaura cross-coupling optimization enabled by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5123644/]
• 50. Acid-promoted metal-free protodeboronation of arylboronic ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2017/ra/c7ra05979e]
• 51. (PDF) Flow Process Development and Optimization ... - Academia.edu [https://www.academia.edu/82065004/Flow_Process_Development_and_Optimization_of_A_Suzuki_Miyaura_Cross_Coupling_Reaction_using_Response_Surface_Methodology]
• 52. Catalytic efficiency of Cu-MOFs: HKUST-1 and CuBDC for the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12377164/]
• 53. Modular arene functionalization by differential 1,2- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12404689/]
• 54. Enantioselective construction of inherently chiral pillar[5] ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57461-x]
• 55. Step-by-Step Guide for KitAlysis™ Suzuki-Miyaura Cross- ... [https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/protocol/chemistry-and-synthesis/reaction-design-and-optimization/kitalysis-suzuki-miyaura-set-up?srsltid=AfmBOoom9sgpXt_SsTCHoBw_klPNBcJpg1CQQZmLIBI6xfzjUxPLkTNa]
• 56. Reaction Optimization for Greener Chemistry with a ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9738638/]
• 57. (402e) Strategy to Avoid Catalyst Deactivation in ... [https://proceedings.aiche.org/conferences/aiche-annual-meeting/2014/proceeding/paper/402e-strategy-avoid-catalyst-deactivation-telescoped-miyaura-borylationsuzuki-cross-coupling-1]
• 58. Process-Ready Nickel-Catalyzed Suzuki–Miyaura ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12645473/]
• 59. Trace amounts of palladium catalysed the Suzuki–Miyaura ... [https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=D4OB00623B]
• 60. trans-Dichlorobis(XPhos)palladium(II) Precatalyst for Suzuki ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8756804/]
• 61. Differences in the Performance of Allyl Based Palladium ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7771882/]
• 62. Biaryl Phosphine Ligands in Palladium-Catalyzed Amination [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3517088/]
• 63. N-Heterocyclic Carbene Ligands [https://www.merckmillipore.com/AL/en/technical-documents/technical-article/chemistry-and-synthesis/cross-coupling/carbene-ligands]
• 64. Ligand-free Suzuki–Miyaura cross-coupling with low Pd ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/ob/d0ob02359k]
• 65. The application of design of experiments (DoE) reaction ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2016/ob/c5ob01892g]
• 66. Efficient synthesis of triarylamine-based dyes for p-type ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26263]
• 67. Synthesis of triarylamine dyes containing secondary ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379677911000075]
• 68. Synthesis and Biological Investigation of Phenothiazine ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6519732/]
• 69. Boronic Acids and Their Derivatives in Medicinal Chemistry [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7571202/]
• 70. Miyaura Borylation Reaction [https://www.organic-chemistry.org/namedreactions/miyaura-borylation-reaction.shtm]
• 71. What is DOE? Design of Experiments Basics for Beginners [https://www.sartorius.com/en/knowledge/science-snippets/what-is-doe-design-of-experiments-basics-for-beginners-507170]
• 72. What Is Design of Experiments (DOE)? [https://asq.org/quality-resources/design-of-experiments?srsltid=AfmBOorK4LvBAYnlH81El5f4M_vP1bXTupNAptdJ5OIy-Zn_3782DEl9]
• 73. Understanding and Controlling Reactivity Patterns of Pd1 ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11334102/]