Lewis Acid Behavior of MoF<sub>5</sub> and MoOF<sub>4</sub>: Syntheses and Characterization of MoF<sub>5</sub>(NCCH<sub>3</sub>), MoF<sub>5</sub>(NC<sub>5</sub>H<sub>5</sub>)<sub><i>n</i></sub>, and MoOF<sub>4</sub>(NC<sub>5</sub>H<sub>5</sub>)<sub><i>n</i></sub> (<i>n</i> = 1, 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lewis acid–base adducts MoF5(NC5H5)n and MoOF4(NC5H5)n (n = 1, 2) were synthesized from the reactions of MoF5 and MoOF4 with C5H5N and structurally characterized by X-ray crystallography. Whereas the crystal structures of MoF5(NC5H5)2 and MoOF4(NC5H5)2 are isomorphous containing pentagonal-bipyramidal molecules, the fluorido-bridged, heptacoordinate [MoF5(NC5H5)]2 dimer differs starkly from monomeric, hexacoordinate MoOF4(NC5H5). For the weaker Lewis base CH3CN, only the 1:1 adduct, MoF5(NCCH3), could be isolated. All adducts were characterized by Raman spectroscopy in conjunction with vibrational frequency calculations. Multinuclear NMR spectroscopy revealed an unprecedented isomerism of MoOF4(NC5H5)2 in solution, with the pyridyl ligands occupying adjacent or nonadjacent positions in the equatorial plane of the pentagonal bipyramid. Paramagnetic MoF5(NC5H5)2 was characterized by electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy as a dispersion in solid adamantane as well as in a diamagnetic host lattice of MoOF4(NC5H5)2; EPR parameters were computed using ZORA with the BPW91 functional using relativistic all-electron wave functions for Mo and simulated using EasySpin. Density functional theory calculations (B3LYP) and natural bond orbital analyses were conducted to elucidate the distinctive bonding and structural properties of all adducts reported herein and explore fundamental differences observed in the Lewis acid behavior of MoF5 and MoOF4.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".