Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The reactivity of the “long arm” PCN-type pincer ligand C 6 H 4 [CH 2 P(tBu) 2 ](CH 2 ) 2 N(CH 3 ) 2 ( 1 ), which forms complexes bearing a six-membered amine chelate and a five-membered phosphine chelate, was compared with that of the new “normal” PCN ligand C 6 H 4 [CH 2 P(tBu) 2 ](CH 2 )N(CH 2 CH 3 ) 2 ( 2 ), which leads to formation of complexes bearing two five-membered chelates. The chloride complexes (PCN)PtCl ( 3, 4 ) and the unsaturated cationic complexes [(PCN)Pt] + X - (X = BF 4, OTf) ( 5, 6, 7 ), based on both PCN ligands, were prepared and reacted with different reagents to give aqua, [(PCN- 1 )Pt(H 2 O)] + BF 4 - ( 10 ); hydroxo, (PCN- 1 )Pt(OH) ( 11 ); carbonyl [(PCN)Pt(CO)] + BF 4 - ( 8, 9 ); and hydride, (PCN- 1 )PtH ( 16 ) complexes. The structures of complexes 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12 were determined by X-ray crystallography. When both carbonyl complexes were treated with hydrogen gas, the “long arm” PCN- 1 -based complex 8 led to formation of a trimeric cluster, [C 6 H 6 [CH 2 P(tBu) 2 ](CH 2 ) 2 N(CH 3 ) 2 Pt(CO)] 3 ( 12 ), while the “normal” PCN-based complex 9 remained unchanged under the same conditions. This observation clearly demonstrates the very significant effect of the amine arm length (five- vs six-membered chelate) on the hemilability of the ligand and the reactivity of the corresponding complexes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Poverenov et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: