4.7 Article

Half sandwich complexes of chalcogenated pyridine based bi-(N, S/Se) and terdentate (N, S/Se, N) ligands with (eta(6)- benzene) ruthenium(II): synthesis, structure and catalysis of transfer hydrogenation of ketones and oxidation of alcohols

期刊

DALTON TRANSACTIONS
卷 42, 期 24, 页码 8736-8747

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c3dt00126a

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi (India) [SR/S1/IC-40/2010]
  2. University Grants Commission (India)
  3. KNS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The half sandwich complexes [(eta(6)-C6H6)Ru(L)Cl][PF6] (1-5) have been synthesized by the reactions of (2-arylchalcogenomethyl) pyridine [L = L1-L3] and bis(2-pyridylmethyl)chalcogenide [L = L4-L5] (chalcogen = S, Se; Ar = Ph/2-pyridyl for S, Ph for Se) with [(eta(6)-C6H6)RuCl2](2), at room temperature followed by treatment with NH4PF6. Their HR-MS, H-1, C-13{H-1} and Se-77{H-1} NMR spectra have been found characteristic. The single crystal structures of 1-5 have been established by X-ray crystallography. The Ru has pseudo-octahedral half sandwich piano-stool geometry. The complexes 1-5 have been found efficient for catalytic oxidation of alcohols with N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide (NMO) and transfer hydrogenation of ketones with 2-propanol (at moderate temperature 80 degrees C) as TON values are up to 9.9 x 10(3) and 9.8 x 10(3) respectively for the two catalytic reactions. On comparing the required catalyst loading for good conversions and reaction time for the present complexes with those reported in literature for other transfer hydrogenation/oxidation catalysts, it becomes apparent that 1-5 have good promise. The complexes of Se ligands have been found more efficient than their sulphur analogues. The complexes of bidentate ligands are more efficient than those of terdentate, due to difficult bond cleavage in the case of latter. These orders of efficiency are supported by DFT calculations. The calculated bond lengths/angles by DFT are generally consistent with the experimental ones.

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

4.7
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