Thomas E. Shaw, Charlotte L. Stern, Titel Jurca, Jennifer C. Green, Alfred P. Sattelberger* and Bruce E. Bursten*,
{"title":"d3-d3和d5-d5 M2R6配合物(M = Mo, Ru)的分子和电子结构研究R = CH3, CH2CMe3):金属-金属键序与MR3金字塔化的相互作用。","authors":"Thomas E. Shaw, Charlotte L. Stern, Titel Jurca, Jennifer C. Green, Alfred P. Sattelberger* and Bruce E. Bursten*, ","doi":"10.1021/acs.inorgchem.5c01860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Hexakis(neopentyl)diruthenium(III,III) [Ru<sub>2</sub>(CH<sub>2</sub>CMe<sub>3</sub>)<sub>6</sub> or Ru<sub>2</sub>Np<sub>6</sub>], first synthesized in 1984, is a <i>d<sup>5</sup>-d</i><sup>5</sup> analogue of the classic <i>d</i><sup>3</sup><i>-d</i><sup>3</sup> M<sub>2</sub>X<sub>6</sub> Chisholm-type, unsupported metal–metal triply-bonded Group 6 complexes. We report an alternative synthetic route to Ru<sub>2</sub>Np<sub>6</sub> and an updated low-temperature crystal structure. The Ru–Ru bond length (2.3141(3) Å) is only 0.15 Å longer than the Mo–Mo bond in Mo<sub>2</sub>Np<sub>6</sub>, less than might be expected upon adding four electrons. The Ru–Ru bond was originally proposed to be a triple bond, which seemed inconsistent with the usual M–M bonding model. We use DFT and TD-DFT calculations on Mo<sub>2</sub>R<sub>6</sub> and Ru<sub>2</sub>R<sub>6</sub> (R = Me, Np) to investigate the differences in metal–metal and metal–ligand bonding between the <i>d</i><sup>3</sup>-<i>d</i><sup>3</sup> and <i>d</i><sup>5</sup>-<i>d</i><sup>5</sup> systems. In the Ru<sub>2</sub>R<sub>6</sub> systems, the two RuR<sub>3</sub> fragments adopt a pyramidalized geometry to maximize ligand-to-metal donation and to shift electron density from the strongly antibonding Ru–Ru π* orbital to the weakly bonding Ru–Ru δ orbital, thus preserving some of the Ru–Ru π bonding. In contrast, the MoR<sub>3</sub> fragments in Mo<sub>2</sub>R<sub>6</sub> adopt a more trigonal planar geometry to preserve the Mo–Mo π bonding. The calculated and experimental UV–vis spectra are near band-for-band matches, and the energies and orbital characters of the excitations are presented.</p>","PeriodicalId":40,"journal":{"name":"Inorganic Chemistry","volume":"64 32","pages":"16393–16403"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Molecular and Electronic Structural Studies of d3-d3 and d5-d5 M2R6 Complexes (M = Mo, Ru; R = CH3, CH2CMe3): On the Interplay of Metal–Metal Bond Order and MR3 Pyramidalization\",\"authors\":\"Thomas E. Shaw, Charlotte L. Stern, Titel Jurca, Jennifer C. Green, Alfred P. Sattelberger* and Bruce E. Bursten*, \",\"doi\":\"10.1021/acs.inorgchem.5c01860\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >Hexakis(neopentyl)diruthenium(III,III) [Ru<sub>2</sub>(CH<sub>2</sub>CMe<sub>3</sub>)<sub>6</sub> or Ru<sub>2</sub>Np<sub>6</sub>], first synthesized in 1984, is a <i>d<sup>5</sup>-d</i><sup>5</sup> analogue of the classic <i>d</i><sup>3</sup><i>-d</i><sup>3</sup> M<sub>2</sub>X<sub>6</sub> Chisholm-type, unsupported metal–metal triply-bonded Group 6 complexes. We report an alternative synthetic route to Ru<sub>2</sub>Np<sub>6</sub> and an updated low-temperature crystal structure. The Ru–Ru bond length (2.3141(3) Å) is only 0.15 Å longer than the Mo–Mo bond in Mo<sub>2</sub>Np<sub>6</sub>, less than might be expected upon adding four electrons. The Ru–Ru bond was originally proposed to be a triple bond, which seemed inconsistent with the usual M–M bonding model. We use DFT and TD-DFT calculations on Mo<sub>2</sub>R<sub>6</sub> and Ru<sub>2</sub>R<sub>6</sub> (R = Me, Np) to investigate the differences in metal–metal and metal–ligand bonding between the <i>d</i><sup>3</sup>-<i>d</i><sup>3</sup> and <i>d</i><sup>5</sup>-<i>d</i><sup>5</sup> systems. In the Ru<sub>2</sub>R<sub>6</sub> systems, the two RuR<sub>3</sub> fragments adopt a pyramidalized geometry to maximize ligand-to-metal donation and to shift electron density from the strongly antibonding Ru–Ru π* orbital to the weakly bonding Ru–Ru δ orbital, thus preserving some of the Ru–Ru π bonding. In contrast, the MoR<sub>3</sub> fragments in Mo<sub>2</sub>R<sub>6</sub> adopt a more trigonal planar geometry to preserve the Mo–Mo π bonding. The calculated and experimental UV–vis spectra are near band-for-band matches, and the energies and orbital characters of the excitations are presented.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":40,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Inorganic Chemistry\",\"volume\":\"64 32\",\"pages\":\"16393–16403\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Inorganic Chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.5c01860\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Inorganic Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.5c01860","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR","Score":null,"Total":0}
Molecular and Electronic Structural Studies of d3-d3 and d5-d5 M2R6 Complexes (M = Mo, Ru; R = CH3, CH2CMe3): On the Interplay of Metal–Metal Bond Order and MR3 Pyramidalization
Hexakis(neopentyl)diruthenium(III,III) [Ru2(CH2CMe3)6 or Ru2Np6], first synthesized in 1984, is a d5-d5 analogue of the classic d3-d3 M2X6 Chisholm-type, unsupported metal–metal triply-bonded Group 6 complexes. We report an alternative synthetic route to Ru2Np6 and an updated low-temperature crystal structure. The Ru–Ru bond length (2.3141(3) Å) is only 0.15 Å longer than the Mo–Mo bond in Mo2Np6, less than might be expected upon adding four electrons. The Ru–Ru bond was originally proposed to be a triple bond, which seemed inconsistent with the usual M–M bonding model. We use DFT and TD-DFT calculations on Mo2R6 and Ru2R6 (R = Me, Np) to investigate the differences in metal–metal and metal–ligand bonding between the d3-d3 and d5-d5 systems. In the Ru2R6 systems, the two RuR3 fragments adopt a pyramidalized geometry to maximize ligand-to-metal donation and to shift electron density from the strongly antibonding Ru–Ru π* orbital to the weakly bonding Ru–Ru δ orbital, thus preserving some of the Ru–Ru π bonding. In contrast, the MoR3 fragments in Mo2R6 adopt a more trigonal planar geometry to preserve the Mo–Mo π bonding. The calculated and experimental UV–vis spectra are near band-for-band matches, and the energies and orbital characters of the excitations are presented.
期刊介绍:
Inorganic Chemistry publishes fundamental studies in all phases of inorganic chemistry. Coverage includes experimental and theoretical reports on quantitative studies of structure and thermodynamics, kinetics, mechanisms of inorganic reactions, bioinorganic chemistry, and relevant aspects of organometallic chemistry, solid-state phenomena, and chemical bonding theory. Emphasis is placed on the synthesis, structure, thermodynamics, reactivity, spectroscopy, and bonding properties of significant new and known compounds.