4.6 Article

C-H and Si-H Activation Reactions at Ru/Ga Complexes: A Combined Experimental and Theoretical Case Study on the Ru-Ga Bond

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 28, 期 54, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.202200887

关键词

bond activation; cluster intermediates; density functional calculations; intermetallic compounds; mass spectrometry

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) within a Reinhard Koselleck Project [FI-502/44-1]
  2. TUM Graduate School
  3. GENCI French national computer resource center [A0030807367]
  4. China Scholarship Council
  5. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment of [Ru(COD)(MeAllyl)(2)] and [Ru(COD)(COT)] with GaCp* under hydrogenolytic conditions leads to the formation of reactive intermediates capable of activating Si-H or C-H bonds. The structures and properties of the resulting complex compounds [Ru(GaCp*)(3)(SiEt3)H-3] (1) and [Ru(GaCp*)(3)(C7H7)H-3] (2) have been investigated and characterized.
Treatment of [Ru(COD)(MeAllyl)(2)] and [Ru(COD)(COT)] with GaCp* under hydrogenolytic conditions leads to reactive intermediates which activate Si-H or C-H bonds, respectively. The product complexes [Ru(GaCp*)(3)(SiEt3)H-3] (1) and [Ru(GaCp*)(3)(C7H7)H-3] (2) are formed with HSiEt3 or with toluene as the solvent, respectively. While 1 was isolated and fully characterized by NMR, MS, IR and SC-XRD, 2 was too labile to be isolated and was observed and characterized in situ by using mass spectrometry, including labelling experiments for the unambiguous assignment of the elemental composition. The structural assignment was confirmed by DFT calculations. The relative energies of the four isomers possible upon toluene activation at the ortho-, meta-, para- and CH3-positions have been determined and point to aromatic C-H activation. The Ru-Ga bond was analyzed by EDA and QTAIM and compared to the Ru-P bond in the analogue phosphine compound. Bonding analyses indicate that the Ru-GaCp* bond is weaker than the Ru-PR3 bond.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据