2001
DOI: 10.1002/1099-0682(200107)2001:7<1753::aid-ejic1753>3.0.co;2-h
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Proton Transfer to CpRuH(CO)(PCy3) Studied by Low-Temperature IR and NMR Spectroscopy

Abstract: The interaction of the ruthenium hydride complex RuH ≡ CpRuH(CO)(PCy3) (1) with various proton donors AH ≡ CF3CH2OH (2a), (CF3)2CHOH (2b), (CF3)3COH (2c), CF3COOH (2d), and HBF4 (2e) has been studied by variable‐temperature IR spectroscopy using hexane and CH2Cl2 as solvents of different polarity. A low‐temperature NMR study of the interaction of 1 with 2c was performed using [D8]methylcyclohexane, CD2Cl2, and a liquefied mixture of CDF2Cl/CDF3 (2:1). The first stage of the proton transfer process was found to… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
43
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
7
43
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In many cases, however, basic anions (A – = OR – , OCOR – ) tend to displace H 2 out of the transition metal coordination sphere, yielding organyloxo products. This is the case for the protonation products of complexes [(triphos)ReH(CO) 2 ],62 [Re(CO)H 2 (NO)(PR 3 ) 2 ],63 and [CpRuH(CO)(PCy 3 )],64 for which the corresponding [M(η 2 ‐H 2 )] + cations could be isolated as [BF 4 ] – salts but evolved into [MA] species in the presence of fluorinated alcohols or carboxylic acids. In contrast to the isomerization process, this reaction proceeds intramolecularly and does not require a hydrogen bonded ion pair dissociation 64…”
Section: Ion Pairing and Subsequent Transformations Of [M(η2‐h2)]+ Comentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In many cases, however, basic anions (A – = OR – , OCOR – ) tend to displace H 2 out of the transition metal coordination sphere, yielding organyloxo products. This is the case for the protonation products of complexes [(triphos)ReH(CO) 2 ],62 [Re(CO)H 2 (NO)(PR 3 ) 2 ],63 and [CpRuH(CO)(PCy 3 )],64 for which the corresponding [M(η 2 ‐H 2 )] + cations could be isolated as [BF 4 ] – salts but evolved into [MA] species in the presence of fluorinated alcohols or carboxylic acids. In contrast to the isomerization process, this reaction proceeds intramolecularly and does not require a hydrogen bonded ion pair dissociation 64…”
Section: Ion Pairing and Subsequent Transformations Of [M(η2‐h2)]+ Comentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The transition state can be regarded as an H 2 entity (H–H length ca. 0.9 Å) simultaneously bonded to both the [M] + and the [AHA] – units (M–H and H–O distances are ca 1.6 and 1.4 Å, respectively) 25,32,35. In the work of Feracin et al the proton transfer from CF 3 COOH to [ReH 2 (CO)(NO)(PR 3 ) 2 ] is reported as having positive Δ H ‡ and Δ S ‡ 10,51.…”
Section: Kinetics and Thermodynamics Of Proton Transfer Via Dihydrogementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interaction of [NEt 4 ][HRe 2 (CO) 9 ] with TFE : The addition of [NEt 4 ]‐ 1 19 (up to 0.1 m ) to CH 2 Cl 2 solutions of TFE (0.02 m ) at room temperature did not cause any appreciable change in the ν OH region of the IR spectrum, at variance with what was previously observed for many neutral hydrido complexes 5a. 6f,6k An analogous room‐temperature experiment with an excess of TFE ([NEt 4 ]‐ 1 6×10 −3 m , TFE 0.1 m ) did not show any change in the ν CO region. This indicated that the proton–hydride interaction was either absent or weaker than in these previous cases.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…24 In turn, introduction of elec tron withdrawing carbonyl ligands into cyclopentadienyl complexes decreases the basicity of the hydride ligand (E j = 1.02 for CpRuH(CO)(PCy 3 )). 25 In contrast, the ba sicity increases when the Cp ligand is replaced by penta methylcyclopentadienyl (Cp*; E j = 1.38). 4 Thus, the pro ton accepting ability (E j ) increases in the following order: TpRuH(dppe) < CpRuH(CO)(PCy 3 ) < CpRuH(dppe) < < Cp*RuH(dppe).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%