High Hydride Count Rhodium Octahedra, [Rh<sub>6</sub>(PR<sub>3</sub>)<sub>6</sub>H<sub>12</sub>][BAr<sup>F</sup><sub>4</sub>]<sub>2</sub>: Synthesis, Structures, and Reversible Hydrogen Uptake under Mild Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new class of transition metal cluster is described, [Rh(6)(PR(3))(6)H(12)][BAr(F)(4)](2) (R = (i)Pr (1a), Cy (2a); BAr(F)(4) = [B{C(6)H(3)(CF(3))(2)}(4)](-)). These clusters are unique in that they have structures exactly like those of early transition metal clusters with edge-bridging pi-donor ligands rather than the structures expected for late transition metal clusters with pi-acceptor ligands. The solid-state structures of 1a and 2a have been determined, and the 12 hydride ligands bridge each Rh-Rh edge of a regular octahedron. Pulsed gradient spin-echo NMR experiments show that the clusters remain intact in solution, having calculated hydrodynamic radii of 9.5(3) A for 1a and 10.7(2) A for 2a, and the formulation of 1a and 2a was unambiguously confirmed by ESI mass spectrometry. Both 1a and 2a take up two molecules of H(2) to afford the cluster species [Rh(6)(P(i)Pr(3))(6)H(16)][BAr(F)(4)](2) (1b) and [Rh(6)(PCy(3))(6)H(16)][BAr(F)(4)](2) (2b), respectively, as characterized by NMR spectroscopy, ESI-MS, and, for 2b, X-ray crystallography using the [1-H-CB(11)Me(11)](-) salt. The hydride ligands were not located by X-ray crystallography, but (1)H NMR spectroscopy showed a 15:1 ratio of hydride ligands, suggesting an interstitial hydride ligand. Addition of H(2) is reversible: placing 1b and 2b under vacuum regenerates 1a and 2a. DFT calculations on [Rh(6)(PH(3))(6)H(x)()](2+) (x = 12, 16) support the structural assignments and also show a molecular orbital structure that has 20 orbitals involved with cluster bonding. Cluster formation has been monitored by (31)P{(1)H} and (1)H NMR spectroscopy, and mechanisms involving heterolytic H(2) cleavage and elimination of [HP(i)Pr(3)](+) or the formation of trimetallic intermediates are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".