Synthesis and Characterization of Neutral and Cationic Platinum(II) Complexes Featuring Pincer-like Bis(phosphino)silyl Ligands: Si−H and Si−Cl Bond Activation Chemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The synthesis and characterization of a new series of Pt(II) complexes bearing the tridentate bis(phosphino)silyl ligands [κ 3 -(2-R 2 P C 6 H 4 ) 2 Si Me] − ([R-PSiP], R = Ph, Cy) are reported. The tertiary silane [Ph-PSiP]H reacted with PtCl 2 (SEt 2 ) 2 to afford [Ph-PSiP]PtCl ( 1 ), which was structurally characterized. Alkyl derivatives of 1 were prepared in high yields by the reaction of 1 with either PhCH 2 K to afford [Ph-PSiP]PtCH 2 Ph ( 2 ) or MeLi to afford [Ph-PSiP]PtMe ( 3 ). The X-ray crystal structure of 2·CH 2 Cl 2 was obtained and confirmed a square-planar geometry about Pt, with the benzyl ligand positioned trans to Si. Treatment of either 2 or 3 with 1 equiv of B(C 6 F 5 ) 3 in benzene solution led to the formation of the corresponding cationic species {[Ph-PSiP]Pt} + [RB(C 6 F 5 ) 3 ] − (R = CH 2 Ph, 4; R = Me, 5 ). X-ray quality crystals of 4(OEt 2 )·OEt 2 were grown from an Et 2 O solution of 4; the crystal structure of 4(OEt 2 )·OEt 2 features an Et 2 O molecule coordinated to the cationic Pt center, resulting in square-planar coordination geometry at Pt. Both 4 and 5 underwent a subsequent reaction to generate [Ph-PSiP]Pt(C 6 F 5 ) ( 6 ). Treatment of 1 with 1 equiv of Li[B(C 6 F 5 ) 4 ](OEt 2 ) 2.5 in fluorobenzene afforded {[Ph-PSiP]Pt(OEt 2 )} + [B(C 6 F 5 ) 4 ] − ( 7(OEt 2 ) ). Although the reaction of 1 with AlCl 3 led to a mixture of products, crystallization attempts enabled the isolation of a minute quantity of fluorobenzene-solvated [Ph-PSiP]PtCl·AlCl 3 ( 1(AlCl 3 )·(C 6 H 5 F) 2 ), which was crystallographically characterized and features a chloride ligand bridging the Pt and Al centers. The dicyclohexylphosphino derivative [Cy-PSiP]H reacted with PtCl 2 (SEt 2 ) 2 in the presence of Et 3 N to afford [Cy-PSiP]PtCl ( 8 ), which reacted with AgOTf to form [Cy-PSiP]PtOTf ( 9 ). Heating of either 8 or 9 for extended periods in benzene solution in the presence of amine bases did not result in benzene activation. Treatment of 8 with RLi reagents (R = Me, Ph) afforded the corresponding methyl ([Cy-PSiP]PtMe, 10 ) and phenyl ([Cy-PSiP]PtPh, 11 ) complexes, the latter of which was crystallographically characterized. As was observed for 3, compound 10 reacted with 1 equiv of B(C 6 F 5 ) 3 to form {[Cy-PSiP]Pt} + [MeB(C 6 F 5 ) 3 ] − ( 12 ), which upon heating in benzene afforded [Cy-PSiP]Pt(C 6 F 5 ) ( 13 ) with loss of MeB(C 6 F 5 ) 2 . Treatment of 8 with LiEt 3 BH led to the formation of [Cy-P Si (μ-H)P] Pt ( 14 ), which was identified on the basis of NMR and IR spectroscopic data as a bis(phosphino) Pt derivative of [Cy-PSiP]H that features η 2 -Si-H coordination involving the tethered silicon fragment. Although complexes 2, 3, and 10 did not react with an atmosphere of H 2, these compounds reacted readily with 1 equiv of PhSiH 3 to form the corresponding silyl complexes ([Ph-PSiP]PtSiH 2 Ph, 15; [Cy-PSiP]PtSiH 2 Ph, 16 ) upon loss of toluene or methane, respectively. While 2 and 3 also reacted with 1 equiv of Ph 2 SiHCl to form the silyl complex [Ph-PSiP]PtSiPh 2 Cl ( 17 ), 10 reacted with either Ph 2 SiHCl or i Pr 2 SiHCl to form [Cy-PSiP]PtCl ( 8 ). Complex 10 also reacted with 1 equiv of Me 3 SiCl to form 8 and Me 4 Si upon heating. Although complex 11 also reacted with hydridochlorosilanes to form 8, these reactions were significantly slower relative to 10 . In contrast to 10 and 11, the η 2 -Si-H complex 14 reacted with 1 equiv of either PhSiH 3 or Ph 2 SiHCl to form the corresponding Pt silyl complexes 16 and [Cy-PSiP]PtSiPh 2 Cl ( 18 ), with loss of H 2 .
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 | 0.001 | 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".