Abstract
Controlled-potential electrochemical oxidation of cis-[Ru(ROCS2)2(PPh3)2] (R = Et, iPr) yielded corresponding Ru(III) complexes, and the crystal structures of cis-[Ru(ROCS2)2(PPh3)2] and trans-[Ru(ROCS2)2(PPh3)2](PF6) were determined. Both pairs of complexes exhibited almost identical coordination structures. The Ru-P distances in trans-[Ru(III)(ROCS2)2(PPh3)2](PF6) [2.436(3)-2.443(3) A] were significantly longer than those in cis-[Ru(II)(ROCS2)2(PPh3)2] [2.306(1)-2.315(2) A]: the smaller ionic radius of Ru(III) than that of Ru(II) stabilizes the trans conformation for the Ru(III) complex due to the steric requirement of bulky phosphine ligands while mutual trans influence by the phosphine ligands induces significant elongation of the Ru(III)-P bonds. Cyclic voltammograms of the cis-[Ru(ROCS2)2(PPh3)2] and trans-[Ru(ROCS2)2(PPh3)2]+ complexes in dichloromethane solution exhibited typical dual redox signals corresponding to the cis-[Ru(ROCS2)2(PPh3)2](+/0) (ca. +0.15 and +0.10 V vs ferrocenium/ferrocene couple for R = Et and iPr, respectively) and to trans-[Ru(ROCS2)2(PPh3)2](+/0) (-0.05 and -0.15 V vs ferrocenium/ferrocene for R = Et and iPr, respectively) couples. Analyses on the basis of the Nicholson and Shain's method revealed that the thermal disappearance rate of transient trans-[Ru(ROCS2)2(PPh3)2] was dependent on the concentration of PPh3 in the bulk: the rate constant for the intramolecular isomerization reaction of trans-[Ru(iPrOCS2)2(PPh3)2] was determined as 0.338 +/- 0.004 s(-1) at 298.3 K (deltaH* = 41.8 +/- 1.5 kJ mol(-1) and deltaS* = -114 +/- 7 J mol(-1) K(-1)), while the dissociation rate constant of coordinated PPh3 from the trans-[Ru(iPrOCS2)2(PPh3)2] species was estimated as 0.113 +/- 0.008 s(-1) at 298.3 K (deltaH* = 97.6 +/- 0.8 kJ mol(-1) and deltaS* = 64 +/- 3 J mol(-1) K(-1)), by monitoring the EC reaction (electrode reaction followed by chemical processes) at different concentrations of PPh3 in the bulk. It was found that the trans to cis isomerization reaction takes place via the partial dissociation of iPrOCS2(-) from Ru(II), contrary to the previous claim that it takes place by the twist mechanism.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.