1992
DOI: 10.1002/9780470132609.ch52
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Di‐μ‐Chloro‐Bis[(η 5 ‐Pentamethylcyclopentadienyl) Chlororuthenium(III)], [Cp * RuCl 2 ] 2 and Di‐μ‐methoxo‐Bis(η 5 ‐Pentamethylcyclopentadienyl)diruthenium(II), [Cp * RuOMe] 2

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Gratifyingly, the required transformation of aryl triflates to aryl bromides or iodides has been reported, 29 and with minor modifications, we found it perfectly suitable for the transformation of fluorescein, carbo- and silicofluorescein ditriflates, and rhodol triflates to the corresponding halofluorans (Figure 2). The originally employed cationic Ru(II) catalyst [Cp*Ru(MeCN) 3 ]OTf could in many cases be replaced with a less expensive Ru(III) precatalyst 30 [Cp*RuCl 2 ] n . On the contrary, the corresponding Rh(III) complex [Cp*Rh(MeCN) 3 ](SbF 6 ) 2 was found to be completely ineffective (Table S2), and Grushin’s catalyst 31 [Cp*Ru(η 6 -C 10 H 8 )]BF 4 , presumably operating through a nucleophilic substitution in a η 6 -coordinated Ru(II)-arene π-complex, 32 was much less active.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gratifyingly, the required transformation of aryl triflates to aryl bromides or iodides has been reported, 29 and with minor modifications, we found it perfectly suitable for the transformation of fluorescein, carbo- and silicofluorescein ditriflates, and rhodol triflates to the corresponding halofluorans (Figure 2). The originally employed cationic Ru(II) catalyst [Cp*Ru(MeCN) 3 ]OTf could in many cases be replaced with a less expensive Ru(III) precatalyst 30 [Cp*RuCl 2 ] n . On the contrary, the corresponding Rh(III) complex [Cp*Rh(MeCN) 3 ](SbF 6 ) 2 was found to be completely ineffective (Table S2), and Grushin’s catalyst 31 [Cp*Ru(η 6 -C 10 H 8 )]BF 4 , presumably operating through a nucleophilic substitution in a η 6 -coordinated Ru(II)-arene π-complex, 32 was much less active.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The solvents and Me 3 SiCl were distilled from appropriate drying agents and stored under dinitrogen. The complexes [Cp*Ru(OMe)] 2 , [26] [(cymene)RuCl 2 ] 2 , [27] [(C 6 H 6 )RuCl 2 ] 2 , [28] [Cp*RhCl 2 ] 2 , [29] [Cp*IrCl 2 ] 2 , [29] [(1,3,5-C 6 H 3 iPr 3 )RuCl 2 ] 2 , [30] and [Cp*Rh(µ-Cl) 3 RuCl(PPh 3 ) 2 ] (2) [2b] were prepared according to literature procedures. An authentic sample of complex 11 was synthesized by mixing equimolar amounts of [(PPh 3 ) 2 ClRu(µ-Cl) 3 Ru(acetone)(PPh 3 ) 2 ] and [(1,3,5-C 6 H 3 iPr 3 )RuCl 2 ] 2 in CH 2 Cl 2 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CDCl 3 was degassed by three freeze–pump–thaw cycles and stored over molecular sieves. [(Cp*Ru) 2 B 3 H 8 (CS 2 H)] ( 1 ), [Cp*RuCl 2 ] 2 , and Li­[BH 2 S 3 ] were prepared according to literature methods, while phenylacetylene was obtained commercially and used as received. Thin-layer chromatography was performed on 250 mm aluminum supported silica gel TLC plates.…”
Section: Experimental Sectionmentioning
confidence: 99%