Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The addition of [NBu4]Br or [NBu4][BH4] to solutions of [Pt4(mu-PPh2)4(C6F5)4(CO)2] yields the complexes [NBu4]2[Pt4(mu-PPh2)4(mu-X)2(C6F5)4] (X=Br, H,) in which the two CO groups have been replaced by two anionic, bridging X ligands. The total valence electron counts are 64 and 60, respectively; thus, complex does not require Pt-Pt bonds, while two metal-metal bonds are present in, as their NMR spectra confirm. Also, the NMR spectra indicate a nonsymmetrical "Pt(mu-PPh2)2Pt(mu-PPh2)(mu-X)Pt(mu-PPh2)(mu-X)Pt" disposition for and. Treatment of with HX (X=Cl, Br) yields the complexes [NBu4]2[Pt4(mu-PPh2)4(mu-H)2(C6F5)3X] (X=Cl, Br,). These complexes react with [Ag(OClO 3)PPh3] with displacement of the halide and formation of [NBu4][Pt4(mu-PPh2)4(mu-H)2(C6F5)3PPh3]. Complexes maintain the same basic skeleton as, with two Pt-Pt bonds. Complex is, however, an isomer of the symmetric [NBu4]2[{(C6F5)2Pt(mu-PPh2)2Pt(mu-Br)}2], which has been prepared by a metathetical process from the well-known [NBu4]2[{(C6F5)2Pt(mu-PPh2)2Pt(mu-Cl)}2]. The comparison of the X-ray structures of and confirms the different disposition of the bridging ligands, and their main structural differences seem to be related to the size of Br- and its position in the skeleton.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Forniés et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: