Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Oxidative cleavage of the [Mo(CO) 3 (η 5 -C 5 H 5 )] 2 with AgBF 4 in the presence of 4-methoxy-6-methyl-2-pyrone or 3-bromo-4-methoxy-6-methyl-2-pyrone results in the formation of and respectively. Single-crystal X-ray diffraction studies have demonstrated that the orientation of the 2-pyrone ligands varies markedly within the two complexes. In the case of the 4-methoxy-6-methyl-2-pyrone complex the pyrone unit lies parallel to the Mo−CO axis, whereas the bromo-substituted pyrone lies in a perpendicular orientation. Similarly, reactions of [Fe(CO) 2 (η 5 -C 5 H 5 )] 2 with AgBF 4 in the presence of 4-methoxy-6-methyl-2-pyrone or 3-bromo-4-methoxy-6-methyl-2-pyrone result in formation of and respectively. Whereas the orientations of the pyrone ligands in the molybdenum and iron complexes containing the brominated 2-pyrone ligands are identical, the iron complex containing the 4-methoxy-6-methyl-2-pyrone contains three cations in the asymmetric unit, two of which have the 2-pyrone ligand perpendicular to the Cp(centroid)−Fe axis, whereas the third unit is parallel. The 2-pyrone ligands of these cations form a stack in which the parallel unit is sandwiched between the two with a perpendicular orientation. The pyrone ligands appear to be only weakly coordinated to the metals and solutions of the complexes rapidly decompose. The complex reacts with PhC⋮CPh to give [Mo(CO)(η 2 -PhC⋮CPh) 2 (η 5 -C 5 H 5 )][BF 4 ].
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fairlamb et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: