Chemistry and Electrochemistry of the Heterodinuclear Complex ClPd(dppm)<sub>2</sub>PtCl: A M−M‘ Bond Providing Site Selectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The heterodinuclear d(9)-d(9) title compound 1, whose crystal structure has been solved, reacts with dppm [bis(diphenylphosphino)methane] in the presence of NaBF4 to generate the salt [ClPd(mu-dppm)2Pt(eta(1)-dppm)][BF4] (2a), which contains a Pt-bound dangling dppm ligand. 2a has been characterized by 1H and 31P NMR, Fourier transform Raman [nu(Pd-Pt) = 138 cm(-1)], and UV-vis spectroscopy [lambda(max)(dsigma-dsigma*) = 366 nm]. In a similar manner, [ClPd(mu-dppm)2Pt(eta(1)-dppm=O)][BF4] (2b), ligated with a dangling phosphine oxide, has been prepared by the addition of dppm=O. The molecular structure of 2b has been established by an X-ray diffraction study. 2a reacts with 1 equiv of NaBH4 to form the platinum hydride complex [(eta(1)-dppm)Pd(mu-dppm)2Pt(H)][BF4] (3). Both 2a and 3 react with an excess of NaBH4 to provide the mixed-metal d(10)-d(10) compound [Pd(mu-dppm)3Pt] (4). The photophysical properties of 4 were studied by UV-vis spectroscopy [lambda(max)(dsigma-dsigma*) = 460 nm] and luminescence spectroscopy (lambda(emi) = 724 nm; tau(e) = 12 +/- 1 micros, 77 K). The protonation of 1 and 4 leads to [ClPd(mu-dppm)2(mu-H)PtCl]+ (5) and 3, respectively. Stoichiometric treatment of 1 with cyclohexyl or xylyl isocyanide yields [ClPd(mu-dppm)2Pt(CNC6H11)]Cl (6a) and [ClPd(mu-dppm)2Pt(CN-xylyl)]Cl (6b) ligated by terminal-bound CNR ligands. In contrast, treatment of 1 with the phosphonium salt [C[triple bond]NCH2PPh3]Cl affords the structurally characterized A-frame compound [ClPd(mu-dppm)2(mu-C=NCH2PPh3)PtCl]Cl (6c), spanned by a bridging isocyanide ligand. The electrochemical reduction of 2a at -1.2 V vs SCE, as well as the reduction of 5 in the presence of dppm, leads to a mixture of products 3 and 4. Further reduction of 3 at -1.7 V vs SCE generates 4 quantitatively. The reoxidation at 0 V of 4 in the presence of Cl- ions produces back complex 2a. The whole mechanism of the reduction of 1 has been established.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".