We then conducted several experiments to probe the involvement of radicals in the difunctional sulfenylamination process. Firstly, we attempted the transformation of
1a with
2a in the presence of TEMPO as a radical trapping reagent (
Scheme 5b, in red). The detection of the trapped products
11 and
11′ by high-resolution mass spectrometry analysis confirmed the formation of thiyl radicals and their viability to undergo addition to olefins. Interestingly, the desired product
3a was not obtained, indicating that the presence of alkenes leads to a different interaction pattern between the photosensitizer and
1a, compared to the formation of
4. We further added 2.0 equiv. of BHT, a radical scavenger, to the reaction. While
1a was nearly consumed, only a small amount of product
4 was detected, and the yield of
3a was significantly reduced to 24% (
Scheme 5b). This indicates that the difunctional sulfenylamination process involves radical intermediates. To explore the source of radicals, we examined the transformation using various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as energy scavengers for the photoactivated sensitizers (
Scheme 5c). Interestingly, it was found that naphthalene, which has a higher triplet energy than DTPZ, did not affect the transformation (entry 1), while 9,10-diphenylanthracene, with an energy similar to that of
1a, completely suppressed the generation of
3a while
1a was consumed (entry 4). We also investigated the transformation using other photosensitizers, and the results are summarized in
Scheme 5d. Notably, two Ir complexes with poor oxidizing ability but sufficient triplet energy could yield product
3a (entries 1 and 2). In contrast, Eosin Y, with a lower
ET of 43.6 kcal/mol, failed to generate
3a (entry 4). These findings suggest that the reaction relies on the photoexcitation of the sensitizers to generate radicals. In a crossover experiment with two different benzenesulfenamides (
1d and
1b) under the reaction conditions, after 30 h, two cross-coupling products (
1e and
1f) were obtained (
Scheme 5e). Additionally, a radical clock experiment was performed using molecule
12, which contains an alkene and a cyclopropane ring. As shown in
Scheme 5f, a difunctionalized product (
13) with the opened cyclopropane ring was obtained in 51% yield, suggesting the formation of both
N- and
S-radicals in the reaction system. It is worth mentioning that the different chemoselectivity between
12 and (1-cyclopropylvinyl)benzene (
3zh,
Scheme 2) probably originates from the considerable instability of the primary carbon radical produced from the latter. It thus readily undergoes intramolecular addition to yield the more stable benzylic radical, which just possesses a similar reactivity to the benzylic radical generated from
12. In addition, a light on/off experiment was performed, which showed that a radical chain process might be impracticable. Based on these results, a plausible mechanism involving homolysis of the N-S bond through EnT has been proposed (
Scheme 5g). In addition to EnT-enabled homolysis, a sequential process of radical addition and radical coupling is responsible for the final formation of the sulfenylamination products. The excellent chemoselectivity observed in this reaction can be attributed to the kinetic preference of the radicals generated
via EnT for addition to alkenes and/or cross-coupling, compared to the radical cations generated
via SET that may undergo rearrangements. The efficiency of EnT between the photosensitizer and benzenesulfenamides is crucial for the overall reactivity of the system. These mechanistic insights provide a deeper understanding of the radical-involved difunctional sulfenylamination process and contribute to the development of this efficient and chemoselective synthetic methodology.