An acidity scale of phosphonium tetraphenylborate salts and ruthenium dihydrogen complexes in dichloromethane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Equilibrium constants (KDM) for reactions between acids and bases of the title compounds in CD2Cl2 (DM) have been determined by 31P and 1H NMR spectroscopy at room temperature. [HPCy3]BPh4 and [HPCy3]BF4, with pKDM assigned by literature convention to 9.7, have been used as the anchor compounds for the pKDM determinations. A continuous scale of pKDM values covering the range 9.7 to 5.7 is created with the acidic compounds [HPR3]BPh4. Those acids with pKDM greater than 6 are stable, while those with more acidic cations HPR3+ protonate BPh4 to produce R3PBPh3 and benzene. The literature pKTHF values reported for [HPBu2Ph]BPh4, [HPMePh2]BPh4, and [HPEtPh2]BPh4 are questionable because of this protonation reaction. NOE and PGSE 1H NMR techniques are used to show that [HPCy2Ph]BPh4 in DM exists as ion pairs and higher aggregates up to quadrupoles at the concentrations used in the acidbase studies. The new dihydrogen complexes [Ru(H2)Cl(PPh3)2(dach)]BF4 (dach = (1R,2R)-()-diaminocyclohexane) and [Ru(H2)Cl{tmeP2(NH)2}]BF4 (tmeP2(NH)2 = PPh2C6H4CH2NHCMe2CMe2NHCH2C6H4PPh2) were prepared by reaction of RuHCl(PPh3)2(dach) and RuHCl{tmeP2(NH)2} with HBF4. Their crystal structures are reported, and the pKDM values of their BPh4 salts were determined to be 8.6 and 6.9, respectively.Key words: acidity, dihydrogen complex, hydride, phosphonium, dichloromethane.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".