Reactions of co-ordinated ligands. Part 27. Formation of η³-allyl and σ-vinyl complexes by nucleophilic attack on cationic molybdenum monoacetylene complexes. Molecular structures of [Mo(CO)(PEt₃)(η³-anti-1-MeC₃H₄)(η⁵-C₉H₇)] and [Mo{P(OMe)₃}₃{σ-(E)-CHCHBu^t}(η-C₅H₅)]

Syntheses and characterization of indenylruthenium(II) complexes containing N,N′ donor Schiff base ligands. Molecular structures of [(η5-C9H7)Ru(PPh3)2(CH3CN)]BF4 and [(η5-C9H7)Ru(PPh3)(C5H4–N-2–CHN–C6H4-p-CH3)]BF4

“…The phenyl ring of the amine is slightly twisted out of the plane of the pyridine ring in contrast to the observed mutually perpendicular orientation found with similar types of ligand in arene ruthenium complexes [21]. The indenyl group in the complex is bonded to the ruthenium atom in g 5 -fashion and displays the asymmetric coordination generally observed with this ligand [19]. Thus, the Ru-C(20), Ru-C (21), Ru-C(22) bond lengths (2.178(2), 2.161(2) and 2.200 (2) A, respectively) are shorter than for those between ruthenium and bridging carbon atoms (where the Ru-C (14) and bond lengths are 2.322(2) and 2.303 (2) A, respectively).…”

“…There is no significant difference in the five C-C bond lengths in the five-membered ring, the bond lengths falling within the range of 1.411 (3)-1.449(3) A, which suggests delocalization of the double bonds in the ring. The benzene ring is planar and does show significant localization of the double bonds at the C(15)-C (16) bond (1.367 A) and the C(17)-C(18) bond (1.369(4) A) as previously found for other indenyl complexes [19]. Both these bond lengths are significantly shorter than those for the C(14)-C(15) bond (1.417(3) A), the C(16)-C (17) bond (1.410(3) A) and the C(18)-C (19) bond (1.420(3) A).…”

“…The benzene ring is planar and does show significant localization of the double bonds at the C(15)-C (16) bond (1.367 A) and the C(17)-C(18) bond (1.369(4) A) as previously found for other indenyl complexes [19]. Both these bond lengths are significantly shorter than those for the C(14)-C(15) bond (1.417(3) A), the C(16)-C (17) bond (1.410(3) A) and the C(18)-C (19) bond (1.420(3) A). The Ru(1)-P(1) bond length is 2.2715 (6) A, which is within the usual range of Ru-P bond distances (2.20-2.43 A) [23].…”

“…The three Ru-C bond lengths in both enantiomorphs involving the C(01), C(02), C(03) atoms are significantly shorter than those involving bridging C(04) and C(05) atoms (Table 4) as found in other indenyl complexes [7,10a]. The asymmetric metal-carbon bond distance is due to the slipping of ruthenium across the g 5 -to g 3 -coordination [19]. Although the indenyl group is g 5 -bonded to the metal atom, the structure shows slight distortion of the fivemembered ring from complete planarity.…”

New mononuclear ruthenium complexes of η5-cyclichydrocarbon containing azine ligands: Syntheses, spectral and structural studies

“…The centroid bond distance between ruthenium and ring carbons for the two molecules are Ru1-C 9 H 7 (1.8571(12)) and Ru2-C 9 H 7 (1.8530(12)) Å , respectively. The indenyl ligand in the complex is bonded to g 5 -fashion and displays the asymmetric coordination generally observed with this ligand [28]. The indenyl ligand exhibits a pronounced ''slip-fold'' (D) distortion [29] relative to a planar, the value being 0.1045 Å which is comparable to that found in other indenyl complexes [16a].…”