The compounds [(1,5-COD)M(mu-O2C8H15)]2 (COD = cyclooctadiene, M = Ir (1) or Rh (2), O2C8H15 = 2-ethylhexanoate) were synthesized by addition of Bu3NH(2-ethylhexanoate) or Na(2-ethylhexanoate) to acetone suspensions of [(1,5-COD)Ir(mu-Cl)]2 or [(1,5-COD)Rh(mu-Cl)]2, respectively. The synthesis of such well-defined second and third row model precursors is key to determining the true nature of commercial Ziegler-type hydrogenation catalysts (i.e., catalysts made from the combination of a non-zerovalent, group 8-10 transition metal precatalyst and a trialkylaluminum cocatalyst), an unsolved, approximately 40 year old problem. The characterizations of 1 and 2 were accomplished by elemental analysis, melting point, FAB-MS, FT-IR, UV-vis, NMR spectroscopy, and single crystal X-ray diffraction. The complexes, C32H54Ir2O4 and C32H54O4Rh2, are isostructural: monoclinic, P2(1)/n, Z = 4. The lattice constants for 1 are a = 15.7748(5) A, b = 9.8962(3) A, c = 20.8847(7) A, beta = 108.408(2) degrees. The lattice constants for 2 are a = 15.7608(4) A, b = 9.9032(3) A, c = 20.8259(5) A, beta = 108.527(1) degrees. Complexes 1 and 2 are dimeric, bridged by the 2-ethylhexanoates, and with one 1,5-COD ligand bound to each metal. The formally 16 electron metal atoms are in square ligand planes with dihedral angles between the planes of 56.5 degrees for 1 and 58.1 degrees for 2. The M-M distances of 3.2776(2) and 3.3390(4) A for 1 and 2, respectively, fall in the range of similar structures thought to have some M-M interaction despite the lack of a formal M-M bond. Demonstration that active Ziegler-type hydrogenation catalysts are made when 1 or 2 combine with AlEt3 is provided, results that open the door to the use of 1 and 2 as well-defined third and second row congeners, respectively, of Ziegler-type hydrogenation catalysts. These compounds have proven important in addressing the previously unsolved problem of the true nature of the catalyst in industrial Ziegler-type hydrogenation catalyst systems; their high yield synthesis and unequivocal characterization reported herein are the necessary first steps of that work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alley et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: