Charge-transfer complexes 2([15]aneS5)·7I2 1 ([15]aneS5 = 1,4,7,10,13-pentathiacyclopentadecane), [18]aneS6·I2 2, [18]aneS6·4I2 3 ([18]aneS6 = 1,4,7,10,13,16-hexathiacyclooctadecane), [24]aneS8·I2 4 and [24]aneS8·6I2 5 ([24]aneS8 = 1,4,7,10,13,16,19,22-octathiacyclotetracosane) have been prepared and their structures and solution properties investigated. The compounds were prepared by slow evaporation of solutions containing I2 and the appropriate thioether macrocycle in CH2Cl2. The single-crystal structure determination of 1 shows three I2 molecules co-ordinated to three exo oriented S donors [S(1)–I(1) 2.797(3), I(1)–I(1′) 2.798(2), S(4)–I(4) 2.885(4), I(4)–I(4′) 2.764(2), S(7)–I(7) 2.828(3) and I(7)–I(7′) 2.779(2) Å; S(1)–I(1)–I(1′) 178.39(8), S(4)–I(4)–I(4′) 171.12(8), S(7)–I(7)–I(7′) 178.80(8)°]. The fourth I2 molecule (with a site occupancy of 0.5) lies close to S(10) [I(10)–S(10) 2.839(5) Å], the bond distance I(10)–I(10′) 2.674(3) Å being unusually short. Compound 2 is an example of a 1∶1 I2∶macrocycle adduct and shows symmetrically bridging I2 molecules [S(1)–I(1) 3.099(2), I(1)–I(1i) 2.7881(10) Å; S(1)–I(1)–I(1i) 178.68(4)°; i 1 – x, 1 – y, 1 – z] between [18]aneS6 macrocycles. Compound 3 is the first example of an adduct between I2 and a homoleptic thioether macrocycle which shows both exo [S(1)–I(1) 2.838(2), I(1)–I(1′) 2.7875(6) Å; S(1)–I(1)–I(1′) 174.95(4)°] and endo [S(4)–I(4) 2.792(2), I(4)–I(4′) 2.8067(7) Å; S(4)–I(4)–I(4′) 174.43(4)°] co-ordination of I2 molecules. The endo-oriented I2 molecules occupy space above and below the macrocyclic plane with the macrocycle adopting a sigmoid conformation. The single-crystal structure determination of the 1∶1 adduct 4 shows symmetrically bridging I2 molecules [S(1)–I(1) 3.215(2) and I(1)–I(1i) 2.758(2) Å; S(1)–I(1)–I(1i) 172.75(3)°; i –x, –y, –z] which are a characteristic of this stoichiometry. Compound 5 contains endo- and exo-oriented S donors within the same adduct [I(1)–I(1′) 2.7861(8), I(4)–I(4′) 2.7937(8), I(7)–I(7′) 2.8345(8), S(1)–I(1) 2.821(2), S(4)–I(4) 2.815(2), S(7)–I(7) 2.741(2) Å; S(1)–I(1)–I(1′) 170.15(5), S(4)–I(4)–I(4′) 177.41(5), S(7)–I(7)–I(7′) 177.24(5)°]. These results are discussed in the context of the stability and characteristics of thioether crown–iodine charge-transfer complexes, and a qualitative MO diagram is proposed to account for the shorter I–I distances in bridging I2 fragments compared to those in terminally bound I2.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blake et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: