Rainer Zitz1, Judith Baumgartner2, Christoph Marschner1. 1. Institut für Anorganische Chemie, Technische Universität Graz , Stremayrgasse 9, 8010 Graz, Austria. 2. Institut für Chemie, Karl Franzens Universität Graz , Stremayrgasse 9, 8010 Graz, Austria.
Abstract
The reaction of a cyclic disilylated bromostibine with magnesium yields a rare example of a magnesium stibide that can be silylated with trimethylchlorosilane. Reaction of the thus-obtained trisilylated stibine with potassium tert-butoxide gives a potassium stibide in a clean reaction. Attempts to obtain an antimony-containing oligosilanide did not lead to the expected compound but to another potassium stibide, which presumably forms from the initially formed silanide by a 1,2-silyl shift. The synthetic potential of the obtained stibides to serve as building blocks could be shown by the preparation of stibylated zircono- and hafnocenes.
The reaction of a cyclic disilylated bromostibine with magnesium yields a rare example of a magnesium stibide that can be silylated with trimethylchlorosilane. Reaction of the thus-obtained trisilylated stibine with potassium tert-butoxide gives a potassium stibide in a clean reaction. Attempts to obtain an antimony-containing oligosilanide did not lead to the expected compound but to another potassium stibide, which presumably forms from the initially formed silanide by a 1,2-silyl shift. The synthetic potential of the obtained stibides to serve as building blocks could be shown by the preparation of stibylated zircono- and hafnocenes.
As
outlined previously,[1] silylated antimony
compounds are not very abundant. If one looks for disilylated stibides,
(R3Si)2SbM (M = Li, Na, K, and Mg), it becomes
obvious that the only well-known example is (Me3Si)2SbLi, prepared first by Becker et al.[2] and known as solvates with either DME or THF. Reaction of (Me3Si)3Sb with MeLi provides convenient access to
the stibide, which was shown to be extremely useful for the synthesis
of a number of interesting compounds.[3−10] The analogous potassium stibide (Me3Si)2SbK
was obtained by reaction of (Me3Si)3Sb with
potassium tert-butoxide.[11]Our recent study concerning oligosilanylated antimony compounds[1] presented us with the opportunity to prepare
antimony-containing oligosilanides using the established protocol
of removing trimethylsilyl groups by reaction with potassium tert-butoxide.[12−14] However, as observed previously
for related phosphorus chemistry,[15] the
products of such reactions are not silanides but stibides.
Results and Discussion
Synthesis
Recently, we could show
that reaction of
bromostibacyclosilane 2 with potassium graphite leads
to the formation of distibine 1 (Scheme 1). It is, however, not entirely clear whether this reaction
involves the intermediate formation of the respective potassium stibide
or is radical by nature.[16] An attempt to
accomplish the same reaction with magnesium as reducing agent did
not lead to the distibine but rather to respective Grignard-type magnesiumstibide 3 (Scheme 1). Although
magnesium stibides are a known class of compounds, the number of reported
examples is still very small.[17−21] Compound 3 is not very stable, and over time in ethereal
solution, it decomposes to the respective hydrostibine 4. Freshly prepared 3, however, is an interesting nucleophilic
building block. Reaction with trimethylchlorosilane gives trisilylated
stibine 5 in a clean conversion. Reaction of 5 with potassium tert-butoxide led to potassium stibide 6. In an attempt to couple stibide 6 to distibine 1, it was treated with 1,2-dibromoethane. The resulting product
was, however, not distibine 1 but bromostibine 2, which presumably was formed by metalhalogen exchange.
This seems to support the involvement of stibinyl radicals[16] in the formation of 1.[1]
Scheme 1
Formation of Stibides 3 and 6 from Bromostibine 2
In an attempt to obtain a 1,2-dianionic
species,[22,23] we subjected a solution of stibide 6 in benzene to the reaction with an additional equivalent
of potassium tert-butoxide in the presence of 2 equiv
of 18-crown-6. NMR spectroscopic detection of complete conversion
of 6, did, however, not indicate formation of the desired
dipotassium compound. Subjecting the dark red reactive crystalline
solid that could be isolated to single-crystal XRD analysis showed
it to be a trimetalated Sb7 cage coordinated by three K-18-crown-6
units. Related chemistry had been observed before by Breunig and co-workers
in reactions of oligostibines with Li, Na, K, or BuLi.[24]Reaction of distibine 1 with potassium tert-butoxide was carried out to ascertain whether a silanide
containing
a distibine might be obtained. Unfortunately, in the course of the
reaction not a trimethylsilyl group was cleaved off, but the Sb–Sb
bond was split (Scheme 2).
Scheme 2
Stibide Formation
by Sb–Sb Bond Cleavage of 1 with Potassium tert-Butoxide
Tris(trimethylsilyl)silylated stibine 7,
which can
also be obtained from 2,[1] was
treated with potassium tert-butoxide in order to
obtain an antimony containing silanide. It was expected that a trimethylsilyl
group would be abstracted either from the cyclic part or the tris(trimethylsilyl)silyl
group attached to antimony. The 29Si NMR spectrum of obtained
compound 8 showed eight different silicon resonances,
indicating attack of the alkoxide onto a trimethylsilyl group attached
to the cyclosilane unit. However, none of the resonances displayed
the typical upfield shift characteristic for anionic silicon atoms.
It was therefore concluded that the tris(trimethylsilyl)silyl group
underwent a subsequent 1,2 shift to give stibide 8 (Scheme 3). An attempt to silylate 8 with tris(trimethylsilyl)silyl
chloride was not successful. Reaction of 8 with 1,2-dibromoethane
gave bromostibine 9 (Scheme 3)
in the same way as 2 was obtained from 6.
Scheme 3
Formation of Potassium Stibide 8 via a Transient
Silanide
The number of known
stibylated group 4 metallocenes is quite small.[25−31] The few known titanocenes were obtained by employing Cp2Ti(btmsa) in reactions with distibines[25,26] or dihydrostibines.[27] Tilley and Waterman studied stibylated CpCp*Hf
compounds. Reaction of CpCp*HfCl2 with LiSbMes2 was found to give a distibylated complex,[28] whereas a stibylidene complex was obtained from the reaction of
CpCp*Hf(Me)OTf with LiSb(H)Mes.[29] That
a Hf–Sb bond can even be formed in a σ-bond metathesis
reaction was shown for the conversion of CpCp*Hf(Cl)H with MesSbH2.[30] The only known stibyl zirconocene
was prepared by reaction of Ph2SbLi with Cp2ZrCl2.[31] The utility of stibides 3 and 6 for the synthesis of group 4 stibyl compounds
was also investigated. Reaction of 5 with KOt-Bu, and further on with zirconocene dichloride, led to stibyl zirconocene
compound 10 (Scheme 4). However,
under the same conditions, reaction with hafnocene dichloride resulted
in a complex inseparable mixture of products. Switching to magnesiumstibide 3, generated in situ from bromostibacyclosilane 2 with magnesium, reaction with hafnocene dichloride gave
stibylhafnocene chloride 11 in a clean reaction (Scheme 4).
Scheme 4
Formation of Stibylated Group 4 Metallocenes
Attempts to obtain distibylated
titanocenes by reaction of Cp2Ti(btmsa) with 1 or related distibines[1] were not successful.
Also, the addition of an
additional equivalent of 6 to 10 or 11 did not lead to distibylated metallocenes. The reason for
these failures is likely the steric bulk of the oligosilanylated stibyl
units.
NMR Spectroscopy
1H and 13C NMR
spectroscopic characterization of the stibasilanes is particularly
useful with respect to molecular symmetry and purity (Table 1). As the spectral windows of chemical shifts of
silylated methyl groups are very small for 1H and 13C NMR, the observed values are not particularly meaningful,
and information concerning the molecular structure can mainly be derived
from 29Si NMR spectra. Chemical shifts of the 29Si resonances can usually rather easily be assigned to a particular
substitution pattern (Table 1).[32] The compounds described in this study all share
the structural unit of a stibacyclopentasilane. The comparison of
the spectroscopic properties of these and related compounds[1] reveals two different groups of compounds. The
first group, featuring more electronegative exocyclic substituents
at the antimony atom, exhibits configurational stability of the antimony
atom. This group includes bromostibines 2 and 9, hydrostibine 4, and a related tert-butoxystibine.[1] The configurational stability
of the antimony atom allocates the exocyclic substituent on one side
of the cyclosilane ring and thus diminishes the symmetry of the molecule.
Two different resonances for trimethylsilyl groups (being either on
the same side of the exocyclic substituent or on the other one) are
found for these molecules. A more unexpected observation was that
the compounds with electronegative substituents also share a downfield
shift of the 29Si NMR resonances of the SiMe2 groups to values between −11.5 and −17.8 ppm. The
second group of compounds, with more electropositive substituents
(silyl groups and metals), lacks configurational stability of the
antimony atom and includes stibides 3, 6, and 8, stibylated metallocenes 10 and 11, trisilylated stibines 5 and 7, and distibine 1. For these compounds, a fast pyramidal
inversion at the Sb atom renders the trimethylsilyl groups magnetically
equivalent on the NMR time scale. This behavior is consistent with
a recent computational study that showed pyramidal inversion to be
strongly dependent on substituent electronegativity and sterics. It
was shown that SbH3 (Einv =
182 kJ mol–1) and SbMe3 (Einv = 228 kJ mol–1) are clearly configurationally
stable, whereas the calculated inversion barrier for Sb(SiH3)3 is comparably low (Einv = 92 kJ mol–1) because of stabilization of the
planar transition state by electrostatic and hyperconjugational effects.[1] Studying the pyramidal inversion processes of
antimony atoms incorporated into the stibacyclopentasilane unit showed
that the barrier for compound 5 is as low as 47 kJ mol–1. For such a small barrier, the inversion process
is certainly expected to be fast at ambient temperature.[1]
Table 1
NMR Spectroscopic
Data of Oligosilanylstibyl
Compoundsa
compound
1H (SiMe3)
1H (SiMe2)
13C (SiMe3)
13C (SiMe2)
29Si (SiMe3)
29Si (SiMe2)
29Si (Siq)
3
0.34
0.37
2.8
–1.7
–10.8
–20.3
–125.9
4
0.31/0.30
0.34
2.4/2.0
–1.3/–2.1
–6.2/–9.0
–14.8
–119.2
5
0.39/0.59(Sb–SiMe3)
0.40
3.0/6.4 (Sb–SiMe3)
–1.6
–8.7/–9.4(Sb–SiMe3)
–20.4
–124.0
6
0.43
0.53
2.7
–1.5
–14.2
–19.0
–125.2
8
0.49 (36H)/0.44/0.40
0.61/0.58/0.57/0.54
4.9 (3× SiMe3)/3.6/3.3/3.0
0.5/0.3/0.2/0.1
–9.3 (3× SiMe3)/–14.0/–14.7/–16.2
–18.8/–19.2
–122.4/–124.4/–126.4
9
0.52/0.47/0.39 (27H)/0.33
0.52/0.47/0.32/0.30
5.5/4.5/3.4
1.1/0.9/0.4/0.1
0.7/–0.2/–8.2/–9.3
–11.5/–14.8
–93.9/–100.6/–121.7
10
0.50
0.44
3.5
–1.1
–8.1
–20.4
–103.7
11
0.51
0.46
3.6
–1.0
–8.1
–19.9
–109.7
Chemical shifts in ppm in reference
to TMS.
Chemical shifts in ppm in reference
to TMS.The trimethylsilyl
resonances for the metalated stibides are markedly
shifted to high field, dependent on the electropositive character
of the metal. Shifts around −14 ppm were observed for potassiumstibides 6 and 8, whereas for magnesiumstibide 3, the respective resonance can be found at −10.8
ppm. For metallocenes 10 and 11, the trimethylsilyl
resonances at −8.1 ppm are in the same range as those found
for silylated compounds 5 and 7. The SiMe2 resonances of the second group are all located between −19.0
and −23.3 ppm.The strongly asymmetric structure of compounds
like bromostibine 9 causes a large number of 29Si NMR resonances.
Straightforward assignment of the 29Si NMR spectrum for
such compounds was not possible; therefore, the use of 2D spectroscopic
methods proved useful, in particular heteronuclear correlation spectroscopy. Figures S1 and S2 show typical 1H–29Si and 1H–13C correlation spectra.
The respective signal assignments are given in Table S3. The 2D experiments of 9 also show overlapping
of two signals of trimethylsilyl groups (signals 1 and 4) in the 13C NMR spectrum and of the signals of a dimethylsilyl and
a trimethylsilyl group (signals 2 and 6) in the 1H NMR
spectrum. For complete signal assignment, additional 1D-NOESY experiments
were carried out. Figure S3 shows the structure
of 9 with the signal assignment and the NOESY results.For stibides 6 and 8, the 29Si NMR spectra in ethereal solvents are different. In particular,
the signals corresponding to the quaternary silicon atoms respond
strongly to different coordinating solvents (Figures 1 and 2). For 8 in Et2O, the signals are in a range of δ = −122 to
−126 ppm, whereas in the THF solution, the signals are clustered
in the range of δ ≈ −128 to −129 ppm. Thus,
a surprising Δδ of some 6.0 ppm was observed for different
ethereal solvents. A comparison of solutions of 6 in
THF and DME reveals a quite similar result. The signals for the quaternary
silicon atoms show a difference of Δδ = 4.6 ppm.
Figure 1
29Si NMR spectra of potassium stibide 6a,b in DME or THF.
Figure 2
29Si NMR spectra
of asymmetric potassium stibide 8 in Et2O
or THF.
29Si NMR spectra of potassium stibide 6a,b in DME or THF.29Si NMR spectra
of asymmetric potassium stibide 8 in Et2O
or THF.
Crystal Structure Analysis
Molecular structures of
antimony compounds 3 (Figure 3), 4 (Figure 4), 5 (Figure 5), 6 (Figure 6), 10 (Figure 7), and 11 (Figure 8) in the solid
state could be determined by means of single-crystal XRD (Tables S1 and S2). A compilation of the obtained
data is given in Table 2.
Figure 3
Molecular structure of 3 (thermal ellipsoid plot drawn
at the 30% probability level). All hydrogen atoms are omitted for
clarity (bond lengths in angstroms, angles in degrees). Sb(1)–Si(8)
2.5739(11), Sb(1)–Si(2) 2.5883(12), Sb(1)–Mg(1) 2.7806(13),
Si(1)–Si(2) 2.3495(14), Si(3)–C(3) 1.874(4), Br(1)–Mg(1)
2.4418(13), Mg(1)–O(1) 2.038(3), Mg(1)–O(2) 2.049(3),
O(1)–C(1) 1.452(4), Si(8)–Sb(1)–Si(2) 99.82(3),
Si(8)–Sb(1)–Mg(1) 109.08(4), Si(2)–Sb(1)–Mg(1)
106.38(3), Br(1)–Mg(1)–Sb(1) 133.62(5).
Figure 4
Molecular structure of 4 (thermal ellipsoid
plot drawn
at the 30% probability level). All calculated hydrogen atoms are omitted
for clarity (bond lengths in angstroms, angles in degrees). Sb(1)–Si(1)
2.5919(5), Si(1)–Si(4) 2.3442(8), Si(1)–Si(2) 2.3538(7),
Si(2)–C(1) 1.8861(16), Si(1)–Sb(1)–Si(1A) 98.59(2),
Si(4)–Si(1)–Sb(1) 106.01(2), Si(3)–Si(1)–Sb(1)
103.43(2), Si(2)–Si(1)–Sb(1) 109.87(2).
Figure 5
Molecular structure of 5 (thermal ellipsoid
plot drawn
at the 30% probability level). All hydrogen atoms are omitted for
clarity (bond lengths in angstroms, angles in degrees). Sb(1)–Si(5)
2.570(2), Sb(1)–Si(4) 2.582(3), Sb(1)–Si(1) 2.601(3),
Si(1)–Si(7) 2.345(4), Si(1)–Si(6) 2.357(4), Si(2)–C(1)
1.872(10), Si(5)–Sb(1)–Si(4) 110.80(9), Si(5)–Sb(1)–Si(1)
106.31(8), Si(4)–Sb(1)–Si(1) 100.26(8), Si(7)–Si(1)–Sb(1)
96.02(11), Si(6)–Si(1)–Sb(1) 123.79(12), Si(2)–Si(1)–Sb(1)
106.61(11).
Figure 6
Molecular structure of 6 (thermal ellipsoid plot drawn
at the 30% probability level). All hydrogen atoms are omitted for
clarity (bond lengths in angstroms, angles in degrees). Sb(1)–Si(1)
2.5576(10), Sb(1)–Si(4) 2.5657(10), Sb(1)–K(1) 3.5320(9),
Si(1)–Si(2) 2.3495(11), Si(2)–C(1) 1.891(2), K(1)–O(1)
2.6948(18), Si(1)–Sb(1)–Si(4) 97.78(3), Si(1)–Sb(1)–K(1)
134.08(2), Si(4)–Sb(1)–K(1) 113.24(3), Sb(1)–K(1)–Sb(1A)
81.09(3).
Figure 7
Molecular structure of 10 (thermal
ellipsoid plot
drawn at the 30% probability level). All hydrogen atoms are omitted
for clarity (bond lengths in angstroms, angles in degrees). Si(2)–C(12)
1.83(3), Si(2)–C(11) 1.906(17), Si(2)–Si(1) 2.324(6),
Zr(1)–Cl(1) 2.435(2), Zr(1)–Sb(1) 2.9105(10), Sb(1)–Si(4)
2.5790(18), Sb(1)–Si(1) 2.582(2), Si(3)–Si(2)–Si(1)
112.5(4), Cl(1)–Zr(1)–Sb(1) 104.46(7), Si(4)–Sb(1)–Si(1)
102.44(6), Si(4)–Sb(1)–Zr(1) 116.30(5), Si(1)–Sb(1)–Zr(1)
117.73(5).
Figure 8
Molecular structure of 11 (thermal ellipsoid plot
drawn at the 30% probability level). All hydrogen atoms are omitted
for clarity (bond lengths in angstroms, angles in degrees). Hf(1)–Cl(1)
2.470(2), Hf(1)–Sb(1) 2.8871(9), Sb(1)–Si(4) 2.576(2),
Sb(1)–Si(1) 2.577(3), Si(2)–Si(1) 2.345(8), Si(2)–C(12)
1.88(3), Si(3)–Si(2)–Si(1) 106.5(5), Cl(1)–Hf(1)–Sb(1)
104.75(6), Si(4)–Sb(1)–Si(1) 102.41(8), Si(4)–Sb(1)–Hf(1)
116.19(6), Si(1)–Sb(1)–Hf(1) 117.78(6), Si(8)–C(24)–Si(88)
27.8(3).
Table 2
Compilation of Structural
Data Derived
by Single-Crystal XRD Analysis
compound
dSb–X (Å)
dSi–Sb (Å)
dSi–SiMe3 (Å)
dSi–SiMe2 (Å)
Σ∠Sb (deg)
∠SiSbSi (deg)
∠SiSbX (deg)
3 (X = Mg)
2.7806(13)
2.5883(12), 2.5739(11)
2.332(2)–2.357(2)
2.3495(14), 2.3467(14)
315.28(3), 318.07(4)
99.82(3)
109.08(4), 106.38(3)
4 (X = H)
1.71(4)
2.5919(6), 2.5919(5)
2.3442(8),
2.3458(8)
2.3538(7)
293
98.59(2)
98.3(5), 96.5(5)
5 (X = Si)
2.570(2)
2.582(3), 2.601(3)
2.345(4)–
2.361(4)
2.356(4), 2.360(3)
317.36(9),
317.26(9)
100.26(8)
110.80(9), 106.31(8)
6 (X = K)
3.5320(9), 3.5624(11)
2.5549(9)–
2.5653(11)
2.3383(11)–2.3464(10)
2.3495(11), 2.3519(11)
n.a.
97.78(3),
97.68(3)
134.08(2), 113.24(3), 109.65(3), 98.14(2)
10 (X = Zr)
2.9105(10)
2.582(2), 2.5790(18)
2.308(4)– 2.428(4)
2.324(6), 2.411(8)
336.47(6)
102.44(6)
116.30(5),
117.73(5)
11 (X = Hf)
2.8871(9)
2.576(2),
2.577(3)
2.330(5)– 2.425(5)
2.345(8),
2.302(11)
336.38(8)
102.41(8)
116.19(6), 117.78(6)
Molecular structure of 3 (thermal ellipsoid plot drawn
at the 30% probability level). All hydrogen atoms are omitted for
clarity (bond lengths in angstroms, angles in degrees). Sb(1)–Si(8)
2.5739(11), Sb(1)–Si(2) 2.5883(12), Sb(1)–Mg(1) 2.7806(13),
Si(1)–Si(2) 2.3495(14), Si(3)–C(3) 1.874(4), Br(1)–Mg(1)
2.4418(13), Mg(1)–O(1) 2.038(3), Mg(1)–O(2) 2.049(3),
O(1)–C(1) 1.452(4), Si(8)–Sb(1)–Si(2) 99.82(3),
Si(8)–Sb(1)–Mg(1) 109.08(4), Si(2)–Sb(1)–Mg(1)
106.38(3), Br(1)–Mg(1)–Sb(1) 133.62(5).Molecular structure of 4 (thermal ellipsoid
plot drawn
at the 30% probability level). All calculated hydrogen atoms are omitted
for clarity (bond lengths in angstroms, angles in degrees). Sb(1)–Si(1)
2.5919(5), Si(1)–Si(4) 2.3442(8), Si(1)–Si(2) 2.3538(7),
Si(2)–C(1) 1.8861(16), Si(1)–Sb(1)–Si(1A) 98.59(2),
Si(4)–Si(1)–Sb(1) 106.01(2), Si(3)–Si(1)–Sb(1)
103.43(2), Si(2)–Si(1)–Sb(1) 109.87(2).Molecular structure of 5 (thermal ellipsoid
plot drawn
at the 30% probability level). All hydrogen atoms are omitted for
clarity (bond lengths in angstroms, angles in degrees). Sb(1)–Si(5)
2.570(2), Sb(1)–Si(4) 2.582(3), Sb(1)–Si(1) 2.601(3),
Si(1)–Si(7) 2.345(4), Si(1)–Si(6) 2.357(4), Si(2)–C(1)
1.872(10), Si(5)–Sb(1)–Si(4) 110.80(9), Si(5)–Sb(1)–Si(1)
106.31(8), Si(4)–Sb(1)–Si(1) 100.26(8), Si(7)–Si(1)–Sb(1)
96.02(11), Si(6)–Si(1)–Sb(1) 123.79(12), Si(2)–Si(1)–Sb(1)
106.61(11).Molecular structure of 6 (thermal ellipsoid plot drawn
at the 30% probability level). All hydrogen atoms are omitted for
clarity (bond lengths in angstroms, angles in degrees). Sb(1)–Si(1)
2.5576(10), Sb(1)–Si(4) 2.5657(10), Sb(1)–K(1) 3.5320(9),
Si(1)–Si(2) 2.3495(11), Si(2)–C(1) 1.891(2), K(1)–O(1)
2.6948(18), Si(1)–Sb(1)–Si(4) 97.78(3), Si(1)–Sb(1)–K(1)
134.08(2), Si(4)–Sb(1)–K(1) 113.24(3), Sb(1)–K(1)–Sb(1A)
81.09(3).Molecular structure of 10 (thermal
ellipsoid plot
drawn at the 30% probability level). All hydrogen atoms are omitted
for clarity (bond lengths in angstroms, angles in degrees). Si(2)–C(12)
1.83(3), Si(2)–C(11) 1.906(17), Si(2)–Si(1) 2.324(6),
Zr(1)–Cl(1) 2.435(2), Zr(1)–Sb(1) 2.9105(10), Sb(1)–Si(4)
2.5790(18), Sb(1)–Si(1) 2.582(2), Si(3)–Si(2)–Si(1)
112.5(4), Cl(1)–Zr(1)–Sb(1) 104.46(7), Si(4)–Sb(1)–Si(1)
102.44(6), Si(4)–Sb(1)–Zr(1) 116.30(5), Si(1)–Sb(1)–Zr(1)
117.73(5).Molecular structure of 11 (thermal ellipsoid plot
drawn at the 30% probability level). All hydrogen atoms are omitted
for clarity (bond lengths in angstroms, angles in degrees). Hf(1)–Cl(1)
2.470(2), Hf(1)–Sb(1) 2.8871(9), Sb(1)–Si(4) 2.576(2),
Sb(1)–Si(1) 2.577(3), Si(2)–Si(1) 2.345(8), Si(2)–C(12)
1.88(3), Si(3)–Si(2)–Si(1) 106.5(5), Cl(1)–Hf(1)–Sb(1)
104.75(6), Si(4)–Sb(1)–Si(1) 102.41(8), Si(4)–Sb(1)–Hf(1)
116.19(6), Si(1)–Sb(1)–Hf(1) 117.78(6), Si(8)–C(24)–Si(88)
27.8(3).Magnesium compound 3 (Figure 3) crystallized in the monoclinic space group P2(1)/c with two molecules in the asymmetric
unit. It constitutes
the first solved structure with a Sb–Mg bond, and the distance
of 2.7806(13) Å between the two atoms is reasonable. Potassium
compound 6 (Figure 6) crystallized
in the triclinic space group P1̅ with two half
molecules in the asymmetric unit. Each molecule consists of two stibacyclopentasilane
rings and two potassium atoms bridging the antimony atoms. One DME
molecule is coordinating to each potassium atom, and for one of the
two molecules, the DME is disordered in the ethylene bridge. The potassium–antimony
distance is 3.5320(9) Å, in good accordance to the few comparable
structures known in the literature (3.566,[33] 3.686,[24] and 3.618[34] Å), although none of these displays the structural
element of a four-membered ring. This Sb–K–Sb–K
ring is planar, whereas the stibacyclopentasilane rings both engage
in envelope conformations with one of the SiMe2 groups
on the flap. The same conformational preference was also found for
the stibacyclopentasilane units of 3–5. For 4 (Figure 4), which crystallizes
in the monoclinic space group P2/n, the hydrogen on the antimony was located and found to be split
over two positions. The Sb–H distance is with 1.71 Å,
in good agreement to comparable published structures.[35,36] The Si–Sb distances in all compounds range from 2.56 to 2.60
Å and are slightly longer than the mean range of 2.56 Å
obtained from a search in the Cambridge Crystallographic Database.[37] In trimethylsilylated compound 5 (Figure 5), which crystallized in the monoclinic
space group P2(1) with two molecules in the asymmetric
unit, no differences between exo- and endocyclic Sb–Si distances
could be observed.Antimony group 4 compounds 10 (Figure 7) and 11 (Figure 8) both
crystallize in the orthorhombic space group Pbca. 10 represents the first example of a solid-state structure
with a Zr–Sb bond; although three comparable examples of Hf–Sb
compounds are already known,[28−30] none of them contains a Hf–Sb–Si
unit. The bond length of 2.8871(9) Å for Sb–Hf is comparable
to the two reported ones.[28,29]NMR spectroscopic
indication of compounds with or without configurational
stability can be well-correlated with the pyramidality of the antimony
atom, which can be expressed in terms of the sum of angles around
antimony. Compounds with configurational stability such as 2, 4, and the related tert-butoxystibine[1] feature more pyramidalized stibines with values
between 293 and 298°. The respective compounds with more electropositive
substituents show more flattened antimony atoms. The sum of angles
around antimony ranges from 317° for a trimethylsilyl substituent
(5) to values around 336.4° for stibylated metallocenes 10 and 11 (Table 2).
Conclusions
The current account is
an extension of our recent study concerning
oligosilanylated antimony compounds.[1] It
deals mainly with metalated examples of a 2,2,5,5-tetrakis(trimethylsilyl)-3,3,4,4-tetramethylstibacyclopentasilane.
The reaction of respective bromostibine 2 with magnesium
occurs in a Grignard-type reaction, leading in a clean reaction to
a stibyl magnesium bromide (3). The compound was isolated
as etherate and can be used as nucleophilic building block that is
easily silylated with trimethylchlorosilane. The obtained trimethylsilylated
stibine 5 reacts with potassium tert-butoxide to yield cleanly a potassium stibide (6).
Another potassium stibide (8) was formed in the reaction
of the tris(trimethylsilyl)silylated derivative of the stibacyclopentasilane
with potassium tert-butoxide. We assume that the
initial attack of the alkoxide occurs on one of the trimethylsilyl
groups of the ring. In a 1,2-silyl shift, the tris(trimethylsilyl)silyl
group migrates to the anionic silicon atom, leading to the formation
of a stibide. Similar reactivity is already known for oligosilanylated
phosphines[15,38] and likely reflects the increased
ability to stabilize a negative charge of antimony compared to silicon.The potential of the obtained stibides to serve as building blocks
for stibylated early transition metal compounds could be demonstrated
by the synthesis of stibylated zircono- and hafnocenes (10, 11).
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.[39] Compounds 1, 2, and 7 were prepared according to previously published procedures.[1] All other chemicals were obtained from different
suppliers and used without further purification.1H (300 MHz), 13C (75.4 MHz), and 29Si (59.3
MHz) NMR spectra were recorded on a Varian INOVA 300 spectrometer.
If not noted otherwise, for all samples benzene-d6 was used or, in the case of reaction samples, they were
measured with a water-d2 capillary in
order to provide an external lock frequency signal. To compensate
for the low isotopic abundance of 29Si, the INEPT pulse
sequence was used for the amplification of the signal.[40,41] Elemental analysis was carried out using a Heraeus VARIO ELEMENTAR
instrument.
X-ray Structure Determination
For
XRD 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 F2o and
corrected for absorption effects with SAINT[42] and SADABS,[43] respectively. The structures
were solved by direct methods and refined by full-matrix least-squares
method (SHELXL97).[44] 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. Crystallographic
data (excluding structure factors) for the structures of compounds 3–6, 10, and 11 reported in this paper have been deposited with the Cambridge Crystallographic
Data Center as CCDC-1027151 (3), -1027152 (4), -1008599 (5), -1027153 (6), -1027155
(10), and -1027154 (11) and can be obtained
free of charge at http://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/products/csd/request/.
To a solution of 2 (70 mg, 0.105 mmol) in
Et2O (3 mL) was added magnesium turnings (40 mg, 0.158
mmol), followed by stirring at room temperature for 2 h. After a few
minutes, a color change from light red to deep red was observed. To
remove excess Mg, the solution was filtered over Celite, and the insoluble
residue was washed with Et2O. Slow evaporation of the solvent
at room temperature provided 3 (65 mg, 93%) as brownish
plates. 1H NMR (δ ppm): 3.23 (q, 3JH–H = 7.0 Hz, Et2O), 1.04
(t, 3JH–H = 7.0 Hz,
Et2O), 0.37 (s, 12H, SiMe2), 0.34 (s, 36H, SiMe3). 13C NMR (δ ppm): 65.91 [(CH3CH2)2O], 15.48 [(CH3CH2)2O], 2.84 (SiMe3), −1.71 (SiMe2). 29Si NMR (δ
ppm): −10.8 (SiMe3), −20.3 (SiMe2), −125.9 (Siq).
Over a duration of 14 days, a solution of 3 (65 mg, 0.077 mmol) in Et2O (2 mL) decomposed
quantitatively to hydrostibine 4. After removal of the
solvent under vacuum, the residue was dissolved in pentane and filtered
over Celite. 4 (28 mg, 62%) was isolated as colorless
crystals obtained from pentane at −37 °C. Mp: 126–128
°C. 1H NMR (δ ppm): 0.34 (s, 12H, SiMe2), 0.31 (s, 18H, SiMe3), 0.30 (s, 18H, SiMe3). 13C NMR (δ ppm): 2.35 (SiMe3), 2.02
(SiMe3), −1.32 (SiMe2), −2.10
(SiMe2). 29Si NMR (δ ppm): −6.2
(SiMe3), −9.0 (SiMe3), −14.8 (SiMe2), −119.2 (Siq). Anal. Calcd for C16H49SbSi8 588.00: C 32.68, H 8.40. Found: C
31.54, H 7.96.
To a solution of 2 (78 mg,
0.117 mmol) in Et2O (2 mL) magnesium turnings (4 mg, 0.176
mmol) were added and stirred for 2 h. The solution was filtered to
remove excess magnesium, and trimethylchlorosilane (13 mg, 0.117 mmol)
was added. After 12 h, the reaction was complete (detected by NMR
spectroscopy), and the solvent was removed. The residue was treated
with pentane three times and filtered over Celite. Orange-brown crystalline 5 (55 mg, 71%) was obtained by crystallization from pentane
at −37 °C after 48 h. Mp: 182–184 °C. 1H NMR (δ ppm): 0.59 (s, 9H, SbSiMe3), 0.40
(s, 12H, SiMe2), 0.39 (s, 36H, SiMe3). 13C NMR (δ ppm): 6.39 (Me3Si–Sb), 2.99
(Me3Si–Siq), −1.56 (Me2Si). 29Si NMR (δ ppm): −8.7 (Me3Si–Siq), −9.4 (Me3Si–Sb),
−20.4 (Me2Si), −124.0 (Siq). Anal.
Calcd for C19H57SbSi9 660.19: C:
34.57, H: 8.70. Found: C: 34.63, H: 8.33. UV: λ1 =
275 nm, ε1 = 2.4 × 104 l mol–1cm–1.
KOt-Bu (26 mg, 0.220 mmol)
and 7 (185 mg, 0.231 mmol) were dissolved in THF (4 mL)
and stirred for 12 h (reaction control by NMR). The reaction mixture
was added dropwise to a solution of 1,2-dibromoethane (50 mg, 0.265
mmol) in THF (3 mL). Reaction control after 5 h of stirring showed
complete conversion to 9. The solvent was removed and
the remaining solid extracted three times with pentane (5 mL each).
The solution was concentrated to 2 mL and stored for 15 h at −37
°C, affording red crystalline 9 (149 mg, 81%). Mp:
140–142 °C. 1H NMR (δ ppm): 0.52 (s,
12H, SiMe3, SiMe2), 0.49 (s, 3H, SiMe2), 0.47 (s, 9H, SiMe3), 0.39 (s, 27H, SiMe3), 0.33 (s, 9H, SiMe3), 0.32 (s, 3H, SiMe2),
0.30 (s, 3H, SiMe2). 13C NMR (δ ppm):
5.49 (SiMe3), 4.47 (Si(SiMe3)3),
3.35 (SiMe3), 1.07 (SiMe2), 0.94 (SiMe2), 0.39 (SiMe2), 0.13 (SiMe2). 29Si NMR (δ ppm): 0.7 (SiMe3), −0.2 (SiMe3), −8.2 (SiMe3), −9.3 (SiMe3), −11.5 (SiMe2), −14.8 (SiMe2), −93.9 (Siq), −100.6 (Siq),
−121.7 (Siq). Anal. Calcd for C22H66BrSbSi11 841.36: C: 31.41, H: 7.91. Found: C:
31.66, H 8.02.
KOt-Bu (12 mg,
0.111 mmol) and 5 (70 mg, 0.106 mmol) were dissolved
in THF (2 mL) and stirred for 12 h (reaction control by NMR). The
reaction mixture was cooled to −37 °C, and Cp2ZrCl2 (31 mg, 0.106 mmol) in THF (2 mL) was added slowly
dropwise. After stirring for another 12 h complete conversion was
achieved. Removal of solvent, treatment of the residue with pentane,
filtration over Celite, and again removal of solvent caused the formation
of some hydrostibine 4. Crystallization from Et2O afforded 10 (52 mg, 58%) as dark green crystals. Mp:
170–172 °C. 1H NMR (δ ppm): 6.01 (s,
10H, Cp), 0.50 (s, 36H, SiMe3), 0.44 (s, 12H, SiMe2). 13C NMR (δ ppm): 111.30 (Cp), 3.53 (SiMe3), −1.13 (SiMe2). 29Si NMR (δ
ppm): −8.1 (SiMe3), −20.4 (SiMe2), −103.7 (Siq).
Following the same procedure as
described for 5, using Mg (3 mg, 0.112 mmol), 2 (50 mg, 0.075 mmol), and Cp2HfCl2 (28 mg,
0.075 mmol), and addition of Cp2HfCl2 at −37
°C, the reaction was complete after 48 h. Black crystalline 11 (41 mg, 59%) was obtained by crystallization from Et2O. As for the case of 10, some hydrostibine 4 formation during isolation was observed but to a smaller
degree. Mp: 138–140 °C. 1H NMR (δ ppm):
5.81 (s, 10H, Cp), 0.51 (s, 36H, SiMe3), 0.46 (s, 12H,
SiMe2). 13C NMR (δ ppm): 110.58 (Cp),
3.55 (SiMe3), −1.04 (SiMe2). 29Si NMR (δ ppm): −8.1 (SiMe3), −19.9
(SiMe2), −109.7 (Siq). 1H
NMR (δ ppm, THF-D2O capillary): 6.43 (s, 10H, Cp),
0.48 (s, 36H, SiMe3), 0.45 (s, 12H, SiMe2). 13C NMR (δ ppm, THF-D2O capillary): 111.07
(Cp), 3.05 (SiMe3), −1.53 (SiMe2). 29Si NMR (δ ppm, THF-D2O capillary): −8.1
(SiMe3), −20.0 (SiMe2), −111.3
(Siq).
Authors: Ian J Bruno; Jason C Cole; Paul R Edgington; Magnus Kessler; Clare F Macrae; Patrick McCabe; Jonathan Pearson; Robin Taylor Journal: Acta Crystallogr B Date: 2002-05-29
Authors: Rainer Zitz; Karl Gatterer; Crispin R W Reinhold; Thomas Müller; Judith Baumgartner; Christoph Marschner Journal: Organometallics Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: Rainer Zitz; Karl Gatterer; Crispin R W Reinhold; Thomas Müller; Judith Baumgartner; Christoph Marschner Journal: Organometallics Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 3.876