Generation, Characterization, and Electrochemical Behavior of the Palladium–Hydride Cluster [Pd<sub>3</sub>(dppm)<sub>3</sub>(μ<sub>3</sub>‐CO)(μ<sub>3</sub>‐H)]<sup>+</sup> (dppm=Bis(diphenylphosphinomethane)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addition of formate on the dicationic cluster [Pd(3)(dppm)(3)(mu(3)-CO)](2+) (dppm=bis(diphenylphosphinomethane) affords quantitatively the hydride cluster [Pd(3)(dppm)(3)(mu(3)-CO)(mu(3)-H)](+). This new palladium-hydride cluster has been characterised by (1)H NMR, (31)P NMR and UV/Vis spectroscopy and MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. The unambiguous identification of the capping hydride was made from (2)H NMR spectroscopy by using DCO(2) (-) as starting material. The mechanism of the hydride complex formation was investigated by UV/Vis stopped-flow methods. The kinetic data are consistent with a two-step process involving: 1) host-guest interactions between HCO(2) (-) and [Pd(3)(dppm)(3)(mu(3)-CO)](2+) and 2) a reductive elimination of CO(2). Two alternatives routes to the hydride complex were also examined : 1) hydride transfer from NaBH(4) to [Pd(3)(dppm)(3)(mu(3)-CO)](2+) and 2) electrochemical reduction of [Pd(3)(dppm)(3)(mu(3)-CO)](2+) to [Pd(3)(dppm)(3)(mu(3)-CO)](0) followed by an addition of one equivalent of H(+). Based on cyclic voltammetry, evidence for a dual mechanism (ECE and EEC; E=electrochemical (one-electron transfer), C=chemical (hydride dissociation)) for the two-electron reduction of [Pd(3)(dppm)(3)(mu(3)-CO)(mu(3)-H)](+) to [Pd(3)(dppm)(3)(mu(3)-CO)](0) is provided, corroborated by digital simulation of the experimental results. Geometry optimisations of the [Pd(3)(H(2)PCH(2)PH(2))(3)(mu(3)-CO)(mu(3)-H)](n) model clusters were performed by using DFT at the B3 LYP level. Upon one-electron reductions, the Pd--Pd distance increases from a formal single bond (n=+1), to partially bonding (n=0), to weak metal-metal interactions (n=-1), while the Pd--H bond length remains relatively the same.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".