This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Ferrocene-bridged dithiolate complexes [Fe2(CO)6(μ-EC5H4FeC5H4E)] (E = S, Se) (1-2) have been studied as biomimics of [FeFe]-hydrogenases, ferrocene taking the role of an Fe4S4 surrogate. Both show a quasi-reversible electron reduction at E1/2 = -1.81 V and -1.56 V respectively with IR SEC showing that it is Fe2-based (ca. 50 cm−1 hypsochromic shift) and leads to a significant structural rearrangement with formation of a bridging carbonyl being at ca. 1715 cm−1. They also show reversible one-electron oxidation with a small (ca. 15 cm−1) hypsochromic ν(CO) shift, showing it is ferrocene-based, while oxidation of the Fe2 centre occurs outside of the potential window. DFT calculations on 1 show that the HOMO is ferrocene-based, and the LUMO Fe2-based, both in accord with the IR SEC results. However, the radical anion [1]− is calculated to have an elongated metal-metal vector rather than a bridging carbonyl, although a complex with an open structure [1(μ-CO)]− in which one thiolate group moves from a bridging to a terminal position is energetically similar. For 2, DFT shows the HOMO is Fe2-based, which is not supported experimentally. Complexes 1-2 are proton-reduction catalysts at their first reduction potential in the presence of trifluoroacetic acid. DFT suggests two competing pathways for H2 generation catalysed by 1, occurring upon protonation of either [1]− or [1(μ-CO)]− to give bridging and terminal hydride complexes respectively. For 2, DFT suggests that [2(μ-CO)]− is only slightly higher in energy than [2]−, probably a result of the weaker Fe-Se vs Fe-S bond, and thus proton-reduction likely proceeds (primarily) through the open-structure isomer.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Orton et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: