Replacement of the olefin in the complexes [{Rh(μ-RPz)(C 2 H 4 ) 2 } 2 ] (RPz = pyrazolate (Pz) ( 1 ), 3-methylpyrazolate (MePz) ( 2 ), 3,5-dimethylpyrazolate (Me 2 Pz) ( 3 )) by tert -butyl isocyanide gives [{Rh(μ-RPz)(CNBu t ) 2 } 2 ] ( 4, 5, 6 ) respectively. Complex 4 can alternatively be prepared from [{Rh(μ-Pz)(cod)} 2 ] (cod = 1,5-cyclooctadiene) ( 7 ) leading to a chemical equilibrium between 4, 7, and the intermediate [(cod)Rh(μ-Pz) 2 Rh(CNBu t ) 2 ] ( 8 ), which has been also isolated. Kinetic studies on this apparent ligand redistribution reaction, leading to 8, show that it follows a second order rate, giving the activation parameters Δ H ≠ = 21.8 kcal·mol - 1, ΔS ≠ = −7.4 eu, and Δ G ≠ 298 = 24.0 kcal·mol - 1, suggesting that the dinuclear complexes are the active species, and no fragmentation seems to occur. The molecular structures of complexes 3, 4, 8, and [{Rh(μ-Pz)(CO) 2 } 2 ] ( 9 ) determined by X-ray diffraction show discrete dinuclear complexes with the six-membered “Rh(μ-Pz) 2 Rh” ring showing a boatlike conformation. Complexes 3 and 4 present the shortest and the largest intermetallic nonbonding separations, 3.0961(2) and 3.8995(6) Å, respectively, so far reported in di-μ-pyrazolato-dirhodium(I) complexes. In addition, complex 3 shows the shortest olefinic C C distance found in ethylene rhodium complexes and accordingly a very low activation energy, 10.0 kcal·mol - 1, for the rotation of the ethylene ligands. Complex 8 undergoes two independent intramolecular fluxional processes associated to the ring inversion of the six-membered “Rh(μ-Pz) 2 Rh” metallacycle and to a σ-1,2-metallotropic shift showing activation parameters Δ H ≠ = 15.0 kcal·mol - 1, Δ S ≠ = −1.7 eu and Δ H ≠ = 19.7 kcal·mol - 1, Δ S ≠ = 4.8 eu, respectively. The first movement is influenced by medium effects and may be restricted by the ancillary ligands and the substituents on the pyrazolate rings in other bis(μ-pyrazolato) complexes. Finally, the intermetallic distance in dinuclear pyrazolato complexes is analyzed in terms of steric and electronic factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tejel et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: