Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A new ruthenium hydride complex of the aminocyclopentadienyl ligand (Cp-N)RuH(PPh 3 ) 2 (Cp-N = C 5 H 4 CH 2 CH 2 NMe 2, 1 ) has been prepared and characterized by X-ray diffraction. Protonation of 1 with excess HPF 6 leads to the dicationic derivative [(Cp-NH)RuH 2 (PPh 3 ) 2 ](PF 6 ) 2 ( 2 ), in which both the metal and the amino substituent have been protonated. Addition of 1 equiv of HBF 4 ·Et 2 O to 1 leads to the complex [(Cp-N)Ru(PPh 3 ) 2 ](BF 4 ) ( 3 ), containing a chelating amino cyclopentadienyl ligand after elimination of H 2 . However, using (HNEt 3 )(BPh 4 ) or (HPBu 3 )(BPh 4 ) as protonating agent, it is possible to form [(Cp-NH)RuH(PPh 3 ) 2 ](BPh 4 ) ( 4 ), which was isolated as yellow crystals of 4 ·H 2 O upon addition of undistilled methanol and characterized by X-ray crystallographic analysis. A fluxional process exchanging the ammonium proton and the hydride without changing the thermodynamic state of the system could be established by 1 H NMR, and activation energies of 11 kcal·mol - 1 were calculated for 4 ·H 2 O and the product resulting from in situ addition of [HNEt 3 ][BPh 4 ] to 1, whereas an activation energy of 10.1 kcal·mol - 1 was found for the product resulting from in situ addition of [HPBu 3 ][BPh 4 ] to 1 . A density functional study (B3PW91) was carried out, and the dihydrogen bond in the model system for 4 was calculated to be 1.545 Å, in excellent agreement with T 1 measurements (1.52 Å). The proposed mechanism for the fluxional process does not involve a proton transfer within the dihydrogen bond.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ayllón et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: