Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aggregation Tendency and Reactivity Toward Agx of Cationic Half-Sandwich Ruthenium Complexes Bearing Neutral N, O-Ligands
Aggregation Tendency and Reactivity Toward Agx of Cationic Half-Sandwich Ruthenium Complexes Bearing Neutral N, O-Ligands
Aggregation Tendency and Reactivity Toward Agx of Cationic Half-Sandwich Ruthenium Complexes Bearing Neutral N, O-Ligands
DOI: 10.1039/b514269e
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006 Dalton Trans., 2006, 1963–1971 | 1963
View Article Online
Table 1 Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (◦ ) of complexes 1PF6 and In the solid state, the Ru–O bond lengths found for 1PF6
1BPh4 with estimated standard deviation in parentheses (2.098 Å) and 1BPh4 (2.091 Å) were similar to those re-
ported for cis-RuCl2 (dppb)(2-bzpy) [2.035 Å, dppb = 1,4-bis-
1PF6 1BPh4
(diphenylphosphino)butane]12 and [Ru(2,2 -bipy)2 (2-bzpy)](PF6 )2
Ru–N 2.093(3) 2.102(2) (2.058 Å, 2,2 -bipy = 2,2 -bipyridine)13 but were significantly
Ru–O 2.098(3) 2.091(2) shorter than that of trans-[Ru(PMe3 )2 (CO)(COMe)(2-bzpy)]BPh4
Ru–Cl 2.3890(9) 2.3755(10) (2.226 Å).14
Ru–Cya 1.671(5) 1.661(4)
Published on 18 January 2006. Downloaded by San Diego State University on 3/25/2019 9:23:51 PM.
O–Ru–N 75.77(12) 75.66(9) Aggregation and relative anion–cation orientations through PGSE
Cl–Ru–N 84.60(8) 86.11(7) and NOE NMR experiments
Cl–Ru–O 84.56(6) 82.88(7)
a
PGSE measurements were performed for all complexes in CD2 Cl2
C13–C18 centroid.
at 296 K as a function of the concentration (Table 2). In the
case of complex 1PF6 , the effect of changing the solvent was
also investigated (Table 2). From the measured self-diffusion
coefficients (Dt ), the average hydrodynamic radius (rH ) and volume
(V H ) of the diffusing particles were derived taking advantage of
the Stokes–Einstein eqn (1), where k is the Boltzmann constant,
T is the temperature, c is a numerical factor and g is the solution
viscosity.
kT
Dt = (1)
cpgrH
TMSS [tetrakis(trimethylsilyl)silane], whose dimensions are
known from the literature, was used as internal standard.15
Scheme 1
The methodology to obtain accurate rH and V H values has
in Scheme 1. All the proton and carbon resonances were assigned been described elsewhere.10 The average hydrodynamic volumes
(see Experimental) through 1 H, 13 C, 1 H-COSY, 1 H-NOESY, 1 H, for cation (V H + ) and anion (V H − ), determined from 1 H- and
13
C-HMQC NMR, and 1 H, 13 C HMBC NMR spectroscopies. The
solid-state structures for 1PF6 and 1BPh4 were determined by X- Table 2 Diffusion coefficients (1010 Dt /m2 s−1 ), hydrodynamic radii
ray single-crystal diffractometry. An ORTEP view of cation 1 is (rH /Å) and aggregation number (N) for compounds 1 and 2 as a function
shown in Fig. 1. Relevant bond lengths and angles are given in of solvent (er at 25 ◦ C) and concentration (C/mM)
Table 1.
Dt + Dt − rH + rH − N+ N− C
1964 | Dalton Trans., 2006, 1963–1971 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006
View Article Online
19
F-PGSE experiments, respectively, were contrasted with the van Table 3 Relative NOE intensities in CD2 Cl2 determined by arbitrarily
der Waals volume of the ion-pair (V IP ) known from single-crystal fixing the intensity of the NOE(s) between the anion resonances (o-H in
the case of BPh4 − ) and the aromatic proton 8 of pyridyl at 1. Quantification
X-ray investigations or derived from them. The cationic and was carried out by taking into account that the volumes of the NOE cross
anionic aggregation numbers (N + and N − ) were calculated as the peaks are proportional to (nI nS /nI + nS ) where nI and nS are the number
ratios V H + /V IP and V H − /V IP , respectively (Table 2). of equivalent I and S nuclei, respectively17
Complex 1PF6 was mainly present as ion-pair in CD2 Cl2 at the
1PF6 1PF6 1PF6 1PF6 1PF6 a 1BPh4
lowest concentration considered (5 mM). In fact, N + and N − were
both equal to 1 (entry 1) within the experimental error that was 5 mM 15 mM 41 mM 70 mM 6 mM 34 mM
Published on 18 January 2006. Downloaded by San Diego State University on 3/25/2019 9:23:51 PM.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006 Dalton Trans., 2006, 1963–1971 | 1965
View Article Online
1966 | Dalton Trans., 2006, 1963–1971 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006
Published on 18 January 2006. Downloaded by San Diego State University on 3/25/2019 9:23:51 PM. View Article Online
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006 Dalton Trans., 2006, 1963–1971 | 1967
View Article Online
of Ir(I).26,27 To the best of our knowledge, this is the first example 49.5, Cipso ), 155.7 (s, 8), 150.3 (s, 12), 140.7 (s, 17), 136.4 (s, 10 and
of both processes occurring in the same reaction.28 o), 133.7 (s, 11), 133.4 (s, 14), 132.5 (s, 9), 130.6 (s, 15), 130.0 (s,
16), 126.1 (s, m), 122.3 (s, p), 105.4 (s, 3), 100.2 (s, 6), 85.0 (s, 4 ),
84.5 (s, 5), 83.5 (s, 4), 82.3 (s, 5 ), 31.8 (s, 2), 22.4 (s, 1 or 1 ), 22.3
Conclusions
(s, 1 or 1 ), 19.0 (s, 7). Anal. Calc. for C45 H40 BClNORu: C, 71.29;
PGSE NMR investigations indicate that arene ruthenium com- H, 5.32; N, 1.85. Found: C, 71.45; H, 5.42; N, 1.78%.
plexes 1–2 aggregate in solution affording ion quadruples at the
highest concentration levels even though they do not possess Complex 1PF6 . Complex 1PF6 was obtained with the same
Published on 18 January 2006. Downloaded by San Diego State University on 3/25/2019 9:23:51 PM.
peripheral functionalities particularly suited to hydrogen bonding. procedure as 1BPh4 using NH4 PF6 (208 mg, 1.28 mmol) instead
Combining the results coming from the investigations in solution of NaBPh4 . Yield: 76%. 1 H NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d 9.51 (dd,
(NOE NMR) and in the solid state (X-Ray) it is deduced that
3
J 8,9 = 4.8, 4 J 8,10 = 0.7, 8), 8.36 (dd, 3 J 11,10 = 7.2, 4 J 11,9 = 0.8, 11),
the structure of the quadruples depends on the nature of the 8.28 (ddd, 3 J 10,11 = 3 J 10,9 = 7.7, 4 J 10,8 = 1.3, 10), 8.03 (ddd, 3 J 9,10 =
counterion. While −+−+ quadruples were observed for BPh4 − , 7.8, 3 J 9,8 = 5.4, 4 J 9,11 = 1.5, 9), 7.90 (dd, 3 J 15,16 = 7.2, 4 J 15,17 = 1.3,
in the case of PF6 − counterion −++− quadruples were more 15), 7.85 (t, 3 J 17,16 = 7.5, 17), 7.69 (dd, 3 J 16,15 = 3 J 16,17 = 8.1, 16),
probable. These deductions are in perfect agreement with our 6.06 (d, 3 J 4 ,5 = 5.6, 4 ), 6.04 (d, 3 J 4,5 = 5.6, 4), 5.89 (d, 3 J = 5.6,
previous findings for arene ruthenium diimine9 and diamine 5 or 5 ), 5.87 (d, 3 J = 5.6, 5 or 5 ), 2.97 (sept, 3 J 2,1(1 ) = 6.9, 2),
complexes.10 These different types of ion quadruples undergo 2.37 (s, 7), 1.37 (d, 3 J 1,2 = 6.9, 1), 1.34 (d, 3 J 1 ,2 = 6.9, 1 ). 13 C{1 H}
different equilibria as the concentration is decreased. −+−+ NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d 205.1 (s, 13), 156.5 (s, 8), 150.6 (s, 12),
dissociates into two −+ ion pairs, while −++− initially dissociates 140.6 (s, 17), 136.2 (s, 10), 133.8 (s, 11), 133.6 (s, 14), 132.5 (s, 9),
into a free anion − and a ++− ion triple. A further decrease in 130.8 (s, 15), 129.9 (s, 16), 105.4 (s, 3), 100.5 (s, 6), 85.5 (s, 4 ), 84.6
concentration leads to two ion pairs. In the solid-state structure (s, 5), 83.7 (s, 4), 82.6 (s, 5 ), 31.8 (s, 2), 22.4 (s, 1 or 1 ), 22.3 (s, 1
of 1PF6 two cationic units of opposite chirality are held together or 1 ), 18.9 (s, 7). 19 F NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d −71.6 (d, 1 J FP =
by a p–p stacking interaction between two pyridyl rings; this also 711.0). 31 P{1 H} NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d −141.0 (sept, 1 J PF =
seems to be responsible for the formation of ion quadruples and 711.0). Anal. Calc. for C22 H23 ClF6 NOPRu: C, 44.12; H, 3.87; N,
ion triples in solution for complexes with PF6 − as counterion. 2.34. Found: C, 44.25; H, 3.95; N, 2.28%.
1968 | Dalton Trans., 2006, 1963–1971 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006
View Article Online
Complex 3. AgBF4 (176 mg, 0.90 mmol) and CH3 CN (ddd, 3 J 4,5 = 3 J 4,3 = 7.8, 4 J 4,6 = 1.4, 4), 8.17 (ddd, 3 J 5,4 = 7.8, 3 J 5,6 =
(0.060 mL, 1.1 mmol) were added to a solution of complex 1BPh4 5.4, 4 J 5,3 = 1.4, 5), 3.15 (s, 8), 2.76 (s, 12), 2.71 (s, 14), 2.37 (s, 10).
13
(264 mg, 0.34 mmol) in CH2 Cl2 (15 mL) at room temperature. The C{1 H} NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d 217.0 (s, 7), 155.8 (s, 6), 154.3
resulting suspension was stirred for 16 h. The formed AgCl and (s, 2), 139.5 (s, 4), 132.5 (s, 5), 131.8 (s, 3), 130.12 (s, 11), 126.9
AgBPh4 were filtered off. n-Hexane was added to the remaining (s, 13), 125.6 (s, 9), 26.4 (s, 8), 4.8 (s, 12), 4.5 (s, 14), 4.2 (s, 10).
solution and a red–brown precipitate was obtained; it was filtered 19
F NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d −152.32 (br, 10 BF4 ), −152.37 (br,
11
off, washed with n-hexane, and dried under vacuum. Yield: 65%. BF4 ). Anal. Calc. for C17 H23 B2 F8 N6 ORu: C, 33.91; H, 3.85; N,
1
H NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d 9.58 (dd, 3 J 8,9 = 4.8, 4 J 8,10 = 1.4, 8), 13.96. Found: C, 34.02; H, 3.95; N, 13.84%.
Published on 18 January 2006. Downloaded by San Diego State University on 3/25/2019 9:23:51 PM.
8.52 (dd, 3 J 11,10 = 7.2, 4 J 11,9 = 1.4, 11), 8.41 (ddd, 3 J 10,11 = 3 J 10,9 =
Complex 7. AgBF4 (50 mg, 0.23 mmol) was added to a solution
7.2, 4 J 10,8 = 1.4, 10), 8.14 (ddd, 3 J 9,10 = 7.2, 3 J 9,8 = 4.8, 4 J 9,11 = 1.4,
of complex 1PF6 (119 mg, 0.19 mmol) in acetone (15 mL) at room
9), 8.04 (dd, 3 J 15,16 = 7.3, 4 J 15,17 = 1.3, 15), 7.89 (td, 3 J 17,16 = 7.5,
temperature. The suspension was stirred for 16 h. The formed AgCl
4
J 17,15 = 1.3, 17), 7.71 (dd, 3 J 16,15 = 7.3, 3 J 16,17 = 7.6, 16), 6.34 (d,
was filtered off. n-Hexane was added to the remaining solution
3
J 4,5 = 5.6, 4), 6.26 (d, 3 J 4 ,5 = 5.6, 4 ), 6.15 (d, 3 J 5 ,4 = 5.6, 5 ), 6.14
and complex 7 was obtained as a brown–green precipitate; it was
(d, 3 J 5,4 = 5.6, 5), 2.98 (sept, 3 J 2,1(1 ) = 6.9, 2), 2.37 (s, 7), 2.34 (s,
filtered off, washed with n-hexane, and dried under vacuum. Yield:
19), 1.39 (d, 3 J 1,2 = 6.9, 1), 1.36 (d, 3 J 1 ,2 = 6.9, 1 ). 13 C{1 H} NMR
65%. 1 H NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d 9.40 (d, 3 J 8,9 = 5.6, 8), 7.72 (ddd,
(CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d 207.4 (s, 13), 157.4 (s, 8), 150.9 (s, 12), 141.9 (s, 3
J 10,11 = 3 J 10,9 = 7.8, 4 J 10,8 = 1.4, 10), 7.50 (ddd, 3 J 9,10 = 7.8, 3 J 9,8 =
10), 136.9 (s, 17), 135.5 (s, 11), 133.7 (s, 9), 133.2 (s, 14), 131.8 (s,
5.6, 4 J 9,11 = 1.3, 9), 7.39 (m, aromatic proton 15, 16, 17), 6.78 (d,
15), 129.9 (s, 16), 129.5 (s, 18), 108.2 (s, 6), 103.6 (s, 3), 87.0 (s, 4 ), 3
J 11,10 = 7.8, 11), 5.89 (d, 3 J 4,5 = 5.8, 4), 5.77 (s, 4 and 5 ), 5.47
86.7 (s, 4), 85.3 (s, 5 ), 85.0 (s, 5), 31.7 (s, 2), 22.5 (s, 1), 22.3 (s, 1 ),
(d, 3 J 5,4 = 5.8, 5), 3.49 (d, 2 J 18B,18A = 19.6, 18B), 3.37 (d, 2 J 18A,18B =
18.4 (s, 7), 4.3 (s, 19). 19 F NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d −152.32 (br,
19.6, 18A), 2.87 (sept, 3 J 2,1(1 ) = 6.9, 2), 2.29 (s, 7), 2.27 (s, 20), 1.37
10
BF4 ), −152.37 (br, 11 BF4 ). Anal. Calc. for C24 H26 B2 F8 N2 ORu: C,
(d, 3 J 1,2 = 6.9, 1), 1.28 (d, 3 J 1 ,2 = 6.9, 1 ). 13 C{1 H} NMR (CD2 Cl2 ,
45.53; H, 4.14; N, 4.42. Found: C, 45.64; H, 4.20; N, 4.32%.
298 K): d 221.6 (s, 19), 170.5 (s, 12), 152.5 (s, 8), 145.6 (s, 14), 140.4
Complex 4. Complex 4 was obtained with the same procedure (s, 10), 129.1, 128.8, 126.3 (s, aromatic carbon 15, 16, 17), 125.5 (s,
as complex 3. Yield: 62%. 1 H NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d 9.55 (dd, 9), 123.27 (s, 11), 99.0 (s, 3), 97.8 (s, 6), 85.3 (s, 4), 83.8 (s, 5 and
3
J 8,9 = 4.9, 4 J 8,10 = 1.4, 8), 8.47 (dd, 3 J 11,10 = 7.6, 4 J 11,9 = 1.4, 11), 13), 83.0 (s, 4 ), 79.8 (s, 5), 49.8 (s, 18), 33.1 (s, 20), 31.3 (s, 2), 22.7
8.39 (ddd, 3 J 10,11 = 3 J 10,9 = 7.6, 4 J 10,8 = 1.4, 10), 8.11 (ddd, 3 J 9,10 = (s, 1), 22.4 (s, 1 ), 18.1 (s, 7). 19 F NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d −72.1
7.6, 3 J 9,8 = 4.9, 4 J 9,11 = 1.4, 9), 6.28 (m, 4 and 4 ), 6.09 (m, 5 and (d, 1 J FP = 711). 31 P{1 H} NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d −143.2 (sept,
5 ), 3.11 (s, 14), 3.00 (sept, 3 J 2,1(1 ) = 6.9, 2), 2.38 (s, 16), 2.31 (s, 7), 1
J PF = 711). Anal. Calc. for C25 H28 F6 NO2 PRu: C, 48.39; H, 4.55;
1.43 (m, 1 and 1 ). 13 C{1 H} NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d 216.0 (s, 13), N, 2.26. Found: C, 48.50; H, 4.63; N, 2.20%.
156.3 (s, 8), 152.0 (s, 12), 142.0 (s, 10), 133.6 (s, 9), 132.3 (s, 11),
128.6 (s, 15), 108.1 (s, 3), 104.5 (s, 6), 89.3 (s, 4 or 4), 87.4 (s, 4 or NOE measurements
4), 84.5 (s, 5 or 5), 83.7 (s, 5 or 5), 31.8 (s, 2), 26.6 (s, 14), 22.7 (s,
1 or 1 ), 22.2 (s, 1 or 1 ), 18.4 (s, 7), 4.3 (s, 16). 19 F NMR (CD2 Cl2 , The 1 H-NOESY30 NMR experiments were acquired by the
298 K): d −152.32 (br, 10 BF4 ), −152.37 (br, 11 BF4 ). Anal. Calc. for standard three-pulse sequence or by the PFG version.31 Two-
C19 H24 B2 F8 N2 ORu: C, 39.96; H, 4.24; N, 4.91. Found: C, 40.02; dimensional 19 F, 1 H-HOESY NMR experiments were acquired
H, 4.29; N, 4.84%. using the standard four-pulse sequence or the modified version.32
The number of transients and the number of data points were
Complex 5. AgBF4 (63 mg, 0.32 mmol) was added to a solution chosen according to the sample concentration and to the desired
of complex 1PF6 (149 mg, 0.24 mmol) in CH3 CN (15 mL) at room final digital resolution. Semi-quantitative spectra were acquired
temperature. The formed AgCl was filtered off. Diethyl ether was using a 1 s relaxation delay and 800 ms mixing times. Quantitative
1
added to the remaining solution and a red–brown precipitate was H-NOESY and 19 F, 1 H-HOESY NMR experiments were carried
obtained; it was filtered off, washed with n-hexane, and dried under out with a relaxation delay of 10 s and a mixing time of 150 ms
vacuum. Yield: 73%. 1 H NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d 9.36 (dd, 3 J 6,5 = (initial rate approximation).33
4.8, 4 J 6,4 = 1.4, 6), 8.55 (dd, 3 J 3,4 = 7.4, 4 J 3,5 = 1.4, 3), 8.30 (ddd,
3
J 4,5 = 3 J 4,3 = 7.7, 4 J 4,6 = 1.4, 4), 8.10 (ddd, 3 J 5,4 = 7.7, 3 J 5,6 = PGSE Measurements
4.8, 4 J 5,3 = 1.4, 5), 8.03 (dd, 3 J 9,10 = 8.2, 4 J 9,11 = 1.2, 9), 7.87 (td, 1
3
J 11,10 = 7.6, 4 J 11,9 = 1.2, 11), 2.79 (s, 17), 2.73 (s, 15), 2.38 (s, 13). H and 19 F PGSE NMR measurements were performed by
13
C{1 H} NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d 210.38 (s, 7), 156.8 (s, 6), 153.4 using the standard stimulated echo pulse sequence34 on a Bruker
(s, 2), 139.2 (s, 4), 135.99 (s, 11), 134.3 (s, 3), 133.9 (s, 8), 132.6 (s, AVANCE DRX 400 spectrometer equipped with a GREAT 1/10
5), 130.8 (s, 9), 130.5 (s, 16), 129.8 (s, 10), 127.0 (s, 14), 125.5 (s, gradient unit and a QNP probe with a Z-gradient coil, at 296 K
12), 4.8 (s, 17), 4.6 (s, 15), 4.2 (s, 13). 19 F NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): without spinning. The shape of the gradients was rectangular, their
d −72.1 (d, 1 J FP = 711), −152.32 (br, 10 BF4 ), −152.37 (br, 11 BF4 ). duration (d) was 4–5 ms, and their strength (G) was varied during
31
P{1 H} NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d −143.2 (sept, 1 J PF = 711). Anal. the experiments. All the spectra were acquired using 32 K points,
Calc. for C22 H25 BF10 N6 OPRu: C, 36.58; H, 3.49; N, 11.63. Found: a spectral width of 5000 (1 H) and 18000 (19 F) Hz, and processed
C, 36.66; H, 3.54; N, 11.55%. with a line broadening of 1.0 (1 H) and 1.5 (19 F) Hz. The semi-
logarithmic plots of ln(I/I 0 ) vs. G2 were fitted using a standard
Complex 6. Complex 6 was obtained with the same procedure linear regression algorithm; the R factor was always higher than
as complex 5. Yield: 73%. 1 H NMR (CD2 Cl2 , 298 K): d 9.22 (dd, 0.99. Different values of D (delay between the midpoints of the
3
J 6,5 = 5.4, 4 J 6,4 = 1.4, 6), 8.53 (dd, 3 J 3,4 = 7.8, 4 J 3,5 = 1.4, 3), 8.28 gradients), “nt” (number of transients) and number of different
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006 Dalton Trans., 2006, 1963–1971 | 1969
View Article Online
c/Å 22.0930(12) 30.431(2) 1 R. H. Crabtree, The Organometallic Chemistry of the Transition Metals,
b/◦ 121.318(6) 93.523(5) Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York, 2000.
2 M. Sawamura and Y. Ito, Chem. Rev., 1992, 92, 857.
V /Å3 5211.1(6) 3746.5(10)
3 A. Macchioni, Chem. Rev., 2005, 105, 2039.
Z 8 4
4 Y. Shvo, D. Czarkie, Y. Rahamim and D. F. Chodash, J. Am. Chem.
Dc /g cm−3 1.598 1.371
Soc., 1986, 108, 7400; N. Menashe and Y. Shvo, Organometallics, 1991,
l(Mo-Ka)/mm−1 0.832 0.527
10, 3885.
Total data collected 22062 32151
5 K.-J. Haack, S. Hashiguchi, A. Fujii, T. Ikariya and R. Noyori, Angew.
Unique obs. data 5121 7234
Chem., Int. Ed. Engl., 1997, 36, 285; R. Noyori and S. Hashiguchi, Acc.
Criterion for obs. F o > 4r(F o ) F o > 4r(F o )
Chem. Res., 1997, 30, 97.
Unique data used (N o ) 3434 4910
6 C. S. Johnson, Jr., Prog. Nucl. Magn. Res. Spectrosc., 1999, 34, 203; P.
No. params refined (N v ) 342 470
Stilbs, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Res. Spectrosc., 1987, 19, 1.
Rint 0.0380 0.0467
7 C. P. Casey, J. B. Johnson, S. W. Singer and Q. Cui, J. Am. Chem. Soc.,
wR(F 2 ) 0.1079 0.0892
2005, 127, 3100.
GOF 0.999 1.004
8 D. Zuccaccia, E. Clot and A. Macchioni, New J. Chem., 2005, 29, 430.
h Range/◦ 3.25–26.27 2.91–26.49
9 D. Zuccaccia, S. Sabatini, G. Bellachioma, G. Cardaci, E. Clot and A.
Macchioni, Inorg. Chem., 2003, 42, 5465.
10 D. Zuccaccia and A. Macchioni, Organometallics, 2005, 24, 3476, and
gradient strengths (G) were used for different samples. The references therein.
methodology for treating the data was previously described.10 The 11 (a) J. M. Casas, L. R. Falvello, J. Fournies and A. Martin, Inorg.
Chem., 1996, 35, 56; (b) P. Pelagatti, A. Bacchi, M. Carcelli, M. Costa,
uncertainty of the measurements was estimated by determining the
H.-W. Fruhauf, K. Goubitz, C. Pelizzi, M. Triclistri and K. Vrieze,
standard deviation of Dt by performing experiments with different Eur. J. Inorg. Chem., 2002, 439.
D values. Experimental error was found to be approximately 3% 12 S. L. Queiroz, A. A. Batista, M. P. de Araujo, R. C. Bianchini, G. Oliva,
on Dt and hydrodynamic radii and 10% on hydrodynamic volumes J. Ellena and B. R. James, Can. J. Chem., 2003, 81, 1263.
13 D. L. Reger, J. R. Gardinier, M. D. Smith and P. J. Pellecchia, Inorg.
and aggregation numbers N. Chem., 2003, 42, 482.
14 G. Bellachioma, G. Cardaci, V. Gramlich, A. Macchioni, M. Valentini
and C. Zuccaccia, Organometallics, 1998, 17, 5025.
X-Ray crystallography 15 R. E. Dinnebier, W. A. Dollase, X. Helluy, J. Kümmerlen, A. Sebald,
M. U. Schmidt, S. Pagola, P. W. Stephens and S. van Smaalen, Acta
Single crystals of 1BPh4 and 1PF6 , suitable for X-ray diffrac- Crystallogr., Sect. B, 1999, 55, 1014.
tion, were obtained by crystallisation from methylene chloride– 16 B. Binotti, C. Carfagna, E. Foresti, A. Macchioni, P. Sabatino, C.
methanol–diethyl ether solutions. Data were collected at room Zuccaccia and D. Zuccaccia, J. Organomet. Chem., 2004, 689, 647.
17 S. Macura and R. R. Ernst, Mol. Phys., 1980, 41, 95.
temperature on a XCALIBUR (CCD areal) diffractometer of the 18 C. J. Janiak, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 2000, 3885.
OXFORD Instrument using Mo-Kagraphite-monochromated ra- 19 C. A. Hunter and J. K. Sanders, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1990, 112, 5525.
diation (k = 0.71069 Å); x-scans and the frame data were acquired 20 D. Gut, A. Rudi, J. Kopilov, I. Goldberg and M. Kol, J. Am. Chem.
Soc., 2002, 124, 5449.
with the CRYSALIS (CCD 171) software. The structure was
21 S. Fernandez, M. Pfeffer, V. Ritleng and C. Sirlin, Organometallics,
solved using direct methods and refined against |F|2 . The frames 1999, 18, 2390.
were then processed using the CRYSALIS (RED 171) software 22 T. Hayashida and H. Nagashima, Organometallics, 2002, 21, 3884.
to give the hkl file corrected for scan speed, background, and 23 P. Crochet, M. A. Fernandez-Zumel, C. Beauquis and J. Gimeno, Inorg.
Chim. Acta, 2003, 356, 114.
Lorentz and polarization effects. Standard reflections, measured 24 Y. Aoyama, A. Yamagishi, Y. Tanaka, H. Toi and H. Ogoshi, J. Am.
periodically, in both complexes, showed that there was no apparent Chem. Soc., 1987, 109, 4735; Y. Aoyama, Y. Tanaka, T. Yoshida, H. Toi
variation in intensity during data collection and so, no correction and H. Ogoshi, J. Organomet. Chem., 1987, 329, 251.
for crystal decomposition was necessary. The data were corrected 25 J. Vicente, M. D. Bermúdez, M. P. Carrillo and P. G. Jones, J. Chem.
Soc., Dalton Trans., 1992, 1975 and references therein; D. Fan, E.
for absorption using semi-empirical multi-scan35 methods. Meléndez, J. D. Ranford, P. Foo Lee and J. J. Vittal, J. Organomet.
The structures were solved by the direct method using the Sir9736 Chem., 2004, 689, 2969.
program and refined by the full-matrix least-squares method on 26 J. R. Bleeke and J. M. B. Blanchard, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1997, 119, 5443;
J. R. Bleeke, J. M. B. Blanchard and E. Donnay, Organometallics, 2001,
F 2 using the SHELXL-97,37 WinGX38 version. All non-hydrogen 20, 324.
atoms were refined anisotropically. The hydrogen atoms were 27 M. A. Iron, J. M. Martin and M. E. van der Boom, Chem. Commun.,
added at the calculated positions and refined using a riding model. 2003, 132.
Unfortunately, the crystal of 1PF6 that was examined had an 28 Analogous acetone C–H activation followed by a C–C coupling reac-
tion has been observed by Gimeno and co-workers for Ru(II) complexes
internal disorder due to molecules of methyl alcohol that co- bearing phosphidobenzaldehydic ligands. Preliminary results were
crystallised with the complex. Data concerning the cell parameters reported at the 7th FIGIPS Meeting in Inorganic Chemistry, Lisbon,
and the structure refinements are reported in Table 4. 11–14 June 2003, P. 247.
29 M. A. Benneth and A. K. Smith, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1974,
CCDC reference numbers 272774 and 272775.
233.
For crystallographic data in CIF or other electronic format see 30 J. Jeener, B. H. Meier, P. Bachmann and R. R. Ernst, J. Chem. Phys.,
DOI: 10.1039/b514269e 1979, 71, 4546.
1970 | Dalton Trans., 2006, 1963–1971 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006
View Article Online
31 R. Wagner and S. Berger, J. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. A, 1996, 123, 119. 35 R. H. Blessing, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A, 1995, 51, 33.
32 B. Lix, F. D. Sönnichsen and B. D. Sykes, J. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 36 A. Altomare, M. C. Burla, M. Camalli, G. Cascarano, C. Giacovazzo,
A, 1996, 121, 83. A. Gagliardi, A. G. G. Moliterni, G. Polidori and R. Spagna, J. Appl.
33 D. Neuhaus and M. Williamson, The Nuclear Overhauser Effect in Crystallogr., 1999, 32, 115.
Structural and Conformational Analysis, Wiley-VCH, New York, 2000, 37 G. M. Sheldrick, SHELXL-97, A program for crystal struc-
ch. 4. ture refinement, University of Göttingen, Germany, 1997. Release
34 M. Valentini, H. Rüegger and P. S. Pregosin, Helv. Chim. Acta, 2001, 92-2.
84, 2833, and references therein. 38 L. J. Farrugia, J. Appl. Crystallogr., 1999, 32, 837.
Published on 18 January 2006. Downloaded by San Diego State University on 3/25/2019 9:23:51 PM.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006 Dalton Trans., 2006, 1963–1971 | 1971