AbstractThe influence of different (LRu)nII (L=Cp– (n=1, 2); C6H6) moieties η6‐coordinated to corannulene ((CpRu)+, (Benzene)Ru2+ and (CpRu)22+) has been explored by using the Activation Strain Model (ASM) of reactivity together with the Energy Decomposition Analysis (EDA) scheme. The results obtained have been compared with those obtained for the non‐coordinated corannulene counterpart. It has been observed that the presence of the ruthenium moiety favors both kinetically and thermodynamically the [4+2]‐cycloaddition reaction with cyclopentadiene. The factors governing these differences depend on the nature of the [Ru] complex. Whereas the interaction energy is solely responsible for the lower activation energy for the monocationic system (CpRu)+, not only the higher interaction but also the lower strain energy explain the much higher reactivity observed for the dicationic systems ((C6H6)Ru2+ and (CpRu)22+). In this latter case, the Pauli repulsion energy term is the factor controlling the differences in the interaction energies, following the so‐called Pauli repulsion‐lowering concept. Finally, when η6‐coordinating mono‐ or dicationic ruthenium complexes, although the [4+2]‐cycloaddition reaction in the external rim bonds remains the thermodynamically and kinetically more favourable, the cycloaddition becomes also thermodynamically feasible in some internal bonds.
Read full abstract