ChemInform Abstract: Ditopic Azathioether Macrocycles as Hosts for Transition Metal Salts

Abstract

ChemInform is a weekly Abstracting Service, delivering concise information at a glance that was extracted from about 100 leading journals. To access a ChemInform Abstract of an article which was published elsewhere, please select a “Full Text” option. The original article is trackable via the “References” option.

Influence of the Number of Metallophilic Interactions and Structures on the Optical Properties of Heterometallic Au/Ag Complexes with Mixed-Donor Macrocyclic Ligands

“…Furthermore, the Ag···C ipso contact in 2 is longer than that in other complexes containing the tetranuclear [Au 2 Ag 2 ] ring in which the [Au­(C 6 X 5 ) 2 ] − units interacts with the silver­(I) centers through both Au···Ag and Ag···C ipso contacts [Ag···C distances vary from 2.422(4) in [Au 2 Ag 2 (C 6 Cl 2 F 3 ) 4 (THF) 2 ] n to 2.707(18) Å in [Au 2 Ag 2 (4-C 6 F 4 I) 4 (THF) 2 ] n . Complex 2 shows Ag–S distances of 2.653(2), 2.666(2), and 2.714(2) Å that lie within the range of Ag–S distances found for other silver complexes containing L 2 [2.503(2)–2.9605(7) Å], while the Ag–N bond length of 2.475(6) Å found in 2 is shorter than in related complexes [2.485(4)–2.709(9)­Å] . Finally, if the Ag···C ipso interaction is not considered, the environment for the silver atom is distorted square-pyramidal with the gold­(I) center at the vertex of the pyramid [τ = 0.16] …”

“…The Ag–S distances are dissimilar, with two shorter [2.474(2) and 2.529(2) Å] and two longer [2.802(2) and 2.928(2) Å] distances, but there is no relationship between these values and the behavior of the sulfur atoms as terminal or bridging. Nevertheless, they all lie within the ranges for terminal [2.503(2)–2.9605(7) Å] or bridging [2.4767(13)–3.0096(10) Å] Ag–S bond lengths found in other silver complexes containing L 2 . Finally, as in the case of 3 ·THF and 4 , the Ag–N quinoline bond length [2.249(6) Å] is shorter than the Ag–N macrocycle one [2.468(7) Å], and both distances are nearly equal to those described for 3 ·THF and to the shorter ones found in complexes containing the unit [Ag­( L 2 )] + .…”

“…Nevertheless, they all lie within the ranges for terminal [2.503(2)–2.9605(7) Å] or bridging [2.4767(13)–3.0096(10) Å] Ag–S bond lengths found in other silver complexes containing L 2 . Finally, as in the case of 3 ·THF and 4 , the Ag–N quinoline bond length [2.249(6) Å] is shorter than the Ag–N macrocycle one [2.468(7) Å], and both distances are nearly equal to those described for 3 ·THF and to the shorter ones found in complexes containing the unit [Ag­( L 2 )] + . In addition, this molecule forms a 1D polymer through π–π stacking interactions of 3.820 Å between aromatic rings of the methylquinoline pendant-arm of L 3 (see Figure S5).…”

“…In the case of 4 , the silver atom displays a severe distorted octahedral geometry, showing a S(1)–Ag–S(2) bond angle of only 126.52(5)°, distortion that as in the case of 3 ·THF is caused by the rigidity of the polydentate ligand. The Ag–S and Ag–N macrocycle bond lengths in both complexes lie within the ranges 2.524(2)–2.783(2) and 2.482(6)–2.605(5) Å, respectively, found for Ag–S and Ag–N distances in other silver complexes containing L 2 . It is worth noting that the Ag–N bond distances in 3 ·THF are shorter than those in 4 presumably due to the higher steric hindrance of L 4 and to the higher coordination number of silver in 4 .…”