1970
DOI: 10.1107/s0567740870003461
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The crystal structure of di-μ-chloro-bis(triphenylphosphite)(cycloocta-1,5-diene)dirhodium(I)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

1973
1973
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The Rh−As distance of 3 is 2.306(2) Å (see Table ) and therefore significantly shorter than the Rh−As bond length in trans -[RhCl(η 2 -CH 2 CCH 2 )(As i Pr 3 ) 2 ] (average value 2.43 Å) . The Rh−P distance of 2.187(2) Å is comparable to that of chloro-bridged rhodium(I) complexes with mono- or bidentate phosphine ligands; , however, it is shorter than the Rh−P bond length in [Rh(η 4 -C 8 H 12 )(κ 2 - P , Sb - i Pr 2 PCH 2 Sb t Bu 2 )] + (2.317(1) Å) . The distances between the two rhodium centers and the bridging chlorides as well as those between Rh1 and the sp 2 carbon atoms of the diolefin fall into the expected range and thus deserve no further comment.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The Rh−As distance of 3 is 2.306(2) Å (see Table ) and therefore significantly shorter than the Rh−As bond length in trans -[RhCl(η 2 -CH 2 CCH 2 )(As i Pr 3 ) 2 ] (average value 2.43 Å) . The Rh−P distance of 2.187(2) Å is comparable to that of chloro-bridged rhodium(I) complexes with mono- or bidentate phosphine ligands; , however, it is shorter than the Rh−P bond length in [Rh(η 4 -C 8 H 12 )(κ 2 - P , Sb - i Pr 2 PCH 2 Sb t Bu 2 )] + (2.317(1) Å) . The distances between the two rhodium centers and the bridging chlorides as well as those between Rh1 and the sp 2 carbon atoms of the diolefin fall into the expected range and thus deserve no further comment.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The angle between the two planes [Cl1, Rh1, Cl2] and [Cl1, Rh2, Cl2] is 116.9(7)° and is thus slightly smaller (ca. 6°) than in the related compound [{Rh(η 4 -C 8 H 12 )}{Rh[P(OC 6 H 5 ) 3 ] 2 }(μ-Cl) 2 ] .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Intramolecular distances are as expected. The mean Rh-P, P-O, O-C and benzene C-C bond lengths are respectively 2-18 (1), 1.59 (1), 1.44 (1) and 1.41 (2) (Coetzer & Gafner, 1970). The closest intermolecular approach distance is 3.28 ,~, between C(12) and O(11), the parent molecules of which are related by an inversion centre.…”
Section: ~ 5°mentioning
confidence: 91%
“…This was despite the fact that, within a given compound, Rh-C distances for the two types of olefin group differed, that there was a marked change in the Rh-0 bond lengths, and that there was a change in geometry from pseudo-trigonal bipyramidal to pseudo-square planar. It was quite clear, after examining a number of structures (2,3,(16)(17)(18)(19)(20), that Rh-C distances were almost insensitive to geometry and could be predicted entirely on the basis of whether electron-withdrawing groups (e.g. F or C0,Me) were attached to the olefin or not.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%