Abstract
AbstractIn order to compare the structure and property of the same metal center supported by different types of pincer ligands, a series of Ni(II) pincer complexes, [2,6‐(iPr2PNH)2C6H3]NiX (X=SH, 1 a; SPh, 1 b; SBn, 1 c; BH4, 1 d), were synthesized based on m‐(iPr2PNH)2C6H4 (PNCNP) and fully characterized by multinuclear NMR, FTIR, X‐ray crystallography and elemental analysis. The structures of complexes 1 a–d were compared with those of the corresponding Ni(II) complexes supported by a bis(phosphinite) (POCOP) pincer ligand, [2,6‐(iPr2PO)2C6H3]NiX (X=SH, 2 a; SPh, 2 b; SBn, 2 c; BH4, 2 d). It was found that the Ni‐Cipso and Ni−S bond lengths and the Ni⋅⋅⋅B distance in complexes 1 a–d are comparable to those in complexes 2 a–d; however, the Ni−P bond lengths in complexes 1 a–d are longer than those in complexes 2 a–d. As a result, the nickel center is less tightly chelated by the PNCNP backbone compared with the POCOP framework. Natural population analysis (NPA) of complexes 1 a, 2 a, 1 b and 2 b indicated that the nickel center supported by a PNCNP pincer ligand is less electron‐rich. Cyclic voltammetry study of 1 a and 2 a showed that 2 a is easier to be oxidized.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call