| Literature DB >> 31778594 |
Sebastian Sobottka1, Maite Nößler1, Andrew L Ostericher1,2, Gunter Hermann3, Noah Z Subat1, Julia Beerhues1, Margarethe Behr-van der Meer1, Lisa Suntrup1,4, Uta Albold1, Stephan Hohloch1,5, Jean Christophe Tremblay6, Biprajit Sarkar1,7.
Abstract
Asymmetric platinumEntities:
Keywords: donor-acceptor systems; electrochemistry; platinum; redox-active ligands; spectroelectrochemistry
Year: 2020 PMID: 31778594 PMCID: PMC7027812 DOI: 10.1002/chem.201903700
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chemistry ISSN: 0947-6539 Impact factor: 5.236
Figure 1Typical acceptor (left) and donor (right) ligands.
Scheme 1Syntheses of the precursor (pimp)PtCl2 (7) and the complexes 1–5 (p‐Tol=para‐tosyl).
Figure 2Crystal structures of compounds 1–5 and 7. Color code: grey, C; pink, Pt; green, Cl; blue, N; red, O; yellow, S. Hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity.
Figure 3Tilt (designated by the angle θ; E=O or N) of the donor ligand relative to the pimp acceptor ligand for complexes 3, 4, and 5. The complexes are arranged such that the mesyl group of pimp is in the foreground. Color code: grey, C; pink, Pt; green, Cl; blue, N; red, O; yellow, S. Hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity.
Selected bond lengths and angles for complexes 1–5, (pimp)PtCl2 (7), and the free ligand 6.
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pt−E1 [Å][a] |
1.991(3) |
1.996(5) |
2.029(2) |
2.042(5) |
2.036(3) |
– |
2.297(1) |
|
Pt−E2 [Å][a] |
1.965(3) |
1.982(5) |
2.042(2) |
2.033(5) |
1.971(3) |
– |
2.292(1) |
|
Pt−N1 [Å] |
1.997(4) |
1.968(6) |
2.023(2) |
2.011(5) |
2.003(3) |
– |
2.016(3) |
|
Pt−N2 [Å] |
1.969(3) |
1.982(6) |
2.048(2) |
2.046(5) |
1.997(3) |
– |
2.001(3) |
|
E1−C1 [Å] |
1.369(5) |
1.328(8) |
1.450(3) |
1.449(8) |
1.443(5) |
– |
– |
|
E2−C2 [Å] |
1.354(5) |
1.337(8) |
1.430(3) |
1.431(8) |
1.352(4) |
– |
– |
|
C1−C2 [Å] |
1.397(6) |
1.409(10) |
1.390(4) |
1.396(9) |
1.401(5) |
– |
– |
|
C2−C3 [Å] |
1.404(6) |
1.383(10) |
1.400(4) |
1.380(9) |
1.401(5) |
– |
– |
|
C3−C4 [Å] |
1.394(6) |
1.397(10) |
1.391(4) |
1.377(10) |
1.406(6) |
– |
– |
|
C4−C5 [Å] |
1.397(6) |
1.387(11) |
1.393(4) |
1.386(10) |
1.402(6) |
– |
– |
|
C5−C6 [Å] |
1.403(6) |
1.396(10) |
1.393(4) |
1.384(10) |
1.386(6) |
– |
– |
|
C6−C1 [Å] |
1.386(6) |
1.403(10) |
1.393(4) |
1.382(9) |
1.389(5) |
– |
– |
|
N1−C7 [Å] |
1.368(4) |
1.366(9) |
1.368(4) |
1.366(8) |
1.378(5) |
1.342(2) |
1.369(4) |
|
C7−C8 [Å] |
1.448(4) |
1.436(10) |
1.448(4) |
1.453(8) |
1.449(6) |
1.478(2) |
1.448(5) |
|
C8−N2 [Å] |
1.290(5) |
1.283(9) |
1.290(4) |
1.278(8) |
1.289(5) |
1.259(2) |
1.289(5) |
|
|
176 |
176 |
158 |
161 |
167 |
– |
– |
|
|
180 |
180 |
161 |
168 |
169 |
– |
– |
|
|
−99.21 |
−70.48 |
−75.79 |
−99.18 |
72.11 |
−77.81 |
−76.87 |
[a] E1 and E2 are O or N.
Figure 4Cyclic voltammograms of complexes 1–5 in CH2Cl2/NBu4PF6 measured with a glassy carbon working electrode at 100 mV s−1 (FcH=ferrocene; FcH+=ferrocenium).
Redox potentials (E 1/2 in V) vs. FcH/FcH+ measured in CH2Cl2 at 100 mV s−1 with 0.1 m Bu4NPF6 at room temperature.[a]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
−0.21 |
0.79 |
−1.65 |
– |
|
|
– |
0.47 |
−1.38 |
−2.36[b] |
|
|
0.54 |
1.11[b] |
−1.43 |
−2.40[b] |
|
|
0.67 |
1.06[b] |
−1.40 |
– |
|
|
0.17 |
0.99[b] |
−1.49 |
– |
|
|
– |
– |
−1.35 |
– |
[a] All measured with a glassy carbon electrode. [b] Potential of the peak current.
Scheme 2Redox processes for complex 1.
Figure 5Correlation of the electrochemical HOMO–LUMO gap (Δ ) with the calculated HOMO–LUMO gap (Δ ) for complexes 1–5.
Figure 6UV/Vis/NIR spectra of complexes 1–5 in CH2Cl2/NBu4PF6.
Figure 7UV/Vis/NIR spectroelectrochemistry for complex 1. a) Oxidation of 1 to 1+, b) oxidation of 1+ to 12+, c) reduction of 1 to 1−, d) comparison of UV/Vis/NIR spectra of 1, 1+, 12+ and 1−. For a detailed discussion see text.
Figure 8Correlation of the optical HOMO–LUMO gap (LL′CT) with the electrochemical HOMO–LUMO gap (left) and correlation of the calculated HOMO–LUMO gap with the optical HOMO–LUMO gap (right).
Figure 9UV/Vis/NIR spectroelectrochemistry for complex 3 in CH2Cl2 /NBu4PF6 measured with a gold working electrode. a) Oxidation of 3 to 3+, b) re‐reduction of 3+ to rearranged 3*, c) further re‐reduction and appearance of a new band of 3+ to rearranged 3*, d) comparison of 3, 3+, 3+* and re‐reduced 3. For a detailed discussion see text.
Scheme 3Possible isomerization for compounds 3 + and 4 + (Mes=mesityl).
Figure 10UV/Vis/NIR spectroelectrochemistry for complex 4 in CH2Cl2 /NBu4PF6 measured with a gold electrode. a) Oxidation of 4 to 4+, b) oxidation of 4+ to 42+, c) re‐reduction of 42+ to rearranged 4+*, d) further re‐reduction of 4+ to 4*, e) further re‐reduction and re‐emergence of the LL′CT band, f) comparison of UV/Vis/NIR spectra of 4, 4+, 42+, re‐reduced and rearranged 4+* and re‐reduced and rearranged 4*. For a detailed discussion see text.
Figure 11Frontier orbitals of complexes 1–5 along with the calculated energies.
Figure 12Electronic flux densities for the transition between the ground state and the first absorption band of complexes 1–5. The arrows are colored according to their magnitude. The charge transfer numbers are 0.711, 0.757, 0.784, 0.774, and 0.781) for complexes 1–5, respectively (carbon in black, hydrogen in white, nitrogen in blue, oxygen in red, sulfur in yellow, platinum in purple, and chlorine in green).
Overview of catalytic reactions.
|
Entry |
Catalyst |
Substrate |
Yield [%] |
Conditions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
|
MeNO2 |
88 |
O2: 2 min, |
|
2 |
|
acetone |
24 |
O2: 2 min, |
|
3 |
|
MeNO2 |
traces (<5) |
O2: –, |
|
4 |
|
acetone |
traces (<5) |
O2: –, |
|
5 |
|
MeNO2 |
traces (<5) |
O2: 2 min, |
|
6 |
|
acetone |
traces (<5) |
O2: 2 min, |
|
7 |
|
MeNO2 |
stability test |
O2: –, |
|
8 |
|
acetone |
stability test |
O2: –, |
|
9 |
|
MeNO2 |
traces (<5) |
O2: 2 min, |
|
10 |
|
acetone |
traces (<5) |
O2: 2 min, |
|
11 |
no catalyst |
MeNO2 |
no conversion |
O2: 2 min, |
|
12 |
no catalyst |
acetone |
no conversion |
O2: 2 min, |
|
13 |
|
MeNO2 |
traces (<5) |
O2: 2 min, |
|
14 |
|
acetone |
traces (<5) |
O2: 2 min, |
|
15 |
|
MeNO2 |
traces (<5) |
O2: 2 min, |
|
16 |
|
acetone |
traces (<5) |
O2: 2 min, |
|
17 |
|
MeNO2 |
traces (<5) |
O2: 2 min, |
|
18 |
|
acetone |
traces (<5) |
O2: 2 min, |
|
19 |
|
MeNO2 |
40 |
O2: 30 min, |
|
20 |
|
acetone |
18 |
O2: 30 min, |
|
21 |
|
MeNO2 |
50 |
O2: 30 min, |
|
22 |
|
acetone |
65 |
O2: 30 min, |
|
23 |
|
MeNO2 |
no conversion |
O2: 30 min, |
|
24 |
|
acetone |
no conversion |
O2: 30 min, |
Figure 13Spin trapping with PBN in an oxygen‐saturated DMF solution of 1.
Scheme 4Tentative reaction mechanism for the CDC. Adapted from Chen, Fu, and co‐workers.34 (SET=single electron transfer).