Organoplatinum(IV) Complexes with Hydrogen Bonds: From Monomers to Polymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of organoplatinum(IV) complexes has been prepared, in which one of the alkyl groups contains a functional group that is capable of taking part in hydrogen bonding. These complexes are formed by oxidative addition of reagents RCH 2 X to [PtMe 2 (bu 2 bipy)] ( 1; bu 2 bipy = 4,4‘-di- tert -butyl-2,2‘-bipyridine) and have the formula [PtXMe 2 (CH 2 R)(bu 2 bipy)] ( 2, R = CO 2 H, X = Br; 3, R = 4-C 6 H 4 CO 2 H, X = Br; 4, R = 4-C 6 H 4 CH 2 CO 2 H, X = Br; 5, R = C 4 N 2 H 3 O 2, X = Cl; 6, R = 4-C 6 H 4 NHCO 2 Me, X = Cl; 7, R = 2,4-C 6 H 3 (NHCO 2 Me) 2, X = Cl). These complexes may form dimers through OH···O or NH···O hydrogen bonding or polymers through NH···X hydrogen bonding. Further derivatives were prepared by reaction of the above complexes with AgBF 4 in the presence of nicotinic acid or 4,4‘-bipyridyl (bipy): namely, [PtMe 2 (CH 2 C 6 H 4 CO 2 H)(4-NC 5 H 4 CO 2 H)(bu 2 bipy)][BF 4 ] ( 8 ) and [{PtMe 2 (CH 2 R)(bu 2 bipy)} 2 (μ-bipy)][BF 4 ] 2 ( 9a, R = C 6 H 4 CO 2 H; 10a, R = C 6 H 4 CH 2 CO 2 H) Complex 9a forms a polymer by OH···O hydrogen bonding, whereas 8 and 10a undergo hydrogen bonding with the solvent and/or the counterion. This work shows that extended structures can be designed with hydrogen bonding in organoplatinum compounds and that there is a fine balance between formation of dimers or polymers through OH···O, NH···O, or NH···Cl bonding forms and formation of simpler structures arising from hydrogen bonding to solvent molecules or counterions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.537 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".