The preparation of triethylphosphine adducts of cyclic disilylated or digermylated germylenes was achieved by reaction of 1,4-dipotassio-1,1,4,4-tetrakis(trimethylsilyl)tetramethyltetrasilane with GeBr2·(dioxane) and PEt3. Phosphine abstraction with B(C6F5)3 allowed formation of the base-free germylenes, which undergo 1,2-trimethylsilyl shifts to the germylene atom to form the respective silagermene or digermene, which further dimerize in [2 + 2] cycloadditions to tricyclic compounds. The reasons responsible for the germylenes' completely different reactivities in comparison to the previously studied analogous stannylenes and plumbylenes were elucidated in a theoretical study.
The preparation of triethylphosphine adducts of cyclicdisilylated or digermylated germylenes was achieved by reaction of 1,4-dipotassio-1,1,4,4-tetrakis(trimethylsilyl)tetramethyltetrasilane with GeBr2·(dioxane) and PEt3. Phosphine abstraction with B(C6F5)3 allowed formation of the base-free germylenes, which undergo 1,2-trimethylsilyl shifts to the germylene atom to form the respective silagermene or digermene, which further dimerize in [2 + 2] cycloadditions to tricyclic compounds. The reasons responsible for the germylenes' completely different reactivities in comparison to the previously studied analogous stannylenes and plumbylenes were elucidated in a theoretical study.
Over
the last few years the advent of stable N-heterocycliccarbenes
(NHCs) has revolutionized several branches of chemistry.[1−3] However, even before the first stable carbenes were reported already
examples of stable germylenes, stannylenes, and plumbylenes were known.[4] Having a close relationship to NHCs, most of
these compounds derive their stability from the π-donation of
attached nitrogen substituents, while compounds with more electropositive
substituents were found to be much more reactive and thus more difficult
to prepare and isolate. Seminal work by Klinkhammer and colleagues
has nevertheless shown that stable examples of silylated stannylenes
and plumbylenescan be obtained in a straightforward way.[5−7] More recently Escudié, Castel and coworkers have reported
that silylated and germylated stannylenescan be stabilized using
coordinating NHCs.[8] The same strategy was
shown to stabilize also the silylated chlorogermylene (Me3Si)3SiGeCl.[8] Previous attempts
by Stalke and Heine[9] and by Klinkhammer[10] showed that the reaction of [tris(trimethylsilyl)silyl]lithium
with GeBr2 did not give bis[tris(trimethylsilyl)silyl]germanium
as a stable compound but its isomer hexakis(trimethylsilyl)disilagermirane
as the product of a rearrangement reaction. Using (Me3Si)3GeLi as the nucleophile, Mallela et al. reported similar chemistry
leading to hexakis(trimethylsilyl)germirane.[11]Recently, we have reported on the synthesis of examples of
cyclicdisilylatedstannylenes[12] and plumbylenes.[13] The difference between the aforementioned work
by Klinkhammer[5] and our attempt was that
we utilized a 1,4-tetrakis(trimethylsilyl)tetramethyltetrasilanylene[14,15] unit, which can be considered as a linked variation of two tris(trimethylsilyl)silyl
groups. While we initially expected these compounds to exhibit a chemical
behavior similar to that of the acyclic analogues, it turned out that
the cyclic nature renders the tetrylene atom more accessible so that
dimerization becomes a more facile process.[12,13]With the elements Pb, Sn, and Ge exhibiting decreasing stability
of the divalent state in this order, the respective disilylatedtetrylenes
reflect this by showing different mechanisms of stabilization. While
bis[tris(trimethylsilyl)silyl]lead[5] was
found to be monomeric even in the solid state, for the cyclic plumbylene[13] a dimerization in the crystal was observed (Figure 1). The higher congener bis[tris(trimethylsilyl)silyl]tin
was found to be monomeric in solution and dimeric in the solid state,[5] while for the cyclic stannylene[12] dimerization to a distannene in solution and the solid
state was observed (Figure 1). The synthesis
of adducts of a disilylatedgermylene in the current study, together
with the findings of Stalke[9] and Klinkhammer,[10] show that the decreased stability of disilylatedgermylenes leads to a different mechanism of stabilization in comparison
to analogous stannylenes[12] and plumbylenes.[13] These results are consistent with older work
by Klinkhammer[10,16] and a very recent account by
Lai, Li, and co-workers.[17]
Figure 1
Dimers of cyclic disilylated
stannylene and plumbylene.
Dimers of cyclicdisilylatedstannylene and plumbylene.
Results and Discussion
Synthesis
Reaction
of 1,4-dipotassiotetrasilane 1(14,15) or the respective 1,4-digermanium analogue 1a(18) with GeBr2·(dioxane)
and PEt3 (Scheme 1) led to the clean
formation of the germylene·PEt3 adducts 2 and 2a. With these precursors in hand, it was possible
to release the free germylenes 3 and 3a by
abstracting the phosphane with the strong Lewis acid B(C6F5)3 (Scheme 1). As
expected, germylenes 3 and 3a are not stable
but undergo a facile dimerization process. The interesting result
is, however, that the dimerization process is not related to that
observed for the analogous stannylene.[12] The latter was found to dimerize to a distannene (Figure 1),[12] whereas germylenes 3 and 3a dimerize to the tricyclic compounds 5 and 5a (Scheme 1).
Scheme 1
Germylene Adduct Formation, Followed by Abstraction of Base, 1,2-Silyl
Shift, and Dimerization
For the stannylene dimerization process the first step
was found
to be the formation of an exocyclicdistannene, which then rearranges
to its endocyclic isomer.[12] In contrast
to this, the first step of the germylene dimerization is a 1,2-trimethylsilyl
shift from the α-position to the germanium atom. The thus formed
silagermene (4) or digermene (4a) undergoes
a [2 + 2] cycloaddition to form 5 and 5a. The first step of this reaction sequence is likely analogous to
what happened in the reactions described by Stalke,[9] Klinkhammer,[10] and Mallela.[11] However, the acyclic examples can react by another
1,2-trimethylsilyl shift to give an isomericsilylene, which eventually
inserts into the Si–Si bond, thus forming a three-membered
ring. While the cyclic silagermene 4 and digermene 4a could also undergo an additional 1,2-trimethylsilyl shift,
final insertion of the thus formed silylene or germylene into a Si–Si
or Si–Ge bond is not likely, due to the cyclic nature of the
molecule. Lacking opportunities for further intramolecular stabilization, 4 and 4a therefore react in an intermolecular
[2 + 2] cycloaddition.Reactions of 2 and 2a with 2,3,4,5-tetramethylimidazol-2-ylidene
(NHCMe)[19] proceeded smoothly
to exchange PEt3 against the carbene ligand and afforded
the carbene-stabilized germylenes 6 and 6a (Scheme 1).
NMR Spectroscopy
The NMR spectra of 2 and 2a do not exhibit
very unusual chemical shifts. As the tricoordinated
germanium atoms have configurational stability, the respective 1H, 13C, and 29Si spectra display different
symmetry (vide infra). The 31P resonances at 14.8 ppm for 2 and 15.0 ppm for 2a are almost identical. They
are interesting in comparison with the analogous stannylene and plumbylene
PEt3 adducts, for which resonances at −1.0 and −60
ppm, respectively, were observed.[12,13]29Si resonances for the trimethylsilyl groups were found at −7.9
ppm for 2 and −2.0 and −4.1 ppm for 2a, which corresponds to a typical chemical shift difference
between SiMe3 groups attached to either Si or Ge. In addition,
the SiMe2 shifts of −22.7 ppm for 2 and −16.9 ppm for 2a and the resonance of the
quaternary Si atom of 2 at −127.1 ppm are perfectly
reasonable and do not differ much from the analogous compound with
a dimethylgermylene unit in the ring.[20] The 29Si NMR spectra of 6 and 6a are fairly similar to those of 2 and 2a, with all resonances shifted slightly to lower field. The 13C NMR shifts of the carbenecarbon atoms of 6 and 6a were found at 174.0 and 175.6 ppm, which in comparison
to the signal for the free carbene (213.7 ppm)[21] also indicates the substantial Lewis acidity of the germylenes 3 and 3a.When PEt3 was abstracted
from 2 at low temperature, direct NMR spectroscopic observation
of silagermene 4 was possible. Especially the sp2-hybridized silicon atom with a chemical shift of δ
149.6 ppm is quite diagnostic for the detection of this molecule.
This resonance is very close to that observed for the related stable
silagermene (BuMe2Si)2Ge=Si(SiBuMe2)2 (δ(29Si) 144.0 ppm).[22] In addition, 29Si NMR chemical shift calculations
at the MP2/GIAO level predict for the silagermene (Me3Si)2Ge=Si(SiMe3)2 a silicon NMR chemical
shift of δ(29Si) 158 ppm, which is very close to
the experimentally observed values of persilylated silagermenes.[22,23] The tricycliccompound 5 also exhibits an interesting 29Si NMR spectrum with two resonances at −69.7 and −94.1
ppm. While 4-fold silylated silicon atoms typically resonate around
−130 ppm, the incorporation of such units into cyclotetrasilanes
is accompanied by a downfield shift of some 40 ppm.[998,999] The presence of strongly branched substituents[26] causes further downfield shift behavior, so that we assign
the Si(SiMe3) group in the central ring
to the resonance at −69.7 ppm, whereas the Si(SiMe3)2 unit is associated with the resonance
at −94.1 ppm.As mentioned above, 1H, 13C, and 29Si NMR spectroscopic analysis of phosphane
adducts 2 and 2a at ambient temperature
revealed configurational
stability of the germanium atom for 2a. This is clearly
indicated by the presence of well-resolved signal sets for the different
sides of the five-membered ring. Under the same conditions compound 2 exhibits broad signals for the trimethylsilyl and methyl
groups. The same behavior was observed also for compounds 6 and 6a. While for the digermylated 6a configurational
stability of the Ge atom at ambient temperature was observed, the
same conditions corresponded to the coalescence temperature of 6. Activation parameters of 2 and 6 were determined by VT-NMR spectroscopic analysis/Eyring plot. For 2a and 6a values for ΔG⧧ are based on the determination of
the coalescence temperature (Table 1).
Table 1
Experimentally Determined and Computed
(in Italics) Activation Parameters of Germylene Donor Complexes 2, 6, 2a, and 6a
2
6
2a
6a
Tcoalescence (K)
269
293
348
391
ΔH⧧ (kJ mol–1)
23.7 ± 3.2
50.2 ± 3.1
ΔS⧧ (J mol–1 K–1)
–121 ± 10
–34.3 ± 11.6
ΔG⧧ (kJ mol–1)
59.8 ± 6.3a
60.3 ± 6.5a
73.9
78.4
(55.6 ± 6.0)b
(60.2 ± 6.5)b
Ea (kJ mol–1)
26.2 ± 3.2a
52.6 ± 3.1a
(25.9 ± 3.2)b
(52.6 ± 3.1)b
ΔG⧧(calcd) (kJ mol-1)c
56
61
76
81
BDE(kJ
mol-1)d
130
173
137
196
For T = 298 K.
For T = Tc.
Calculated by M06-2X/def2tzvp (Ge),
6-311+G(d,p) (P), 6-31G(d) (Si, C, H), and PCM methods using the specific
parameter for toluene. Free Gibbs energies G were
calculated at the indicated temperature T and at p = 23.71 MPa (234 atm); see the Supporting
Information for further details.
BDE denotes the bond dissociation
energy of the Ge–P (2, 2a) or Ge–C
bond (6, 6a) at 0 K and 0.101 MPa (1 atm).
For T = 298 K.For T = Tc.Calculated by M06-2X/def2tzvp (Ge),
6-311+G(d,p) (P), 6-31G(d) (Si, C, H), and PCM methods using the specific
parameter for toluene. Free Gibbs energies G were
calculated at the indicated temperature T and at p = 23.71 MPa (234 atm); see the Supporting
Information for further details.BDE denotes the bond dissociation
energy of the Ge–P (2, 2a) or Ge–C
bond (6, 6a) at 0 K and 0.101 MPa (1 atm).The results of a computational
study indicate that the reversible
process observed by variable-temperature (VT) NMR spectroscopy for
compounds 2, 2a, 6, and 6a occurs in each case intramolecularly. In this process the
configuration at the pyramidalized germanium atom is inverted via
a transition state in which the germanium atom adopts a trigonal-planar
coordination environment (see Figure 2 for
an example). Therefore, this process clearly parallels the well-known
inversion processes of isolobalamines and phosphanes. The computed
barriers for the intramolecular inversion process are in all four
cases very close to the experimentally determined values. The largest
deviation, ΔΔG⧧, was found for the inversion process of compound 2 (ΔΔG⧧ = 4 kJ mol–1). Moreover, all experimentally determined barriers are significantly
smaller than the calculated bond dissociation energy, BDE, of the
germanium–donor bond (see Table 1),
which discards a dissociation–recomplexation process as a possible
alternative.
Figure 2
Tube representation of the germylene–phosphane
complex 2 and its transition state, 2(TS), for inversion.
(M06-2X/def2tzvp (Ge), 6-311+G(d,p) (P), 6-31G(d) (Si, C, H); hydrogen
atoms omitted for clarity; color code Ge (red), Si (gray), P (orange),
C (black)).
Tube representation of the germylene–phosphanecomplex 2 and its transition state, 2(TS), for inversion.
(M06-2X/def2tzvp (Ge), 6-311+G(d,p) (P), 6-31G(d) (Si, C, H); hydrogen
atoms omitted for clarity; color code Ge (red), Si (gray), P (orange),
C (black)).
Computational Study
In view of the previous reports
by Stalke,[9] Klinkhammer,[10] and Mallela,[11] and in light
of our recent and actual experimental results,[12,13] a computational study[24,25] which gives insights
into the reactivity of germylene 3 and into the exclusive
formation of the head-to-head dimer 5 ought to address
possible isomerization reactions of germylene 3 to silagermene 4, hausane 7, and silylene 8. Furthermore,
the relative thermodynamic stabilities of different dimers of silagermene 4 and germylene 3, such as the head-to-tail dimer 9 and the digermenes 10 and 11 need
to be evaluated.The results of our computations suggest
that the 1,2 silyl shift
which transforms the germylene 3 into the silagermane 4 is slightly exergonic (ΔG298 = −11 kJ mol–1) and is connected with a
barrier of ΔG298 ⧧ = 69 kJ mol–1 (Figure 3). Although the isomerichausane 7 is also close in
energy (G298rel = −3
kJ mol–1), it is separated from the silagermene 4 by a prohibitively high barrier of ΔG298 ⧧ = 185 kJ mol–1 (calculated for the forward reaction 4 → 7)
which practically excludes its formation from silagermene 4 under the applied reaction conditions. Similarly, silylene 8 is markedly destabilized in comparison to other investigated
isomers (G298rel(8) = 66 kJ mol–1), most probably due to the occurrence
of sterically unfavorable vicinal 1,1,2,2-tetrakis(trimethylsilyl)
substitution in this compound. This result suggests that silylene 8 is not of further relevance for the discussion.
Figure 3
Reaction coordinate
for the transformation of germylene 3 into silagermene 4 and hausane 7 and their
free Gibbs energies at 298.15 K, G298,
relative to their dimers 5 and 9–11 (G298 calculated at M06-2X/def2tzvp
(Ge), 6-31G(d) (Si, C, H), are given in red italics): GeD, germylene
dimerization; HTD, head to tail dimerization; HHD, head-to-head dimerization.
Reaction coordinate
for the transformation of germylene 3 into silagermene 4 and hausane 7 and their
free Gibbs energies at 298.15 K, G298,
relative to their dimers 5 and 9–11 (G298 calculated at M06-2X/def2tzvp
(Ge), 6-31G(d) (Si, C, H), are given in red italics): GeD, germylene
dimerization; HTD, head to tail dimerization; HHD, head-to-head dimerization.From a thermodynamic point of
view, the dimerization of germylene 3 to give digermene 10 and finally, after skeletal
rearrangement,[12] the endocyclicdigermene 11 (Figure 3) is practically thermoneutral
in comparison to the formation of the silagermene 4.
In contrast, the head-to-tail (HTD) and in particular the head-to-head
(HHD, Figure 3) dimerizations of silagermene 4 to the tricyclic compounds 5 (HHD) and 9 (HTD) are strongly exergonic. These computational results
suggest that, in agreement with the experimental results, the transient
germylene 3 is converted under thermodynamiccontrol
preferentially to the head-to-head dimer 5. The large
difference in Gibbs free energies between the HHD isomer 5 and the HTD isomer 9 of ΔG298(5/9) = 84 kJ mol–1 is a result of the greater stericcongestion in the HTD 9, as for smaller model systems this marked energy difference is not
reflected by the results of the calculations. For example, the calculations
for the two different cyclic dimers of H2Si=Ge(H)SiH3 predict an energy difference of merely 6 kJ mol–1 in favor of the head-to-head dimer.Quite similar results
were obtained for the transformation of the
germanium-substitutedgermylene 3a. In this case the
1,2-silyl shift proceeds with a slightly smaller barrier (ΔG298 ⧧ = 52 kJ mol–1) to give the more stable digermene 4a (Grel298(4a)
= −13 kJ mol–1). Again the dimerization to
give the head-to-head dimer 5a is favored over the formation
of the corresponding head-to-tail dimer 9a (ΔG298(5a/9a) = 83 kJ
mol–1).
X-ray Crystallography
Crystal structure
analysis provided
molecular structures of compounds 2, 2a, 5, 5a, 6, and 6a in
the solid state (Table S1, Supporting Information). As expected, compound pairs 2 and 2a, 5 and 5a, and 6 and 6a display isotypic behavior. The structures of 2 (Figure S-1, Supporting Information)
and 2a (Figure 4) feature the
five-membered ring in an envelope conformation with one of the E(SiMe3)2 units out of plane. The base ligands coordinate
in an approximately orthogonal way to the plane which is spanned by
the divalent tetrel atom and its two neighboring atoms of 2, 2a, 6, and 6a. For the NHC
adducts 6 (Figure S-3, Supporting
Information) and 6a (Figure 5) the angle between the EGe(II)E plane and the base–Ge bond
base is more acute (6, 104.9°; 6a,
104.2°) in comparison to the PEt3 adducts (2, 113.6°). For 6 and 6a thus almost
planar five-membered rings were observed.
Figure 4
Molecular structure of 2a in the solid state.
Figure 5
Molecular structure of 6a in the solid state.
Molecular structure of 2a in the solid state.Molecular structure of 6a in the solid state.The tricyclic compounds 5 (Figure S-2, Supporting Information) and 5a (Figure 6) are interesting
in that sense that they are highly
branched. The fact that the [2 + 2] cycloaddition of the respective
silgermene or digermene occurs in a head-to-head fashion leads to
a dimer with a Ge–Ge bond with maximum branched atoms in the
α-positions. The steric bulk of this arrangement leads to a
very long Ge–Ge bond of 2.575(1) Å for 5a. The direct influence of sterics can be estimated when this bonds
is compared to the other Ge–Ge bond of the four-membered ring
of 5a, which are with 2.4832(9) and 2.4617(9) Å
much shorter. Related structures containing digermane units with silyl
or germyl substituents feature Ge–Ge bond lengths ranging from
2.457 to 2.491 Å.
Figure 6
Molecular structure of 5a in the solid state.
Molecular structure of 5a in the solid state.
Conclusion
Although the chemistry of germylenes has received much attention
in recent times, most of the studied compounds are either N-heterocycliccompounds or at least carry π-donating substituents such as
amino or alkoxy groups. Tetrylenes with more electropositive substituents
are much more reactive, and so far no stable examples of silylated
germylenes have been reported. Reports dealing with these compounds
so far either describe rearrangement reactions of the formed germylenes[9,10] or utilize adduct formation of the compounds.[8]In the current account the preparation of cyclicdisilylated and
digermylated germylene PEt3 adducts was accomplished by
reaction of either a 1,4-dipotassiotetrasilane or an analogous digermanide
with GeBr2·PEt3. Subsequent reaction with
an N-heterocycliccarbene led to substitution of the phosphine by
the carbene. By treatment of the adducts with B(C6F5)3 the respective germylenescould be released.
In comparison to analogous stannylenes and plumbylenes, the thus formed
free germylenes are less stable and achieve stabilization by a different
mode of action. For the germylenes studied in the current investigation
an intermolecular way of stabilization by means of dimerization as
digermene is unfavorable. Instead, a 1,2-trimethylsilyl shift from
the germylene’s α-position to the dicoordinated germanium
atom leads to a cyclic silagermene or digermene. These compounds,
though still not stable, can be detected by NMR spectroscopy before
undergoing a dimerization process via a formal [2 + 2] cycloaddition
reaction.
Experimental Section
General
Remarks
All reactions involving air-sensitive
compounds were carried out under an atmosphere of dry nitrogen or
argon using either Schlenk techniques or a glovebox. All solvents
were dried using a column-based solvent purification system.[27] GeBr2·(dioxane),[34] 1,3,4,5-tetramethylimidazol-2-ylidene,[19]1,[14,15] and 1a(18) were prepared according to
literature procedures. Potassium tert-butanolate
was purchased from Merck. All other chemicals were obtained from different
suppliers and used without further purification.1H (300 MHz), 13C (75.4 MHz), 31P (124.4 MHz),
and 29Si NMR spectra (59.3 MHz) were recorded on a Varian
INOVA 300 spectrometer. If not noted otherwise, C6D6 was used as the solvent for all samples. To compensate for
the low isotopic abundance of 29Si, the INEPT pulse sequence[28,29] was used for the amplification of the signal.
X-ray Structure
Determination
For X-ray structure analyses
the crystals were mounted onto the tip of glass fibers, and data collection
was performed with a Bruker-AXS SMART APEX CCD diffractometer using
graphite-monochromated Mo Kα radiation (0.71073 Å). The
data were reduced to Fo2 and corrected for absorption effects with SAINT[30] and SADABS,[31,32] respectively.
The structures were solved by direct methods and refined by full-matrix
least-squares methods (SHELXL97).[33] If
not noted otherwise, all non-hydrogen atoms were refined with anisotropic
displacement parameters. All hydrogen atoms were located in calculated
positions to correspond to standard bond lengths and angles. All diagrams
were drawn with 30% probability thermal ellipsoids, and all hydrogen
atoms were omitted for clarity. Unfortunately the obtained crystal
quality of some substances was poor. This fact is reflected by quite
high R and low θ values.Crystallographic
data (excluding structure factors) for the structures of compounds 2, 2a, 5, 5a, 6, and 6a reported in this paper have been deposited
with the CambridgeCrystallographic Data Center as supplementary publication
nos. CCDC 866887 (2), 866886 (2a), 866885 (5), 866890 (5a), 866889 (6), and 866888 (6a). Copies of the data can be obtained
free of charge at http://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/products/csd/request/.
Compound 1 (freshly
prepared from (Me3Si)3Si(SiMe2)2Si(SiMe3)3 (1.85 g, 3.03 mmol) and KOtBu (714 mg, 6.36 mmol) in 10 mL of DME) dissolved in 40 mL
of THF/DME (3/1) was slowly added to a mixture of GeBr2·(dioxane) (1.07 g, 3.33 mmol) and PEt3 (393 mg,
3.33 mmol) in 20 mL of THF at −80 °C. The mixture turned
orange, and a white precipitate was formed. The mixture was stirred
for 12 h and slowly reached ambient temperature. The solvent was removed
under reduced pressure, and the dark orange residue was extracted
with pentane (4 × 10 mL). After concentration to 10 mL and storage
at −20 °C yellow crystals of 2 (1.42 g, 71%)
were obtained. Mp: 139–144 °C dec. 1H NMR (δ
in ppm): 0.43 (s, 36H, SiMe3), 0.51 (s, 12H, SiMe2), 0.82 (m, 9H, CH3CH2), 1.61 (m, 6H, CH2P). 13C NMR (δ in ppm): −1.2 (SiMe2), 3.8 (broad, SiMe3), 8.3 (d, 2JC,P = 5.7 Hz, CH3CH2),
19.9 (d, 1JC,P = 19.7 Hz, CH2P). 29Si NMR (δ in ppm): −7.9 (broad,
s, SiMe3), −22.7 (d, 3JSi,P = 9.7 Hz, SiMe2), −127.1 (d, 2JSi,P = 15.2 Hz, SiSiMe3). 31P NMR (δ in ppm): 14.8. Anal. Calcd for C22H63GePSi8 (656.03): C. 40.28, H. 9.68.
Found: C, 39.36; H, 9.48. UV absorption: λ1 261 nm
(shoulder) (ε1 = 2.2 × 104 M–1 cm–1), λ2 = 361
nm (ε2 = 3.7 × 103 M–1 cm–1), λ3 = 414 nm (ε3 = 1.9 × 103 M–1 cm–1).
A solution of 2 (200 mg, 0.305 mmol) was dissolved in 5 mL of pentane and
slowly added to a stirred solution of B(C6F6)3 (156 mg, 0.305 mmol) in 5 mL of pentane. The mixture
turned orange during the addition, and a colorless precipitate was
formed. After 2 h the mixture was hydrolyzed with dilute H2SO4 (0.5 M), the organic layer was separated, the aqueous
phase was extracted with Et2O (3 × 30 mL), and the
extract was dried over Na2SO4. The solvent was
removed under reduced pressure, and the yellowish residue crystallized
from hexane, giving colorless crystals (105 mg, 64%) of 5. Mp: 180–186 °C dec. 1H NMR (δ in ppm):
0.37 (s, 18H, SiMe3), 0.41 (s, 18H, SiMe3),
0.42 (s, 18H, SiMe3), 0.50 (s, 6H, SiMe), 0.57 (s, 6H,
SiMe), 0.58 (s, 18H, SiMe3), 0.62 (s, 6H, SiMe), 0.74 (s,
6H, SiMe). 13C NMR (δ in ppm): 1.0 (SiMe), 1.6 (SiMe),
2.3 (SiMe), 4.6 (SiMe), 5.1 (SiMe3), 5.3 (SiMe3), 6.1 (SiMe3), 7.1 (SiMe3). 29Si
NMR (δ in ppm): −1.5 (SiMe3), −6.7
(SiMe3), −6.9 (SiMe3), −8.7 (SiMe3), −17.2 (SiMe2), −25.1 (SiMe2), −69.7 (SiSiMe3), −94.1 (SiSiMe3). Anal. Calcd for C32H96Ge2Si16 (1075.75): C, 35.73;, H, 8.99. Found: C, 35.72; H,
8.82. UV absorption: λ1 344 nm (ε1 = 5.2 × 103 M–1 cm–1).
Authors: Johann Hlina; Judith Baumgartner; Christoph Marschner; Lena Albers; Thomas Müller; Viatcheslav V Jouikov Journal: Chemistry Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 5.236
Authors: Małgorzata Walewska; Judith Baumgartner; Christoph Marschner; Lena Albers; Thomas Müller Journal: Dalton Trans Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.390
Authors: Johann Hlina; Judith Baumgartner; Christoph Marschner; Patrick Zark; Thomas Müller Journal: Organometallics Date: 2013-05-17 Impact factor: 3.876