4.5 Article

Lewis Superacidic Divalent Bis(m-terphenyl)element Cations [(2,6-Mes2C6H3)2E]+ of Group 13 Revisited and Extended (E=B, Al, Ga, In, Tl)

期刊

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/ejic.202200482

关键词

Boron; Indium; Indinium cations; Lewis acids; Superacids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the molecular and electronic structures of five divalent bis(m-terphenyl)element cations were investigated using experimental and computational methods. The preparation and characterization of some of these cations have been previously reported, while one was prepared and characterized for the first time. Quantum chemical calculations were used to analyze their electronic structures and compare them to a similar group of compounds previously studied. The results showed that these compounds have high fluoride ion affinities, classifying them as Lewis superacids.
In a combined experimental and computational study, the molecular and electronic structures of the divalent bis(m-terphenyl)element cations [(2,6-Mes(2)C(6)H(3))(2)E](+) of group 13 (1, E=B; 2, E=Al; 3, E=Ga; 4, E=In; 5, E=Tl) were investigated. The preparation and characterization of 2, 3 and 5 were previously reported by Wehmschulte's (Organometallics 2004, 23, 1965-1967; J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 1470-1471) and our groups (Organometallics 2009, 28, 6893-6901). The indinium ion 4 was prepared and fully characterized for the first time. Attempts to prepare the borinium ion 1 by fluoride or hydride abstraction were unsuccessful. The electronic structures of 1-5 and the stabilization by the bulky m-terphenyl substituents were analyzed using quantum chemical calculations and compared to the divalent bis(m-terphenyl)pnictogenium ions [(2,6-Mes(2)C(6)H(3))(2)E](+) of group 15 (6, E=P; 7, E=As; 8, E=Sb; 9, E=Bi) previously investigated by our group (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 10080-10084). The calculated fluoride ion affinities (FIA) of 1-9 are higher than that of SbF5, which classifies them as Lewis superacids.

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

4.5
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