Chemistry and catalysis advances in organometallic chemistry and catalysis
Sandwich and Half-Sandwich Complexes
Download 11,05 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- 50.2.5 Carbyne Ligands
- 50.2.6 Isocyanide Ligands
- 50.2.7 Vinylidene and Allenylidene Ligands
- 50.2.8 Carbene Ligands
50.2.3 Sandwich and Half-Sandwich Complexes The low spin Fe III /Fe
II redox couple was initially proposed by Lever et al. [23, 24, 31] as the most appropriate standard for sandwich complexes bearing two cyclopentadienyl (Cp) or derived ligands, as such compounds are known in a large number and exhibit metal-based reversible or quasi-reversible redox processes that are fairly independent of the solvent/electrolyte system. For homoleptic complexes the value for the E L parameter would be given by Eq. 50.6 and for mixed sandwich species, [FeLL ], Eq. 50.7 should be applied [31]. For the Cp ligand itself, an E L value of 0.33 V was thus proposed [31]. E L = E ox 1 /2 (Fe
III /II
) 2 (50.6) E L (L) + E L (L ) = E
ox 1 /2 (Fe III
/II ) (50.7) For π-complexes with η 6 -benzene-type ligands, as there are no Fe III /Fe
II complexes available, other redox pairs [Fe II /Fe
I , Co III /Co
II , Co
II /Co
I , Cr
II /Cr
I or Cr
I /Cr
0 ] were used as standards [31]. For benzene itself, for example, this method leads to an E L value of 1.86 V [31]. However, such a type of parameterization approach is based on expressions that are quite different from the original one (Eq. 50.3) and thus generate E L values that fall in distinct scales and are not directly comparable with those concerning Eq. 50.3. It would be much more convenient to preserve the initial Lever approach based on the standard Ru III
/Ru II redox couple and on Eq. 50.3. This is the approach we have proposed and described in the following section. 50.2.4 η
-Arene and Other π-Ligands The application of the initial Lever model to π-sandwich or π-half-sandwich complexes requires the assumption of the validity of Eq. 50.3 to such types of complexes and of the S M and I M values quoted for the metal redox couples in octahedral-type complexes. Although full confirmation of this hypothesis requires the consideration of wider series of complexes, it has been applied by us [32] to half (or full)-sandwich complexes bearing π-aromatic (benzene or p-cymene) ligands or polydentate boron-based or carbon-based scorpionate-type ligands. For the estimate of the corresponding E L values for such polytopal ligands (based on Eq. 50.3), the E L values of the co-ligands in their complexes should be known, as well as the S M and I M values of their metal redox couples. The application of this method to the series of half-sandwich p-cymene Ru II complexes [RuCl 2 ( η 6 -L)L ] (L = PPh 3
PTol 3 , SMe 2 ), and [RuCl( η 6
2 ) 2 ] + leads to an average overall E L value of 1.63 V versus NHE for η 6
( η 6 -L) (i.e., 0.54 V per each C =C two-electron-donor moiety of the aromatic ring) (Table 50.3) [32]. In addition, the average overall E L value of 1.77 V (0.59 V per each C =C moiety) was estimated [32] for η 6 -benzene by the same method applied to [RuCl 2 ( η 6 -L)(PPh 3 )], [Cr(
η 6 -L)(CO) 3 ], [Cr(
η 6 -L)(CO) 2 ] 2 ( μ-dppm) and [Cr(η 6 -L)
2 ] (
η 6 -L = η 6 -benzene). Expectedly, in view of the electron-donor substituents (methyl and isopropyl) in the aromatic ring, p-cymene presents a slightly lower E L value than benzene. 682 REDOX POTENTIAL – STRUCTURE RELATIONSHIPS AND PARAMETERIZATION TABLE 50.3 Values for the E L Ligand Parameter for Selected L Ligands L Metal Center E L (V) versus NHE, from Eq. 50.3 Reference E L (V) versus NHE, from Eq. 50.4 NO + {Mo(NO)(dppe) 2 } + >1.5
21, 24 1.85
Carbynes ( ≡CR) R = CH 2 CO
R (R = Me, Et), CH 2
= Ph, C 6 H 4 Me-4, H,
t Bu)
{ReF(dppe) 2 } + circa1.2
40 0.94–0.91 Aminocarbyne ( ≡CNH
2 ) {ReCl(dppe) 2 } + circa 1.1 28 0.81 CO {Ru(bpy)
2 } +2 0.99 21 0.74 Vinylidenes( =C=CRR )
See Table 50.4 0.83–0.24 28 0.74–0.24 Allenylidenes( =C=C=CR
2 )
0.8–0 28
Bent isocyanides (bent C ≡NR) R = aryl, alkyl {TcH(dppe) 2 }, {ReX(dppe) 2 } (X = Cl or H) 0.68–0.58 32–34, 87 0.68–0.58 Benzoyl isocyanide [C ≡NC(O)Ph] {FeH(dppe) 2 } + 0.60
43 0.91
Carbenes See Table 50.6 0.5 to
−0.7 28 Ferricinium isocyanides 0.55–0.50 49 Linear isocyanides (linear C ≡N-R) {ReX(dppe) 2 }
(X = CO, NCR, CNR) {M(CO)
5 } (M = Cr, Mo or W) 0.56–0.32 32–34
Phosphines (PR 3 ) and diphosphines a 0.43–0.28 21, 28 C
3 − {FeH(dppe) 2 } + 0.20 43 0.53 C ≡N−NiCl
2 (PCy
3 ) − {FeH(dppe) 2 } + 0.19
51 0.52
Phosphonium isocyanides N C H 2 C PR 3 PR 3 = PPh
3 , PPh
2 (CH
2 Ph), PMe
3 {M(CO)
5 } (M = Cr, Mo or W) 31 0.50–0.43 NH 3 {Ru(bpy) 2 } +2 0.07 21 0.07 C ≡N−VCl
3 (thf)
2 − {FeH(dppe) 2 } + 0.03 43 0.38 C ≡N−BPh
3 − {FeH(dppe) 2 } + −0.05 43 C ≡N−ReOCl 3 ( μ-CN)FeH(dppe) 2 − {FeH(dppe) 2 } + −0.09
51 C ≡N−PdCl 2 (PPh
3 ) − {FeH(dppe) 2 } + −0.14
51 C ≡N − {Ru(bpy)
2 } 2 + 0.02
21 {FeH(dppe) 2 }
−0.26 Alkynyls( −C≡CR −
See Table 50.7 −0.1 to −0.7 28 Aryl, alkyl, NO − −0.70 to −0.90 24 π-Ligands η 2 -Vinyl {ReCl(dppe) 2 } circa 1.2 44, 28
0.92 CH 2 Ph η 2 -C 2 H 4 {Ru(bpy)
2 } 2 + 0.76
21 η 6 -Benzene {RuCl
2 (PPh
3 ) }, {Cr(CO) 3 }, among others 0.59 b (1.77) c 32 η 2 -Allene (CH 2 =C=CHPh)
{ReCl(dppe) 2 } 0.56 28 η 6 -p-Cymene {RuCl
L
}
(n = 0, x = 2, z = 1; L = PPh 3 , PTol
3 or SMe
2 .
= 1, x = 1, z = 2; L = SMe 2 ) 0.54 b (1.63)
c 32 a For chelating diphosphines, the E L value concerns each two-electron-donor coordinating arm. b Value for each C =C moiety (two-electron donor) of the aromatic ring. c Overall value (for the overall six-electron-donor ligand). PARAMETERIZATION OF LIGANDS AND METAL CENTERS 683 TABLE 50.4 Values for the E L Ligand Parameter for Selected Vinylidene Ligands, =C=R (L) R Metal
Center E L (V) versus NHE a References CPh 2 {RhCl(P i Pr 3 ) 2 } 0.73, 0.83 28, 77
C(Me) t Bu {Mo(η 7 -C 7 H 7 )(dppe) } + 0.64 28 CHCO
2 R (R
= Me, Et) {ReCl(dppe) 2 }
40 CH 2 {ReCl(dppe) 2 } 0.56 40 CHX (X = Ph, C 6 H 4 Me-4,
t Bu)
{ReCl(dppe) 2 } 0.52–0.50 40 CHCHPh 2 {RuCl(dppm) 2 }
0.70 28 CHC 6 H 4 NO 2 -4 {RuCl(dppm) 2 } + 0.62, 0.59 28 CHC
6 F 4 OMe-4 {RuCl(dppm) 2 }
0.58 28 CHC 6 H 4 CHO-4 {RuCl(dppm) 2 }
0.56 28 CHC 6 H 4 C ≡CC
6 H 4 NO 2 -4,4 {RuCl(dppm) 2 } + 0.54
28 CHC
6 H 4 CHO(CH 2 ) 3 O-4
{RuCl(dppm) 2 } + 0.50
28 CHPh
{RuCl(dppm) 2 } + 0.48
28 CHC
6 H 4 CH =CHPh-4
{RuCl(dppm) 2 } + 0.44, 0.38 28 CHC
6 H 4 CHO-3 {RuCl(dppm) 2 }
0.44 28 CHC 6 H 4 C ≡CPh-4
{RuCl(dppm) 2 } + 0.40
28 CHC
6 H 4 CH =CHC
6 H 4 NO 2 -4,4 {RuCl(dppm) 2 } + 0.29, 0.24 28 CHC
6 H 4 CHO-2 {RuCl(dppm) 2 }
0.28 28 CHPh {ReCl(Me 2 bpy)(PPh 3 ) 2 } + 0.44, 0.55 28, 92 CHC
6 H 4 Me-4 {ReCl(Me
2 bpy)(PPh
3 ) 2 } + 0.36, 0.47 28, 92 a From Eq. 50.3. In comparison with η 2 -allene (E L = 0.56 V for CH 2 =C=CHPh [28]), each C=C (two-electron-donor) moiety (E L =
η 6 -benzene ligand exhibits a similar electron-donor character, being a significantly stronger electron donor than η 2 -ethylene (E L = 0.76 V [21]), and much stronger than the η 2 -vinyl
=C(CH 2 )CH 2 Ph ligand (E L circa 1.2 V [28, 44]) (Table 50.3). However, each C =C moiety of benzene is a weaker electron donor (stronger electron acceptor) than, for example, organophosphines (E L in the 0.43–0.28 V range) or each coordinating arm of C-based scorpionates (e.g., tris(pyrazolyl)methane, E L = 0.20 V) [32] or B-based ones (e.g., tris(pyrazolyl)borate, E L = 0.17 V) [32]. 50.2.5 Carbyne Ligands The Pickett P L ligand parameter was estimated for carbyne (C −CH 2 R) and aminocarbyne (CNH 2 ) ligands (L) at trans- [ReX(L)(dppe) 2 ] + (X = F or Cl) complexes, and the corresponding E L values (circa 1.2 and circa 1.1 V, respectively, Table 50.3) were obtained by using Eq. 50.4 [28, 36]. Such values are even higher than that of CO (E L = 0.99 V [21]), being exceeded only by that of NO + , accounting for the strong π-electron acceptance of the carbyne and aminocarbyne CNH 2 ligands, in accord with molecular orbital (MO) calculations [53]. As indicated by X-ray data [81, 82], the aminocarbyne presents a considerable carbene character (carbene ligands display E L values over a very wide range, as shown in the following). 50.2.6 Isocyanide Ligands As shown in Table 50.3, bent isocyanides and benzoyl isocyanide are strong π-electron acceptors and exhibit high E L values (0.68–0.58 V range) [32–34, 43]. Linear isocyanides, as well as ferricinium isocyanides,with E L values in the 0.55–0.32 V range, are weaker π-acceptors. Cyano adducts, constructed at the trans-{FeH(dppe) 2 } + metal center, are quite sensitive to the Lewis acid but are always stronger net electron acceptors (weaker net electron donors)
than cyanide:
CNBF 3 – ≥ CN–NiCl 2 (PCy 3 ) – > CN–VCl 3 (thf) 2 – > CN–BPh 3 – > C≡N−ReOCl 3 ( μ- CN)FeH(dppe) 2 − > CN–PdCl 2 (PPh 3 ) – > CN – (E L = −0.26 V) [43, 51]. The bending of coordinated isocyanides occurs at electron-rich metal centers and was attributed [64, 83–86] to electronic effects. At the electron-rich {ReY(dppe) 2 } (Y = Cl or H) metal sites, a strong bending was observed for methyl isocyanide [64, 87] (139.4(10) ◦ or 147.7(7) ◦ , respectively) which, consequently, may be considered with a carbene character. The weaker bending that occurs for trans-[Mo(CNMe) 2 (dppe) 2 ] (156(1) ◦ ) [86] and, even lesser, for trans-[Re(CNEt) 2 (dppe)
2 ] (168.2(4) ◦ )
π-electron release of the metal centers, the competition of the two isocyanides for the 684 REDOX POTENTIAL – STRUCTURE RELATIONSHIPS AND PARAMETERIZATION TABLE 50.5 Values for the E L Ligand Parameter for Selected Allenylidene Ligands, =C=C=R (L) R
L (V) versus NHE a C(C
6 H 4 Cl-4) 2 0.80 b CPh
2 0.74
b , 0.71
c , 0.58
c ,0.45
d C(C
6 H 4 Me-4) 2 0.67 b C(C
6 H 4 X-4) 2 X = Cl, H, Me 0.61–0.47 C(Me)Ph 0.58
C(SeR)(alkyl) 0.55–0.51 C(SR)(alkyl) 0.51–0.47 C(Me)Ph 0.42
d CEt
2 0.40
d N,N-dimethyl-2-pyrrolylamine C N
2 Me 0.28 N-methyl-2-pyrrolylamine C N Me 0.27
N-methyl-2-indolyl C N Me 0.26
3,5-dimethyl-2-pyrrolyl C N H Me 0.23 2,5-dimethyl-3-pyrrolyl C NH Me 0.18
C(NMe 2 )X 0.27–0.17 X = CH 2 CH(CH
=CH 2 )(CH 2 NMe
2 ), CH 2 C(Et)(
=C=CH 2 ), (CH 2 CH 2 CH =CH
2 ) C(CH 2 CH 2 CH =CH
2 )(piperidin-1-yl) 0.17, 0.24, 0.27 C(Me)X
0.18–0.02 X = NEt 2 , N(Me)(CH 2 Ph), N(Me)( t Bu),
N(Me)(9-anthracenylCH 2 ) C(Me)X −0.39 or −0.41 X = dibenzoazepin-5-yl or phenothiazin-10-yl a From Reference 28 and at the {RuCl(dppm) 2 } + center, unless stated otherwise. Equation 50.3 was applied. b At the {OsCl(dppm) 2 } + center.
c At the
{RhCl(P i Pr 3 ) 2 } center, from Reference 77. d At the
{FeBr(depe) 2 } + center, from Reference 41. FINAL COMMENTS 685 metal
π-backbonding, and/or steric influences. It is concomitant with the longer Re−C bond lengths at the diisocyanide compounds, as compared with the monoisocyanide ones in which there occurs an extensive π-backbonding.
Vinylidenes usually behave as stronger π-electron acceptors than carbenes, their E L values (Table 50.4) [28, 40] falling in the range of 0.83 to 0.24 V versus NHE. Diphenylvinylidene, =C=CPh
2 , presents the highest π-acceptance character of this group of ligands. Expectedly, for the =C=CHR series, the order of electron acceptance parallels that of the R group: C 6 H 4 NO 2 -4 > CO 2 R > C 6 F 4 OMe-4, C 6 H 4 COH-4
> Ph > C 6 H 4 Me-4
> t Bu. A conjugated phenyl substituent of the yne- or ene-type appears to lead to an increase of the net electron-donor character of the vinylidene. Allenylidenes (Table 50.5) appear to behave as weaker net electron acceptors. The order of net electron acceptance reflects the electronic effects of the group at the C γ carbon: arylallenylidenes =C=C=CRR > selenoallenylidenes =C=C=C(SeR)R > thioallenylidenes =C=C=C(SR)(alkyl) > aminoallenylidenes [28]. Therefore, allenylidenes can behave as considerable net electron donors [as in =C=C=C(NEt 2 )Me with an E L value of 0.02 V, comparable to that of ammonia] or as strong π-acceptors (e.g., in =C=C=CPh 2 ) [28]. A possible dependence of the E L ligand parameter on the nature of the binding metal center has been recognized in some cases, for both vinylidenes and allenylidenes [28].
L parameter values for carbenes span a very wide range (0.5 to −0.7 V vs NHE), as shown in Table 50.6, where they are commonly ordered from the strongest to the weakest π-electron-acceptor character: diphenylcarbene =CPh 2 , bithiophene-carbenes ≥ oxocarbenes =C(OR)Y > thiocarbenes =C(SR)Y > aminocarbenes =C(NRR )Y ≥ phosphoylide- aminocarbenes > anionic oxocarbene =C(O − )Y. The most effective π-acceptors present extended conjugated π-systems and this order reflects the increase in the electron-donor ability (to the carbene carbon) of the group with the heteroatom [28]. As regards hydroxocarbenes =C(OH)R, in view of their tendency for hydrogen bonding, their net electron-donor character depends on the experimental conditions, but is still lower than those of the parent benzoyl COPh − ligand and of the oxocarbene =C(O
− )Y ligands. On account of their anionic character, the oxocarbene =C(O −
electron donors (even stronger than halides). Aminocarbenes are more effective π-electron acceptors than phosphoylide- aminocarbenes, in accord with the electron donation from the ylide moiety to the carbene carbon [28].
Download 11,05 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling