The hydridoruthenium(II) complex [ RuCl(CO) H (PPh3)3](1) reacted easily with methyl acrylate and N,N-dimethylacrylamide to give the corresponding insertion products,[[graphic omitted]OMe}Cl(CO)(PPh3)2](2a) and [[graphic omitted]NMe2}Cl(CO)(PPh3)2](3), respectively. Similarly, complex (1) reacted with 2-vinylpyridine and 5-ethyl-2-vinylpyridine to afford the C1,N-chelating organoruthenium(II) complexes, [[graphic omitted]}Cl(CO)(PPh3)2](4a) and [[graphic omitted]}Cl(CO)(PPh3)2](5) respectively. Complexes (2a) and (4a) reacted with LiBr·H2O to give the analogous bromo-complexes. The conjugated dienes, penta-1,3-diene, isoprene, and methyl sorbate were treated with (1) to yield the η3-allylic ruthenium(II) complexes, [Ru{η3-R1C(H)C(R2)CHR3}Cl(CO)(PPh3)2][(6) R1= R3= Me, R2= H; (7) R1= R2= Me, R3= H; (8) R1= Et, R2= H, R3= CO2Me], respectively. On the basis of 1H and 13C-{lH} n.m.r. data, it has been concluded that the two PPh3 ligands in (2)–(5) are located trans to each other, whereas those in (6)–(8) are cis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hiraki et al. (1985) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: