Sodium reduction of [{SiNDipp}Mg] [{SiNDipp} = {CH2SiMe2N(Dipp)}2; Dipp = 2,6-i-Pr2C6H3] provides the Mg(I) species, [{SiNDipp}MgNa]2, in which the long Mg-Mg bond (>3.2 Å) is augmented by persistent Na-aryl interactions. Computational assessment indicates that this molecule is best considered to comprise a contiguous tetrametallic core, a viewpoint borne out by its reaction with CO, which results in ethynediolate formation mediated by the dissimilar metal centers.
Sodium reduction of [{SiNDipp}Mg] [{SiNDipp} = {CH2SiMe2N(Dipp)}2; Dipp = 2,6-i-Pr2C6H3] provides the Mg(I) species, [{SiNDipp}MgNa]2, in which the long Mg-Mg bond (>3.2 Å) is augmented by persistent Na-aryl interactions. Computational assessment indicates that this molecule is best considered to comprise a contiguous tetrametallic core, a viewpoint borne out by its reaction with CO, which results in ethynediolate formation mediated by the dissimilar metal centers.
Prior to Jones and
co-workers’ isolation of stable guanidinate
and β-diketiminate (BDI) derivatives such as compound 1 in 2007 (Chart ),[1−5] experimental studies of low oxidation state Mg(I) derivatives were
limited to transient species under low temperature matrix isolation
conditions.[6] Although more than 25 examples
of such compounds have now been described, like 1, a
majority conform to the general structural requirement of a bulky
monoanionic spectator ligand to provide the requisite kinetic stabilization
of the [Mg–Mg]2+ unit against disproportionation
to Mg(II) and Mg(0).
Chart 1
Structures of Compounds 1–7
The implementation of an ever
more bulky suite of amide and β-diketiminate
anions, in harness with a variety of neutral mondentate bases, has,
thus, resulted in the isolation of a variety of species comprising
four-,[7,8] three-,[9−15] two-,[16] or even asymmetric combinations
of four- and three-,[17] or three- and two-coordinate
magnesium centers.[18] The intermetallic
distance in these compounds has proved remarkably malleable such that
the Mg–Mg bond lengths encompass an unusually wide range, with
extremes provided by an N-mesityl BDI variant of 1 [2, Mg–Mg 2.808(1) Å][8] and compound 3 [3.1962(14) Å]
in which the coordination number of both magnesium atoms in 1 is raised to four through the introduction of two molecules
of strongly basic 4-dimethylaminopyridine (DMAP).[7] While this deformability is consistent with a
very shallow bond potential energy surface, experimental charge density
studies and quantum theory of atoms-in-molecules (QTAIM) calculations
revealed that the Mg–Mg bond of compound 1 is
not a classical covalent interaction. Rather, a large region of negative
Laplacian in the Mg–Mg internuclear region comprises a non-nuclear
attractor (NNA) containing 0.8 electrons, in effect electron density
that is not associated with a particular nucleus and, hence, distinct
from the positions of the magnesium atoms.[9,18−20]While a pre-existing [Mg–Mg]2+ unit has also
been manipulated to provide further Mg(I) derivatives,[21,22] the synthesis of these compounds invariably involves the generation
of a salt by reduction of a magnesium(II) halide starting material
with either sodium or potassium. The current apotheosis of this approach
has very recently been provided by Harder and co-workers’ report
that sodium reduction of a magnesium(II) iodide bearing the extraordinarily
bulky BDI* [BDI* = HC{C(t-Bu)N(DiPeP)}2; DiPeP = 2,6-(3-pentyl)-phenyl] ligand provides the remarkable magnesium(0)
compound, [(BDI*)MgNa]2 (4).[23] Whereas the Mg···Mg separation [5.7792(5)
Å] in 4 is too long to represent a bonding interaction,
the shorter of the Mg–Na distances [3.1216(7) Å] approaches
the sum of the ionic radii of the respective group 1 and group 2 metal
centers (3.19 Å).[24] Compound 4 also disproportionates in benzene to provide a further Mg(0)-containing
species, [(BDI*)MgMgMg(BDI*)] (5), in which the magnesium
atoms were shown by QTAIM to be connected via two NNAs, each with
a basin of 0.64 electrons.An exception to this synthetic approach
has been provided by Yang
and co-workers’ utilization of doubly reduced α-diimine,
phenanthrene-9,10-diimine, and o-phenylene diamide
ligand sets.[10,14] In these cases the redox noninnocent
pro-ligands were reduced with excess potassium metal, albeit the reactions
were performed in the presence of MgCl2 and so are again
driven by the thermodynamically favorable production of an ionic group
1 salt. Charge balance in the resultant Mg(I) species, such as 6,[10] is necessarily maintained
by the incorporation of potassium cations. Although these cations
interact strongly with the delocalized π system of the planar
dianionic spectator ligands, they impose a negligible impact on the
bonds between the three-coordinate Mg centers, which are <3 Å
in all cases.In contrast to the unsupported Mg–Mg bonds
of compounds 1–3 and 6, a notable feature
of compound 4 is the presence of bridging Na–aryl
contacts, which presumably play a significant role in the stability
of the dimeric molecule.[23] We, and others,
have recently observed that similarly persistent Na– and K–aryl
interactions provide a defining feature in a number of dimeric potassium
diamidoalumanyl derivatives.[25−28] In these cases, the integrity of the formal Al(I)
centers is maintained by a sterically demanding diamide ligand, such
as in the seven-membered cyclic species, [{SiNDipp}AlK]2[{SiNDipp} = {CH2SiMe2N(Dipp)}2; Dipp = 2,6-i-Pr2C6H3] (7).[28] Prompted by the robust nature of compounds 4 and 7, in this contribution we show that the thermodynamic
preference for heavier group 1 element–aryl interactions[29,30] can provide a strategy to access dinuclear low oxidation state alkaline
earth species that circumvents conventional salt elimination.
Results
and Discussion
Initial DFT calculations were performed to
model the sodium and
potassium reduction of a neutral magnesium derivative, [{SiNDipp}Mg](8), supported by the amide ligand utilized in compound 7. While these results supported the thermodynamic viability
of reduction with both alkali metals to the putative dinuclear Mg–Mg
bonded species (9, Scheme ), the sodium-based
process was calculated to be more exergonic (M = Na, ΔG = −72.3; M = K, ΔG = −63.7
kcal mol–1).
Scheme 1
DFT-Computed (BP86-D3BJ/BS2(benzene)//BP86/BS1)
Free Energy Changes
for the Sodium and Potassium Reduction of Compound 8
Encouraged by these results, compound 8 was synthesized
by reaction of the aniline pro-ligand, {SiNDipp}H2, with dibutyl magnesium in hexane at room temperature. Although 8 was isolated in analytically pure base-free form by removal
of volatiles, it was observed to quickly sequester aromatic solvents.
Compound 8 was, thus, characterized as its Mg-η1-benzene and Mg-η1-toluene adducts by X-ray
diffraction analysis performed on colorless single crystals isolated
by slow evaporation of the respective arene solutions (Figure S14). Guided by the greater theoretical
viability of the sodium reduction, a benzene solution of 8 was reacted with an excess of 5 wt % Na/NaCl at room temperature
for 12 h,[31] whereupon removal of volatiles
and crystallization from toluene solution provided compound 9 as highly air-sensitive bright yellow crystals. The 1H NMR spectrum of compound 9 was characterized
by a significant asymmetry across the various {SiNDipp}
ligand environments. This was particularly apparent in the silylmethyl
signals, which appeared as two (6H) singlets at δ 0.52 and −0.21
ppm, and which may be attributed to a loss of the mirror plane of
symmetry through the seven-membered magnesium chelate of 8. Notably, these resonances did not display any level of coherence
transfer consistent with chemical or conformational exchange in the
corresponding EXSY NMR experiment.The origin of these observations
became apparent in a subsequent
single crystal X-ray diffraction analysis of compound 9, which confirmed it as a tetranuclear heterobimetallic species in
which a pair of {SiNDipp}Mg units are bridged by twofold
η6-Na-Dipp interactions (Figure ). Intrinsic to the crystallographic symmetry
(P1), the asymmetric unit comprises
a racemate, such that the Mg1/Mg2- and Mg3/Mg4-containing molecules
describe right- and left-handed helices, respectively. While there
are some significant variations across the comparable metric data
of both molecules, their gross constitutions are effectively identical.
The most notable features of the structures are the exceptionally
long magnesium–magnesium separations [Mg1–Mg2 3.2077(10),
Mg3–Mg4 3.2124(11) Å], which exceed even that reported
for compound 3 [3.1962(14) Å]. Consistent with the
attribution of a Mg(I) oxidation level to magnesium, the N–Mg
bonds observed in 9 [avg. 2.0831 Å] are more closely
commensurate with the N–Mg distances in compound 1 [avg. 2.0604 Å] than the longer formal nitrogen-to-Mg(0) interactions
[avg. 2.117 Å] displayed by compound 4. The closest
Na–Mg separation in 9 [Mg3–Na3 3.6290(12)
Å] is also elongated in comparison to even the longer of the
Na–Mg contacts reported for compound 4 [3.4529(7)
Å], in which a modicum of Mg–Na bonding was supported
by bond paths located in the QTAIM analysis. In contrast, the Na–Ccentroid distances to the Dipp substituents [avg. 2.414 Å]
of 9 are significantly contracted in comparison to the
Na–Ccentroid separations observed in compound 4 [2.604 Å]. In this latter case, the Na-coordinated
and uncoordinated N-aryl substituents observed in
the solid-state structure could not be discriminated by NMR spectroscopy,
indicating rapid solution exchange of both sites.[23] This observation contrasts significantly with the behavior
of 9, wherein a mutually gauche orientation of each dimer
half in the molecule is evidently “locked” into the
solid-state conformation by a combination of persistent Mg–Mg
and Na-Dipp interactions. As a result, the enantiomers observed in
the solid-state structure cannot interconvert, imposing the loss of
symmetry across the various {SiNDipp} ligand environments
implied by NMR spectroscopy.
Figure 1
ORTEP (30% probability) of the Mg1/Mg2-containing
molecule in compound 9. Hydrogen atoms and disordered
molecules of solvent are
omitted for clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg):
Mg1–Mg2 3.2077(10), Mg3–Mg4 3.2124(11), Mg1–Na2
3.7229(13), Mg1–N1 2.0843(18), Mg1–N2 2.0786(19), Mg2–Na2
3.7014(13), Mg2–N3 2.090(2), Mg2–N4 2.0794(19), Mg3–Na3
3.6290(12), Mg4–Na3 3.6691(12), N2–Mg1–N1 109.76(7),
N3–Mg2–N4 110.77(8), N5–Mg3–N6 110.03(8),
N8–Mg4–N7 110.41(8).
ORTEP (30% probability) of the Mg1/Mg2-containing
molecule in compound 9. Hydrogen atoms and disordered
molecules of solvent are
omitted for clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg):
Mg1–Mg2 3.2077(10), Mg3–Mg4 3.2124(11), Mg1–Na2
3.7229(13), Mg1–N1 2.0843(18), Mg1–N2 2.0786(19), Mg2–Na2
3.7014(13), Mg2–N3 2.090(2), Mg2–N4 2.0794(19), Mg3–Na3
3.6290(12), Mg4–Na3 3.6691(12), N2–Mg1–N1 109.76(7),
N3–Mg2–N4 110.77(8), N5–Mg3–N6 110.03(8),
N8–Mg4–N7 110.41(8).Insight into the electron densities and, in turn, the nature of
the interatomic interactions within compound 9, was obtained
with QTAIM topological analysis. The Mg–Mg bond critical point
(ρ = 0.0194) has a negative energy density (H(r) = −0.00362) and Laplacian (∇2ρ(r) = −0.0136) which are indicative of a stabilizing
covalent bond (Figure a). This is further supported by NBO analysis through the identification
of a natural localized molecular orbital of a Mg–Mg σ-bond
with a roughly equal contribution from the 3s orbitals of each Mg
center (Figure b).
In contrast to comparable calculations performed on monometallic species
such as 1 and 5,[19,20] no persuasive evidence of a NNA could be identified. Rather, QTAIM
analysis revealed two further weak bond critical points (where ρ
= 0.0034) between the Na cations and the Mg–Mg bond critical
point itself. Perturbation energy analysis of this unusual interaction
with both Na+ cations estimates an overall σ-donation
strength between the Mg–Mg bond and each Na+ cation
of ΔE(2) ≈ 25 kcal mol–1.
Figure 2
(a) QTAIM molecular graph of the BP86-optimized geometry
of 9. The electron density contours are computed in the
{Mg–N}
planes with bond critical points (BCPs) shown as small green spheres.
(b) Natural Localized Molecular Orbital of the Mg–Mg bond in 9.
(a) QTAIM molecular graph of the BP86-optimized geometry
of 9. The electron density contours are computed in the
{Mg–N}
planes with bond critical points (BCPs) shown as small green spheres.
(b) Natural Localized Molecular Orbital of the Mg–Mg bond in 9.Magnesium(I) complexes comprising
an isolated Mg–Mg interaction
have displayed broad applicability as soluble molecular reducing agents.[4] The QTAIM and NBO results suggest, however, that
the chemistry of 9 is better considered in terms of its
[Na2Mg2]4+ core rather than as an
isolated [Mg–Mg]2+ unit. This raises the possibility
that new patterns of cooperative reactivity may arise between the
dissimilar metal centers. Treatment of molten alkali metals or their
solutions in liquid ammonia with gaseous CO have long been known to
give rise to ill-defined and shock-sensitive mixtures of oxocarbon
anions, [CO]2– (n = 2–6).[32,33] Although molecules such as 1–3 are
unreactive toward CO, Jones, Maron and co-workers have shown that
addition of monodentate bases yields unsymmetrical Mg–Mg bonded
species, [{(BDI)(D)Mg–Mg(BDI)}2] (D = DMAP or N-heterocyclic carbene), which do effect CO oligomerization.[17,34] Although these reactions have provided derivatives of the deltate
dianion, [C3O3]2–, DFT calculations
indicated a trimerization mechanism that proceeds through the initial
generation of reactive intermediates containing trans-bent ethynediolate, [O–C≡C–O]2–, dianions. In support of this hypothesis, DMAP adducts of the less
encumbered N-mesityl (2) and N-o-xylyl variants were found to react
with only two molecules of CO. Although the structures of the resultant
bimetallic compounds comprised an unusual bridging cis-ethenediolate dianion, [μ-O(H)C=C(C5H3N-4-NMe2)O]2–, its formation was reasoned
to be a result of intramolecular C–H activation of Mg-ligated
DMAP by an initially formed [O–C≡C–O]2– intermediate.[34] In a very recent related
advance, compound 2 and its N-o-xylyl substituted analogue have also been shown to mediate
the cooperative hexamerization of CO in the presence of [Mo(CO)6] with formation of magnesium benzenehexolate complexes,
[{(BDI)Mg}6(C6O6)].[35]As an initial assay of its reactivity,
therefore, a solution of
compound 9 in benzene was treated with 2 atm of 13CO at room temperature. The conversion of 9 was
complete after 3 days to provide the quantitative generation of a
single new species (10). The formation of compound 10 was characterized by the loss of asymmetry associated with
the {SiNDipp} ligand environments of 9 in
the resultant 1H NMR spectrum and, most characteristically,
the emergence of a single new 13C-enriched resonance at
δ 50.2 ppm in the corresponding 13C{1H}
NMR spectrum. Although the carbon centers of Jones’ [C3O3]2– dianions were not observed
spectroscopically for comparison,[17] this
latter chemical shift is redolent of Evans’ and co-workers’
observation of the ethynediolate 13C nuclei of [{(Me3Si)2N}3Y(μ-OC≡CO)Y{N(SiMe3)2}3][K(18-cr-6)(THF)2]2 (11, δ 55.5 ppm), in which two molecules
of CO were reductively dimerized by the Y2+ centers produced in situ by addition of excess potassium to [Y{N(SiMe3)2}3].[36] Although
analogous behavior has also been observed for similarly generated
divalent Lu,[36] Dy, Ho, Gd, and Tm[37] systems, and is precedented in uranium(III)
reactivity,[38−42] compound 11 provides the sole diamagnetic example of
an ethynediolate anion for comparison and strongly advocates the operation
of a similar process during the reaction of CO with 9 (Scheme ).
Scheme 2
Synthesis
of Compound 10
This thesis was confirmed by the X-ray diffraction analysis of 10, single crystals of which were obtained by slow evaporation
of a hexane solution at room temperature. Although cis-enediolate complexes of magnesium have previously been obtained from
reactions of β-diketiminato magnesium hydride and magnesium
anthracene complexes with CO,[11,43−45] and Aldridge and co-workers have inferred the intermediacy of ethynediolate
species during treatment of a boryl-substituted acyclic silylene with
CO,[46,47] compound 10 (Figure ) is unique among molecular
main group complexes in containing an unperturbed ethynediolate dianion.
The structure of 10 reveals that the (μ-OC≡CO)
ligand bridges two {SiNDipp}MgNa units in which the magnesium
and sodium centers are, respectively, coordinated by the diamide chelate
and a series of polyhapto- interactions with the N-Dipp substituents. The ethynediolate dianion is bound via terminal
Mg–O [Mg1–O1 1.8904(11); Mg2–O2 1.8959(10) Å]
and η3-C–C–O contacts with the Na1
[Na1–O1 2.2477(12); Na1–C61 2.156(15) Å] and Na2
[Na2–O2 2.3019(11), Na2–C62 2.5930(14) Å] atoms.
The extremely short C61–C62 distance of 1.196(2) Å in
the ethynediolate moiety is commensurate with that determined by powder
X-ray diffraction in NaOC≡CONa [1.19 (0.3) Å].[33] The C–C triple bond is, thus, unaffected
by the proximity of the sodium atoms, albeit the O1–C61–C62
[166.82(14)°] and O2–C62–C61 [166.62(14)°]
angles highlight a notable deviation of the {O–C≡C–O}
moiety from linearity. Although the Na–Ccentroid interactions with the Dipp substituents [avg. 2.803 Å] are
elongated in comparison to those observed in 9, more
significant is the shortening of the various Mg–N bonds [avg.
1.9714 Å], which supports a change in formal Mg oxidation state
from +1 to +2.
Figure 3
ORTEP (30% probability) of compound 10. Hydrogen
atoms,
disordered atoms and disordered molecules of solvent are omitted for
clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): Mg1–N1
1.9684(11), Mg1–N2 1.9739(12), Mg2–N3 1.9694(12), Mg2–N4
1.9739(13), Mg1–O1 1.8904(11), Mg2–O2 1.8959(10), Na1–O1
2.2477(12), Na1–C61 2.6156(15), Na2–O2 2.3019(11), Na2–C61
3.1107(15), Na2–C62 2.5930(14), C61–C62 1.196(2), N1–Mg1–N2
138.34(5), N3–Mg2–N4 137.29(5), C62–C61–O1
166.82(14), C61–C62–O2 166.62(14).
ORTEP (30% probability) of compound 10. Hydrogen
atoms,
disordered atoms and disordered molecules of solvent are omitted for
clarity. Selected bond lengths (Å) and angles (deg): Mg1–N1
1.9684(11), Mg1–N2 1.9739(12), Mg2–N3 1.9694(12), Mg2–N4
1.9739(13), Mg1–O1 1.8904(11), Mg2–O2 1.8959(10), Na1–O1
2.2477(12), Na1–C61 2.6156(15), Na2–O2 2.3019(11), Na2–C61
3.1107(15), Na2–C62 2.5930(14), C61–C62 1.196(2), N1–Mg1–N2
138.34(5), N3–Mg2–N4 137.29(5), C62–C61–O1
166.82(14), C61–C62–O2 166.62(14).This latter deduction was further supported by QTAIM and NBO analyses
of the electronic structure and bonding interactions within 10. QTAIM analysis revealed strong BCPs between each Mg center
and the O termini of the {O–C≡C–O}2– moiety (ρMg3–O10 = 0.0506, ρMg4–O9 = 0.05182) as well as two between the Na+ ions and the
O termini (ρNa7–O10 = 0.0232, ρNa6–O9 = 0.0238). Donor-acceptor NBO energy analysis
also afforded further support to the η3-C–C–O
binding mode between the Na+ ions and the {O–C≡C–O}2– moiety.The mechanism of formation of 10 was also interrogated
by DFT calculations (Figure ). In a manner reminiscent of that computed for the generation
of Jones and Maron’s deltate ([C3O3]2–) derivatives, the addition of CO occurs sequentially.[17,34] The transformation of 9 to 10 is significantly
exergonic (ΔG = −65.2 kcal mol–1) and each stage of the reaction profile invokes cooperative interactions
between CO and both dissimilar metals of the [Na2Mg2] unit. Consistent with the slow formation of 10, the kinetic barrier associated with the initial CO insertion [TS(9-A)], involving a single Mg and a single Na
of 9 and the generation of a Mg−μ-C–O−μ-Na
bridging interaction, is quite high and rate limiting (28.2 kcal mol–1). Although the formation of the resultant species
(A) is endergonic (ΔG = +15.0
kcal mol–1), the overall exergonicity of CO insertion
(ΔG = −10.0 kcal mol–1) is ensured by its rapid isomerization to species B, in which a doubly reduced molecule of CO interacts with all four
alkaline metal centers. Sequestration of a further molecule of CO
by B to provide C and subsequent C–C
coupling are then facile to provide 10, in which the
(μ-OC≡CO) unit is encapsulated and protected toward further
oligomerization by the [Na2Mg2]2+ unit.
Figure 4
DFT-calculated free energy profile (BP86-D3BJ/BS2(benzene)//BP86/BS1),
in kcal mol–1 for the reaction of 9 with CO.
DFT-calculated free energy profile (BP86-D3BJ/BS2(benzene)//BP86/BS1),
in kcal mol–1 for the reaction of 9 with CO.In summary, sodium reduction of
a neutral diamidomagnesium provides
a Mg(I) species in which the long Mg–Mg interaction is augmented
by persistent Na–aryl interactions. Computational assessment
indicates that the molecule is best considered to comprise a contiguous
tetrametallic core, a viewpoint borne out by its reaction with CO,
which results in ethynediolate formation mediated by the dissimilar
metal centers. We are continuing to study this reactivity, particularly
as a strategy to allow the isolation of low oxidation state derivatives
of magnesium’s heavier group 2 congeners.
Authors: Andrey V Protchenko; Petra Vasko; Dinh Cao Huan Do; Jamie Hicks; M Ángeles Fuentes; Cameron Jones; Simon Aldridge Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Ming Fang; Joy H Farnaby; Joseph W Ziller; Jefferson E Bates; Filipp Furche; William J Evans Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Mathew D Anker; Christos E Kefalidis; Yan Yang; Jian Fang; Michael S Hill; Mary F Mahon; Laurent Maron Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Samuel Grams; Jonathan Eyselein; Jens Langer; Christian Färber; Sjoerd Harder Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Ryan J Schwamm; Martyn P Coles; Michael S Hill; Mary F Mahon; Claire L McMullin; Nasir A Rajabi; Andrew S S Wilson Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Andreas Heilmann; Matthew M D Roy; Agamemnon E Crumpton; Liam P Griffin; Jamie Hicks; Jose M Goicoechea; Simon Aldridge Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 16.383
Authors: Stuart Burnett; Connor Bourne; Alexandra M Z Slawin; Tanja van Mourik; Andreas Stasch Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 16.823