Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The monoanionic mixed-valence benzenediamido complexes ortho- and para-[{Mo(NO)[HB(dmpz) 3 ]X} 2 (Z 2 C 6 H 4 )] - A [HB(dmpz) 3 = tris(3,5-dimethylpyrazolyl) hydroborate; Z = NH; X = Cl, Br or I] have been characterised by electronic, EPR and IR spectroscopic and electrochemical techniques. They are delocalised at room temperature on the EPR time-scale but valence-trapped on the IR time-scale, whereas the meta isomer exhibits valence-trapped behaviour according to both techniques. The electrochemical properties of these species and of related dianilido complexes [{Mo(NO)[HB(dmpz) 3 ]X} 2 (ZC 6 H 4 EC 6 H 4 Z)] B [Z = NH; E = CH 2 , O, SO 2 , CO or OC 6 H 4 (SO 2 )C 6 H 4 O] are dependent on X and E. These results are compared with those obtained from related diphenolato species A (Z = O) and B (Z = O) and dipyridyl analogues [{Mo(NO)[HB(dmpz) 3 ]X} 2 {(NC 5 H 4 )E′(C 5 H 4 N)}] C (E′ = nothing, CH 2 CH 2 , CHCH or dimethyldecapentene). Comproportionation constants and related data for the redox equilibria A + A 2- ⇌ 2A - , B + B 2- ⇌; 2B - and C + C 2- ⇌ 2C - show that interaction between the molybdenum-based redox centres increases significantly as the distance between them decreases and as a function of the group connecting the bridge to the molybdenum, in the order O < NH < N (pyridine). The data are generally consistent with those obtained from related dinuclear pentammineruthenium complexes [{Ru(NH 3 ) 5 } 2 Q] n + (Q = bridging group) but the interaction between the metal centres is much greater in the molybdenum species than in the ruthenium complexes, and a simple explanation for this behaviour is given.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Włodarczyk et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: