Mono- and bis-(acetylacetonato) complexes of arene-ruthenium(II) and arene-osmium(II): variation of the binding mode of η<sup>1</sup>-acetylacetonate with the nature of the arene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mono(acetylacetonato) complexes [MCl(O,O'-acac)(η6-arene)] (M = Ru, Os, arene = C6H6, 1,3,5-C6H3Me3, C6Me6; M = Os, arene = 1,2-C6H4Me2, 1,2,3-C6H3Me3), which are formed from [MCl2(η6-arene)]2 and thallium or sodium acetylacetonate, react with thallium acetylacetonate to give bis(acetylacetonato) complexes [M(O,O'-acac)(η1-acac)(η6-arene)]. The η1-acac ligand is bound through the gamma-carbon atom for M = Ru, Os, arene = C6H6; M = Os, arene = 1,2-C6H4Me2, 1,2,3-C6H3Me3 and through a keto-oxygen atom for M = Ru, Os, arene = 1,3,5-C6H3Me3, C6Me6, the difference being attributed to a combination of steric and electronic effects. Cationic ruthenium(II) derivatives [Ru(L)(O,O'-acac)(η6-arene]+ (arene = C6H6, 1,3,5-C6H3Me3, C6Me6; L = DMSO, MeCN, py, PPh3) and [Ru(CO)(O,O'-acac)(η6-arene]+ (arene = 1,3,5-C6H3Me3,C6Me6), and neutral osmium(II) η1-acetato derivatives [Os(η1-OAc)(O,O'-acac)(η6-arene)] (arene = C6H6, 1,2-C6H4Me2, 1,2,3-C6H3Me3, 1,3,5-C6H3Me3, C6Me6) are also described. The molecular structures of the following complexes have been determined by X-ray crystallography: [Os(O,O'-acac)(η1-C-acac)(η6-1,2-C6H4Me2)], triclinic, space group P[Formula: see text] (No. 2), a = 9.922(2), b = 9.974(2), and c = 11.001(2) Å, α = 68.33(1), β = 64.18(1), and γ = 62.38(1)°, V = 849.0(3) Å3, Z = 2; [Os(O,O'-acac)(η1-O-acac)(η6-1,3,5-C6H3Me3)], monoclinic, space group C2/c (No. 15), a = 16.032(4), b = 11.989(3), and c = 21.562(7) Å, β= 108.91(2)°, V = 3921(2) Å, Z = 8; [Os(η1-OAc)(O,O'-acac)(η6-C6H6)], triclinic, space group P[Formula: see text] (No. 2), a = 8.368(4), b = 8.402(4), and c = 11.008(4) Å, α = 71.68(3), β = 69.35(3), and γ = 69.77(3)°, V = 663.0(6) Å3, Z = 2.Key words: arene-ruthenium, arene-osmium, acetylacetone, crystal structures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".