1989
DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1693(00)83097-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An X-ray and neutron diffraction structure analysis of a triply-bridged binuclear iridium complex, [[(C5(CH3)5Ir)2(μ-H)3]+ [ClO4]−• 2C6H6]

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

2
3
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
2
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The approximately linear Hf–Ir–Cp* centroid angle (179.2(3)°) suggests the presence of three bridging hydrides across the two metals, arranged to favor a three-legged piano-stool coordination geometry around the {Cp*Ir} core. This value is in excellent agreement with values reported for systems featuring a Cp*Ir­(μ-H) 3 bridging motif, such as [Cp*Ir­(μ-H) 3 {Ta­(CH 2 t Bu) 2 }­{IrH 2 Cp*}] (178.9°), [Cp*Ir­(μ-H) 3 Ru­(η 5 -C 5 Me 4 Et)] (178.8°), [(Cp*Ir) 2 (μ-H) 3 ]­[ClO 4 ] (179.3°), and [Cp*Ir­(μ-H) 3 Hf­(CH 2 TMS) 2 Cp*] (176.0°), and in stark contrast with that found in [{Ta­(CH 2 t Bu) 3 }­{IrH 2 (Cp*)}] (151.3(4)°), which features two terminal Ir–H moieties or that found in [Cp*IrH 3 Al­( i Bu)­(OAr)] (143.8°), which features one terminal and two bridging hydrides. The Hf–C bond distances (on average 2.19 Å) are in the expected range for hafnium neopentyl groups. , The Hf–Ir separation of 2.6773(4) Å in 2 is 0.02 Å shorter than the sum of metallic radii of hafnium (1.442 Å) and iridium (1.260 Å), which translates in a formal shortness ratio very close to unity (FSR = 0.991) .…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The approximately linear Hf–Ir–Cp* centroid angle (179.2(3)°) suggests the presence of three bridging hydrides across the two metals, arranged to favor a three-legged piano-stool coordination geometry around the {Cp*Ir} core. This value is in excellent agreement with values reported for systems featuring a Cp*Ir­(μ-H) 3 bridging motif, such as [Cp*Ir­(μ-H) 3 {Ta­(CH 2 t Bu) 2 }­{IrH 2 Cp*}] (178.9°), [Cp*Ir­(μ-H) 3 Ru­(η 5 -C 5 Me 4 Et)] (178.8°), [(Cp*Ir) 2 (μ-H) 3 ]­[ClO 4 ] (179.3°), and [Cp*Ir­(μ-H) 3 Hf­(CH 2 TMS) 2 Cp*] (176.0°), and in stark contrast with that found in [{Ta­(CH 2 t Bu) 3 }­{IrH 2 (Cp*)}] (151.3(4)°), which features two terminal Ir–H moieties or that found in [Cp*IrH 3 Al­( i Bu)­(OAr)] (143.8°), which features one terminal and two bridging hydrides. The Hf–C bond distances (on average 2.19 Å) are in the expected range for hafnium neopentyl groups. , The Hf–Ir separation of 2.6773(4) Å in 2 is 0.02 Å shorter than the sum of metallic radii of hafnium (1.442 Å) and iridium (1.260 Å), which translates in a formal shortness ratio very close to unity (FSR = 0.991) .…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The structure of 2 in the acidic media (pH 1−4) was determined by 1 H NMR (Figure ), X-ray analysis, and ESI-MS. Crystals of 2 ·NO 3 used in the X-ray analysis (Figure ) were obtained from a 0.1 M HNO 3 /H 2 O (pH 1) solution of 2 . The bonding parameters of 2 ·NO 3 are very close to those of 2 ·ClO 4 previously determined by X-ray and neutron diffraction structure analysis . The Ir···Ir distances of 2 ·NO 3 and 2 ·ClO 4 are 2.4677(4) and 2.465(3) Å, respectively.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Very few diiridium complexes containing only hydrides as bridging ligands have been structurally characterized. The four such structures in the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD) have Ir−Ir distances ranging from 2.46 to 2.98 Å and include [(Cp*Ir) 2 (μ 2 -H) 3 ][ClO 4 ], {[Cp*(PMe 3 )(H)Ir] 2 (μ 2 -H)} 2 [PF 6 ], {[(Ph 2 PCH 2 CH 2 PPh 2 )Ir(H)] 2 (μ 2 -H) 3 }[BF 4 ], and [{(C 2 F 6 ) 2 PCH 2 CH 2 P(C 2 F 6 ) 2 }(H) 2 Ir(μ 2 -H)] 2 . In 8 , the Ir−Ir distance of 2.797(2) Å is somewhat longer than the average distance of the previously reported structures (2.62 Å).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%