Making a 16-electron bromo (or iodo) complex of ruthenium(II) and a CF bond in one pot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 16e bromo or iodo complexes [RuX(dppp)2]+ (dppp = 1,3-bis(diphenylphosphino)propane, X = Br (1c), I (1d)) and [RuX(dppe)2]+ (dppe = 1,2-bis(diphenylphosphino)ethane, X = Br (2c), I (2d)) have been prepared exploiting the reaction of the fluoro complexes [RuF(dppp)2]+ (1a) and [Tl(µ-F)2Ru(dppe)2]+ (3) with activated alkyl bromides or iodides. The X-ray structures of 1c, 1d, 2c, and 2d suggest that the distortion of the Y-shaped trigonal-bipyramidal structure of [MX(P∩P)2]+ is possibly related to the formation of intramolecular hydrogen bonds between the halide ligand and the ortho-hydrogen atoms of the neighbouring phenyl rings. The five-coordinate species 1c, 1d, 2c, and 2d react with H2 to form the dihydrogen complexes [RuX(η2-H2)(P∩P)2]+. The reaction of the dppp derivatives 1c and 1d with H2 (P = 1 atm, 1 atm = 101.322 kPa) is an equilibrium. Quantitative formation of [RuBr(η2-H2)(dppp)2] (4c) is obtained under H2 pressure (100 bar, 1 bar = 100 kPa), whereas the iodo analogue is not stable under analogous conditions. The less crowded dppe derivatives 2c and 2d react quantitatively with H2 under ambient pressure. The iodo and bromo derivatives [RuX(η2-H2)(P∩P)2]+ contain elongated dihydrogen ligands, as indicated by their transverse relaxation times T1 (min). The present data suggest that Cl, Br, and I have similar donor properties in these dihydrogen complexes, and that the different chemical behaviour in the Cl, Br, I series is mainly a result of steric effects.Key words: 16e complexes, ruthenium, fluoro complexes, bromo complexes, iodo complexes, dihydrogen complexes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".