Synthesis and properties of iron-group hydrido-cyano complexes trans-[MH(CN)(L)2], M = Fe, Ru or Os, L = diphosphine, and their hydrogen, trifluoroboron and triphenylboron isocyanide derivatives of the type trans-[MH(CNH)(L)2]O3SCF3, trans-[MH(CNBX3)(L)2], X = F or Ph, and trans-[M(H2)(CNBF3)(dppp)2]BF4 [dppp = Ph2P(CH2)3PPh2]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complexes trans-[MH(CN)L2] 1 {L = PPh2(CH2)nPPh2, n = 1 (dppm), 2 (dppe) or 3 (dppp), and PR2CH2CH2PR2, R = Et (depe) or para-tolyl (dtpe), M = Fe (for dppe, depe and dtpe only), Ru or Os} were prepared by displacing with cyanide the halide from trans-[MH(X)L2], X = Br or Cl, or dihydrogen from trans-[Ru(H2)H(dppe)2]BPh4. Systematic trends in the IR and 1H, 31P and 13C NMR and electrochemical properties are noted. The addition of one equivalent of HOTf (HO3SCF3) or [HPPh3]OTf to trans-[MH(CN)L2] 1 with n = 1, 2 or 3 usually produces the hydrogen isocyanide complexes trans-[MH(CNH)L2]OTf 2. The use of 13CN− or C15N− in compounds 1 provides evidence for the MCNH coordination mode over MNCH. Protonation at the M–H bond to give dihydrogen complexes trans-[M(H2)(CN)L2]+ occurs to a small degree for M = Ru, n = 1 or 3, in CH2Cl2 and completely for M = Os, L = depe. The use of HBF4· Et2O results in a variety of products including trans-[MH(CNH)L2]BF42*, trans-[MH(CNBF3)L2] and trans-[M(H2)(CNBF3)L2]+. The dihydrogen ligand in the last compound with M = Ru, L = dppp, is readily replaced by η1-BF4−. Structures of the compounds 2 (M = Ru, L = dppe), trans-[RuH(CNBF3)(dppe)2] and 2* (M = Os, L = dppe) are reported. The CNH ligand is a good hydrogen-bond donor so that NH⋯O or NH⋯F hydrogen bonds with the counter ion are formed. The reaction of BPh4− with the CNH ligand of 2 (M = Ru, L = dppe) produces trans-[Ru(H)(CNBPh3)(dppe)2], the structure of which is reported. Therefore the CNH ligand reacts readily with BX4− (X = F or Ph) to produce CNBX3− ligands and HX.
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) | 0.002 | 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".