This paper presents a structural analysis of a series of copper(I) complexes with the general composition Cu(κ2-X1X2)(Y3), in which bidentate (X1X2) and monodentate (Y3) donor ligands create a wide variety of inner coordination spheres. This study provides a rigorous structural classification and Continuous Shape Measures (CShM) analysis of twenty-nine three-coordinate copper(I) complexes featuring five-, six-, seven-, eight-, and eleven-membered metallacyclic rings. Within the five-membered metallacyclic series, encompassing varying donor sets (N,N; N,O; N,S; N,C; and P,P), the small ring size imposes severe steric demands. This causes the endocyclic X1–Cu–X2 angles to contract significantly below the ideal 120°, while the exocyclic X–Cu–Y3 angles expand up to 174.8°. CShM evaluation using the SHAPE 2.1 software shows that these derivatives split into two distinct structural regimes: one subgroup retains a highly strained, distorted trigonal planar geometry, whereas the other preferentially transitions into a non-planar pyramidal arrangement, adopting a fac-trivacant octahedral configuration. In contrast to these highly strained five-membered systems, the six-membered metallacycles—incorporating N,N; N,O; N,P; P,P; and O,S donor sets—allow for wider endocyclic angles (93.3° to 107.2°), which significantly mitigates structural strain, meaning this series is overwhelmingly dominated by highly ideal or only minimally distorted trigonal planar geometries. Finally, for the three-coordinate copper(I) complexes featuring expanded seven-, eight-, and eleven-membered metallacyclic rings, the enhanced stereochemical flexibility and low ring strain lead to the strong dominance of the virtually ideal trigonal planar arrangement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Melnı́k et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: