Ruthenium polyhydrides supported by rigid PCP pincer ligands: dynamic behaviour and reactions with CO2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two rigid beta-elimination immune PCcarbeneP pincer ligands, differing in their electron donor properties by variation of the substitution pattern on the aromatic linker arms, were complexed to ruthenium to form the dichlorides LRRuCl2 (R = H or NMe2). These compounds were converted to hydrido chlorides by treatment with dihydrogen (H2) and a base. By converting to tert-butoxide derivatives in situ under an atmosphere of H2, the poly hydride PCalkylP complexes LHRRu(H)3 compounds were generated. In these complexes, H2 has added across the Ru=C bond in the PCcarbeneP starting materials. The polyhydrides are dynamic in solution and extensive NMR studies helped to elucidate the speciation and fluxional processes operative in this dynamic system. The polyhydride complexes react rapidly with CO2 to give the PCcarbeneP formato hydride complexes LRRu(H)-kappa-2-O2CH. For R = H, the 1,2-hydride shift from the anchoring alkyl of the PCalkylP carbon to the metal is reversible, but for R = NMe2 it is irreversible. The CO2 incorporated into the formato ligand of these compounds exchanges with free CO2 via a bimolecular mechanism that is more rapid for R = NMe2 than for R = H; plausible explanations for this observation are proffered. Experiments designed to evaluate the efficacy of the R = NMe2 formato hydride complex as a catalyst precursors for CO2 hydrogenation to formate salts reveal poor performance in comparison to state-of-the-art ruthenium-based catalysts. This is due primarily to the precipitation of a dimeric kappa-2-kappa1-CO3 carbonate complex that is not an active catalyst for the reaction.
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) | 0.001 | 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".