Abstract:σ-hydrocarbyl complexes of the form [M(η5-PC4Me4)2(μ-η1:η6-CH2Ph)2K(η6-arene)] (M = La, Ce, Pr, U, Np, Pu; arene = benzene or toluene) were synthesised in one-pot reactions from [MI3(THF)4], or [U(BH4)3(toluene)] (M =...
“…The carbene center in 2Pu adopts a planar (∑∠ = 359.7(4)°) T-shaped geometry with a P–C–P angle of 170.8(4)°, which is statistically indistinguishable from the corresponding angle of 170.4(5)° in 2Np and close to the values of 167.6(4)° for 2Pr and 165.2(2)° for 2Sm . The PuC BIPM distance in 2Pu of 2.422(6) Å is the shortest Pu–C distance of any type to date, the previous being a Pu–CH 2 bond length of 2.542(19) Å in [{η 5 -P(CMeCMe) 2 } 2 Pu(μ-η 6 -CH 2 C 6 H 5 ) 2 K], and there are no other PuC double bonds reported for comparison. However, by the 3σ-criterion the PuC distance in 2Pu is indistinguishable to the NpC BIPM distance of 2.425(7) Å in 2Np .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The P–C BIPMH –P angle of 135.8(2)° is typical of the “open book” conformation of (BIPM TMS H) 1– . The Pu–C BIPMH distance in 1Pu of 2.732(4) Å is long compared to the sum of the single bond covalent radii of Pu and C (2.47 Å) but can be compared to the few examples of crystallographically authenticated formal Pu–C σ-bonds that include [K(2.2.2-cryptand)][(η 5 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 ) 3 Pu(η 1 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 )] (2.740(5) Å), [(η 5 -C 5 H 5 ) 2 Pu(μ-η 1 :η 5 -C 5 H 5 )] n (2.830(12) and 2.888(12) Å), [(η 5 -C 5 H 5 ) 3 Pu(CNCy)] (2.58(3) Å), and [{η 5 -P(CMeCMe) 2 } 2 Pu(μ-η 6 -CH 2 C 6 H 5 ) 2 K] (2.542(19) and 2.614(19) Å) . The iodide-bridged dimeric structure of 1Pu does not have any isostructural trivalent f-element (BIPM TMS H) 1– complexes for direct comparison, but for dimeric trivalent actinide complexes with (BIPM TMS H) 1– we previously reported [(BIPM TMS H)Np(Cl)(μ-Cl) 3 Np{(μ-Cl)Li(DME)(OEt 2 )}(BIPM TMS H)], which exhibits Np–C BIPMH distances of 2.831(4) and 2.838(4) Å.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The preceding survey emphasizes the dominance of multihapto π-bonded ligands in organo-Pu chemistry . There are only four formally σ-bonded complexes to date, ,,, and each of those is derived from potentially η n >1 -ligands. It hence follows that there are no Pu–C multiple (alkylidene, Fischer carbene) or dative N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) bonds, despite the mature nature of carbene chemistry generally.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the first organo-Pu complex, [Pu(C 5 H 5 ) 3 ], was first reported in 1965, this compound was only structurally authenticated, as [(η 5 -C 5 H 5 ) 2 Pu(μ-η 1 :η 5 -C 5 H 5 )] n , in 2018, although [Pu{η 5 -C 5 H 3 (SiMe 3 ) 2 } 3 ] and [K(2.2.2-cryptand)][Pu{η 5 -C 5 H 3 (SiMe 3 ) 2 } 3 ] were reported in 2017. Subsequently, [K(2.2.2-cryptand)][(η 5 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 ) 3 Pu(η 1 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 )], [(η 5 -C 5 Me 5 ) 2 PuI(THF)], [(η 5 -C 5 H 5 ) 3 Pu(CNCy)], [{η 5 -P(CMeCMe) 2 } 2 Pu(μ-η 6 -CH 2 C 6 H 5 ) 2 K], and [{Pu(η 5 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 ) 3 } 2 (4,4′-bipy)] emerged between 2020 and 2023. Following the report of the structure of uranocene in 1969, [Pu(η 8 -C 8 H 8 ) 2 ] appeared in 1970, though it was not structurally characterized until 2020 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The only structurally characterized Pu-arene complex is [{C 6 H 4 -1,4-(C 6 H 4 -2-NDipp) 2 }PuI(THF)] (Dipp = 2,6-diisopropylphenyl) reported in 2023. Though there are prior reports of Pu-alkyls being prepared, for example, [Pu{CH(SiMe 3 ) 2 } 3 ], the only structurally authenticated Pu–C σ-bonds are in the aforementioned η 1 -ligated complexes [{η 5 -P(CMeCMe) 2 } 2 Pu(μ-η 6 -CH 2 C 6 H 5 ) 2 K], [K(2.2.2-cryptand)][(η 5 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 ) 3 Pu(η 1 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 )], and [(η 5 -C 5 H 5 ) 2 Pu(μ-η 1 :η 5 -C 5 H 5 )] n and the isonitrile complex [(η 5 -C 5 H 5 ) 3 Pu(CNCy)] . It is hence the case that unambiguously structurally authenticated organo-Pu complexes that provide metal–ligand bond metrics all date from 2017 onward, which stands in contrast to the analogous U and neptunium (Np) organometallics whose structural chemistry spans six and four decades, respectively. − …”
Organoplutonium chemistry was established in 1965, yet structurally authenticated plutonium−carbon bonds remain rare being limited to π-bonded carbocycle and σ-bonded isonitrile and hydrocarbyl derivatives. Thus, plutonium-carbenes, including alkylidenes and Nheterocyclic carbenes (NHCs), are unknown. Here, we report the preparation and characterization of the diphosphoniomethanide-plutonium complex [Pu(BIPM TMS H)(I)(μ-I)] 2 (1Pu, BIPM TMS H = (Me 3 SiNPPh 2 ) 2 -CH) and the diphosphonioalkylidene-plutonium complexes [Pu-, thus disclosing nonactinyl transneptunium multiple bonds and transneptunium NHC complexes. These Pu−C double and dative bonds, along with cerium, praseodymium, samarium, uranium, and neptunium congeners, enable lanthanide−actinide and actinide−actinide comparisons between metals with similar ionic radii and isoelectronic 4f 5 vs 5f 5 electron-counts within conserved ligand fields over 12 complexes. Quantum chemical calculations reveal that the orbitalenergy and spatial-overlap terms increase from uranium to neptunium; however, on moving to plutonium the orbital-energy matching improves but the spatial overlap decreases. The bonding picture that emerges is more complex than the traditional picture of the bonding of lanthanides being ionic and early actinides being more covalent but becoming more ionic left to right. Multiconfigurational calculations on 2M and 3M (M = Pu, Sm) account for the considerably more complex UV/vis/NIR spectra for 5f 5 2Pu and 3Pu compared to 4f 5 2Sm and 3Sm. Supporting the presence of Pu�C double bonds in 2Pu and 3Pu, 2Pu exhibits metallo-Wittig bond metathesis involving the highest atomic number element to date, reacting with benzaldehyde to produce the alkene PhC(H)�C(PPh 2 NSiMe 3 ) 2 (4) and "PuOI". In contrast, 2Ce and 2Pr do not react with benzaldehyde to produce 4.
“…The carbene center in 2Pu adopts a planar (∑∠ = 359.7(4)°) T-shaped geometry with a P–C–P angle of 170.8(4)°, which is statistically indistinguishable from the corresponding angle of 170.4(5)° in 2Np and close to the values of 167.6(4)° for 2Pr and 165.2(2)° for 2Sm . The PuC BIPM distance in 2Pu of 2.422(6) Å is the shortest Pu–C distance of any type to date, the previous being a Pu–CH 2 bond length of 2.542(19) Å in [{η 5 -P(CMeCMe) 2 } 2 Pu(μ-η 6 -CH 2 C 6 H 5 ) 2 K], and there are no other PuC double bonds reported for comparison. However, by the 3σ-criterion the PuC distance in 2Pu is indistinguishable to the NpC BIPM distance of 2.425(7) Å in 2Np .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The P–C BIPMH –P angle of 135.8(2)° is typical of the “open book” conformation of (BIPM TMS H) 1– . The Pu–C BIPMH distance in 1Pu of 2.732(4) Å is long compared to the sum of the single bond covalent radii of Pu and C (2.47 Å) but can be compared to the few examples of crystallographically authenticated formal Pu–C σ-bonds that include [K(2.2.2-cryptand)][(η 5 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 ) 3 Pu(η 1 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 )] (2.740(5) Å), [(η 5 -C 5 H 5 ) 2 Pu(μ-η 1 :η 5 -C 5 H 5 )] n (2.830(12) and 2.888(12) Å), [(η 5 -C 5 H 5 ) 3 Pu(CNCy)] (2.58(3) Å), and [{η 5 -P(CMeCMe) 2 } 2 Pu(μ-η 6 -CH 2 C 6 H 5 ) 2 K] (2.542(19) and 2.614(19) Å) . The iodide-bridged dimeric structure of 1Pu does not have any isostructural trivalent f-element (BIPM TMS H) 1– complexes for direct comparison, but for dimeric trivalent actinide complexes with (BIPM TMS H) 1– we previously reported [(BIPM TMS H)Np(Cl)(μ-Cl) 3 Np{(μ-Cl)Li(DME)(OEt 2 )}(BIPM TMS H)], which exhibits Np–C BIPMH distances of 2.831(4) and 2.838(4) Å.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The preceding survey emphasizes the dominance of multihapto π-bonded ligands in organo-Pu chemistry . There are only four formally σ-bonded complexes to date, ,,, and each of those is derived from potentially η n >1 -ligands. It hence follows that there are no Pu–C multiple (alkylidene, Fischer carbene) or dative N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) bonds, despite the mature nature of carbene chemistry generally.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the first organo-Pu complex, [Pu(C 5 H 5 ) 3 ], was first reported in 1965, this compound was only structurally authenticated, as [(η 5 -C 5 H 5 ) 2 Pu(μ-η 1 :η 5 -C 5 H 5 )] n , in 2018, although [Pu{η 5 -C 5 H 3 (SiMe 3 ) 2 } 3 ] and [K(2.2.2-cryptand)][Pu{η 5 -C 5 H 3 (SiMe 3 ) 2 } 3 ] were reported in 2017. Subsequently, [K(2.2.2-cryptand)][(η 5 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 ) 3 Pu(η 1 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 )], [(η 5 -C 5 Me 5 ) 2 PuI(THF)], [(η 5 -C 5 H 5 ) 3 Pu(CNCy)], [{η 5 -P(CMeCMe) 2 } 2 Pu(μ-η 6 -CH 2 C 6 H 5 ) 2 K], and [{Pu(η 5 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 ) 3 } 2 (4,4′-bipy)] emerged between 2020 and 2023. Following the report of the structure of uranocene in 1969, [Pu(η 8 -C 8 H 8 ) 2 ] appeared in 1970, though it was not structurally characterized until 2020 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The only structurally characterized Pu-arene complex is [{C 6 H 4 -1,4-(C 6 H 4 -2-NDipp) 2 }PuI(THF)] (Dipp = 2,6-diisopropylphenyl) reported in 2023. Though there are prior reports of Pu-alkyls being prepared, for example, [Pu{CH(SiMe 3 ) 2 } 3 ], the only structurally authenticated Pu–C σ-bonds are in the aforementioned η 1 -ligated complexes [{η 5 -P(CMeCMe) 2 } 2 Pu(μ-η 6 -CH 2 C 6 H 5 ) 2 K], [K(2.2.2-cryptand)][(η 5 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 ) 3 Pu(η 1 -C 5 H 4 SiMe 3 )], and [(η 5 -C 5 H 5 ) 2 Pu(μ-η 1 :η 5 -C 5 H 5 )] n and the isonitrile complex [(η 5 -C 5 H 5 ) 3 Pu(CNCy)] . It is hence the case that unambiguously structurally authenticated organo-Pu complexes that provide metal–ligand bond metrics all date from 2017 onward, which stands in contrast to the analogous U and neptunium (Np) organometallics whose structural chemistry spans six and four decades, respectively. − …”
Organoplutonium chemistry was established in 1965, yet structurally authenticated plutonium−carbon bonds remain rare being limited to π-bonded carbocycle and σ-bonded isonitrile and hydrocarbyl derivatives. Thus, plutonium-carbenes, including alkylidenes and Nheterocyclic carbenes (NHCs), are unknown. Here, we report the preparation and characterization of the diphosphoniomethanide-plutonium complex [Pu(BIPM TMS H)(I)(μ-I)] 2 (1Pu, BIPM TMS H = (Me 3 SiNPPh 2 ) 2 -CH) and the diphosphonioalkylidene-plutonium complexes [Pu-, thus disclosing nonactinyl transneptunium multiple bonds and transneptunium NHC complexes. These Pu−C double and dative bonds, along with cerium, praseodymium, samarium, uranium, and neptunium congeners, enable lanthanide−actinide and actinide−actinide comparisons between metals with similar ionic radii and isoelectronic 4f 5 vs 5f 5 electron-counts within conserved ligand fields over 12 complexes. Quantum chemical calculations reveal that the orbitalenergy and spatial-overlap terms increase from uranium to neptunium; however, on moving to plutonium the orbital-energy matching improves but the spatial overlap decreases. The bonding picture that emerges is more complex than the traditional picture of the bonding of lanthanides being ionic and early actinides being more covalent but becoming more ionic left to right. Multiconfigurational calculations on 2M and 3M (M = Pu, Sm) account for the considerably more complex UV/vis/NIR spectra for 5f 5 2Pu and 3Pu compared to 4f 5 2Sm and 3Sm. Supporting the presence of Pu�C double bonds in 2Pu and 3Pu, 2Pu exhibits metallo-Wittig bond metathesis involving the highest atomic number element to date, reacting with benzaldehyde to produce the alkene PhC(H)�C(PPh 2 NSiMe 3 ) 2 (4) and "PuOI". In contrast, 2Ce and 2Pr do not react with benzaldehyde to produce 4.
Comparison of bonding and electronic structural features between trivalent lanthanide (Ln) and actinide (An) complexes across homologous series' of molecules can provide insights into subtle and overt periodic trends. Of keen interest and debate is the extent to which the valence f-and d-orbitals of trivalent Ln/An ions engage in covalent interactions with different ligand donor functionalities and, crucially, how bonding differences change as both the Ln and An series are traversed. Synthesis and characterization (SC-XRD, NMR, UV−vis−NIR, and computational modeling) of the homologous lanthanide and actinide Nheterocyclic carbene (NHC) complexes [M(C 5 Me 5 ) 2 (X)(I Me4 )] {X = I, M = La, Ce, Pr, Nd, U, Np, Pu; X = Cl, M = Nd; X = I/Cl, M = Nd, Am; and I Me4 = [C(NMeCMe) 2 ]} reveals consistently shorter An−C vs Ln−C distances that do not substantially converge upon reaching Am 3+ /Nd 3+ comparison. Specifically, the difference of 0.064(6) Å observed in the La/U pair is comparable to the 0.062(4) Å difference observed in the Nd/Am pair. Computational analyses suggest that the cause of this unusual observation is rooted in the presence of π-bonding with the valence dorbital manifold in actinide complexes that is not present in the lanthanide congeners. This is in contrast to other documented cases of shorter An−ligand vs Ln−ligand distances, which are often attributed to increased 5f vs 4f radial diffusivity leading to differences in 4f and 5f orbital bonding involvement. Moreover, in these traditional observations, as the 5f series is traversed, the 5f manifold contracts such that by americium structural studies often find no statistically significant Am 3+ vs Nd 3+ metal−ligand bond length differences.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.