Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The new cyclic organosilanes S(C 10 H 6 O) 2 SiMe 2 ( 1 ) and S(C 10 H 6 O) 2 SiPh 2 ( 2 ) were obtained by the reaction of R 2 Si(NMe 2 ) 2 (R = Me, Ph) with thiobis(2,2‘-naphthol), while S[Me 2 C 6 H 2 O] 2 SiH(Me) ( 3 ) and S[( t -Bu)MeC 6 H 2 O] 2 SiH(Me) ( 4 ) were formed by reaction of Cl 2 SiH(Me) with the appropriate diol in the presence of Et 3 N. Characterization was achieved by 29 Si and 1 H solution NMR, 29 Si solid-state NMR, and X-ray structural studies. As a result of sulfur donor interaction, pentacoordinate geometries were obtained where 3 and 4 were displaced further toward a trigonal bipyramid (TBP) compared to 1 and 2 . Variable-temperature NMR spectra showed 1 to be fluxional with an activation energy of 9.4 kcal/mol. An exchange mechanism involving rupture of the Si−S donor interaction accompanying a ring pseudorotation is postulated. The less symmetric silanes 3 and 4 do not exchange, as indicated by the 1 H NMR data. Comparison of the degree of Si−S donor interaction of 1 − 4 with that of related cyclic organosilanes possessing Si−O and Si−N donor action allows a correlation of the degree of geometrical displacement toward a TBP, which increases as ring substituents enhance the Lewis basicity of the donor group and the electrophilicity at the silicon center is enhanced by its ligand attachments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mercado et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: