Substituent Effects on Ru₃C₂ Clusters: Structural Comparisons of Some μ₃‐Arylethynyl triruthenium‐carbonyl Clusters, [Ru₃(μ‐X)(μ₃‐C₂Ar)(Y₂)(CO)₇], X = H, or Au(PPh₃), Y₂ = μ‐dppm or (CO)₂

Abstract

Complexes of the form [Ru 3 (μ-H)(μ 3 -C 2 X)(μ-dppm)-(CO) 7 ] have been widely characterized structurally for diverse R ϭ

C–H and C–C bond activations of terminal alkynes in the presence of a butterfly-shaped heteronuclear Ru3Au cluster

“…The following compounds were used: [Ru 3 (CO) 10 (7) 2.8099(9) C(1)eC (2) 1.302 (7) 1.314 (7) 1.313 (6) 1.330 (14) 1.303 (8) 1.330(13) C(2)eSi (1) e e e e 1.855(10) C(2)eC (3) 1.473 (6) 1.461 (7) 1.469 (7) 1.444 (13 (3) 141.0(5) 145.5(5) 143.5 (5) 144.4 (9) 143.1(6) C(1)eC (2)eSi(1) e e e 144.0(8) C(2)eRu(1)eAu (1) 104.44 (12) 101.11 (14) 101.26 (13) 101.5 (2) 102.89 (15) 104.6(3) C(2)eRu(2)eAu (1) 103.82 (12) 100.96 (13) 101.50 (13) 101.3 (3) 102.56 (15) 104.8(2) C(1)eRu(1)eAu (1) 108.00 (11) 107.92 (13) 108.17 (13) 108.3 (3) 108.28 (15) 105.9(2) C(1)eRu (2)eAu(1) 107.87 (12) 109.50 (13) 108.81 (14) 107.1 (3) 108.52 (15) 106.8(2) Interline and interplane angles C(1)eC(2)/Ru (1) …”

“…to 1.330(14) Å) in the acetylide fragments are closer to a CeC double bond distance (C sp eC sp 1.21 Å; C sp 2eC sp 2 1.34 Å; C sp 3eC sp 3 1.53 Å[42]) reflecting the change in hybridization of these carbons upon coordination.The Ru(3)eC(1)eC(2) angles are in the range of 153.3(4) e 155.6(8) , while the C(1)eC(2)eC(3) angles for compounds 2;141.0(5) , 3;145.5(5) and 143.5(5) , 4;144.4(4) and 5; 143.1(6) and C(1)eC(2)eSi(1) for 6;144.0(8) ; both groups of angles are essentially the same than the corresponding values for [Ru 3 (CO) 9 (meAuPPh 3 )(m 3 eh 2 eteC^CBu t )] [29] and [Ru 3 (CO) 9 (meH) ORTEP view of compound 3 (30% probability).…”