Homoleptic, σ-Bonded Octahedral Superelectrophilic Metal Carbonyl Cations of Iron(II), Ruthenium(II), and Osmium(II). Part 2: Syntheses and Characterizations of [M(CO)<sub>6</sub>][BF<sub>4</sub>]<sub>2</sub> (M = Fe, Ru, Os)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the first examples of homoleptic, sigma-bonded superelectrophilic metal carbonyl cations with tetrafluoroborate [BF(4)](-) as the counter anions three thermally stable salts of the composition [M(CO)(6)][BF(4)](2) (M = Fe, Ru, Os) have been synthesized and extensively characterized by thermochemical, structural, and spectroscopic methods. A common synthetic route, the oxidative carbonylation of either Fe(CO)(5) (XeF(2) as the oxidizer) or M(3)(CO)(12) (M = Ru, Os) (F(2) as the oxidizer) in the conjugate Bronsted-Lewis superacid HF/BF(3), was employed. The thermal behavior of the three salts, studied by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and gas-phase IR spectroscopy of the decomposition products, has been compared to that of the corresponding [SbF(6)](-) salts. The molecular structures of [M(CO)(6)][BF(4)](2) (M = Fe, Os) were obtained by single-crystal X-ray diffraction at 100 K. X-ray powder diffraction data for [M(CO)(6)][BF(4)](2) (M = Ru, Os) were obtained between 100 and 300 K in intervals of 50 K. All three salts are isostructural and crystallized in the tetragonal space group I4/m (No. 87). As for the corresponding [M(CO)(6)][SbF(6)](2) salts (M = Fe, Ru, Os), similar unit cell parameters and vibrational fundamentals were also found for the three [BF(4)](-) compounds. For the structurally characterized salts [M(CO)(6)][BF(4)](2) (M = Fe, Os), very similar bond parameters for both cations and anions were found. Hence, the invariance of structural and spectroscopic properties of [M(CO)(6)](2+) cations (M = Fe, Ru, Os) extended from the fluoroantimonates [Sb(2)F(11)](-) and [SbF(6)](-) as counteranions also to [BF(4)](-).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".