2018
DOI: 10.1039/c8nj02101e
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Synthesis and structural characterisation of Group 11 metal complexes with a phosphinoferrocene oxazoline

Abstract: Interactions of phosphinoferrocene oxazolines with Group 11 metals were elucidated. The differences dictated by the metal ions are discussed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The structures of AgX-L and CuBr-L prepared in this study are typical for complexes with the formula [M 2 X 2 (PPh 3 ) 2 (μ-L)] n (M = Cu, Ag; X = I, Br, Cl). ,, As shown in Tables S4 and S5, the bond distances around the silver atom in the present complexes are in the range of related compounds having Ag 2 X 2 P 2 N 2 geometry (Table S6). ,, As shown in Tables S5 and S7, whereas the difference between Ag–P av and Cu– P av (0.20 Å) is comparable to the differences between Ag–Br av (2.73 Å) and Cu–Br av (2.54 Å), the difference between Ag–N av and Cu–N av is 0.30 Å, showing that imino ligand L is less favorable for the monovalent silver ion than the phosphine ligand, which can explain the requirement of an excess amount of L in the synthesis of AgX-L . Although various ligands are known to afford [Cu 2 X 2 (PPh 3 ) 2 (L) n ] ( n = 1, 2), only 4,4′-bipyridine (bpy), 2-aminopyrimidine, , 2-aminopyridine, and pyridine , have been reported to afford [Ag 2 X 2 (PPh 3 ) 2 (L) n ].…”
mentioning
confidence: 83%
“…The structures of AgX-L and CuBr-L prepared in this study are typical for complexes with the formula [M 2 X 2 (PPh 3 ) 2 (μ-L)] n (M = Cu, Ag; X = I, Br, Cl). ,, As shown in Tables S4 and S5, the bond distances around the silver atom in the present complexes are in the range of related compounds having Ag 2 X 2 P 2 N 2 geometry (Table S6). ,, As shown in Tables S5 and S7, whereas the difference between Ag–P av and Cu– P av (0.20 Å) is comparable to the differences between Ag–Br av (2.73 Å) and Cu–Br av (2.54 Å), the difference between Ag–N av and Cu–N av is 0.30 Å, showing that imino ligand L is less favorable for the monovalent silver ion than the phosphine ligand, which can explain the requirement of an excess amount of L in the synthesis of AgX-L . Although various ligands are known to afford [Cu 2 X 2 (PPh 3 ) 2 (L) n ] ( n = 1, 2), only 4,4′-bipyridine (bpy), 2-aminopyrimidine, , 2-aminopyridine, and pyridine , have been reported to afford [Ag 2 X 2 (PPh 3 ) 2 (L) n ].…”
mentioning
confidence: 83%
“…[21] In 2018, Štěpnička et al used a racemic phosphanoferrocene ligand bearing an achiral oxazoline arm in combination with group 11 metal complexes. [22] With gold, no coordination of the oxazoline ring was achieved. Metalation of the ligand with tetrahydrothiophene gold(I) complexes Au(tht)Cl or Au(tht)(ClO 4 ) yielded respectively the neutral phosphane gold(I) chloride complex or the cationic bis-phosphine gold(I) perchlorate complex.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%