Formation of mixed-valent aryltellurenyl halides RX2TeTeR

Article abstract of DOI:10.1002/anie.200702341

(Chemical Equation Presented) Mixed doubles: The mixed-valent dinuclear aryltellurenyl halides PhBr₂TeTePh (see picture), and RX ₂TeTeR (X = CIBr, R = 2,6-MeS₂C₆H₃), the monomeric 2,6-MeS₂C

Full text of DOI:10.1002/anie.200702341

Angewandte
Chemie
DOI: 10.1002/anie.200702341
Tellurium Compounds
Formation of Mixed-Valent Aryltellurenyl Halides RX2TeTeR**
Jens Beckmann,* Malte Hesse, Helmut Poleschner, and Konrad Seppelt*
Extremely unstable sulfur difluoride, SF2, dimerizes to give
the slightly more stable mixed-valent dinuclear F3SSF.[1] To
date the only reported organic derivative of F3SSF is
F3CF2SSCF3, which was identified during the disproportiona-
tion reaction of F3CSF, affording F3CSSCF3 and F3CSF3.[2]
While organoselenenyl(II) halides, such as PhSeX (X = Cl,
Br), are more stable and often even commercially available,
aryltellurenyl(II) halides, RTeX, are also intrinsically unstable
and usually observed only as short-lived intermediates in
halogenation reactions of diorganoditellurides, RTeTeR, or in
produced analogous selenium tetramers (PhSeX)4 (X = Cl,
Br),[8] whereas the reaction with I2 afforded a related charge
transfer complex Ph2Se2I2 having a dinuclear structure with
secondary Se···I contacts.[9]
The prospect of finding novel oligomeric organotellure-
nyl(II) halides and related charge-transfer complexes
prompted us to study the halogenation of two diarylditellur-
ides in greater detail. The reaction of PhTeTePh with one
equivalent of bromine provided the mixed-valent phenyl-
tellurenyl bromide PhBr2TeTePh (1) in nearly quantitative
yield, and the melting point and red-brown color are
reminiscent of the compound described by Schulz and Klar
(Scheme 1).[6]
synproportionation reactions of RTeTeR with RTeX3.[3]
A
common decomposition pathway of aryltellurenyl(II) halides,
RTeX, proceeds by migration of the organic substituents and
produces diaryltellurium(IV) dihalides, R2TeX2, and elemen-
tal tellurium. From the decomposition of the sterically more
encumbered MesTeI (Mes = 2,4,6-Me3C6H2), the dinuclear
complex Mes2TeTeMesI, MesTeI3, and elemental tellurium
were isolated.[4] Very few kinetically stabilized aryltellur-
enyl(II) halides, such as 2,4,6-tBu3C6H2TeX (X = Cl, Br, I),
are known,[5] and they are monomers in the solid state. In
1974, Schulz and Klar described a number of metastable
organotellurenyl halides, RTeX (e.g. R = Ph, 4-MeOC6H4, 4-
PhC6H4; X = Br, I) containing smaller organic substituents,
which on the basis of their rather poor solubility in most
organic solvents and their rather dark color were presumed to
have oligomeric and/or polymeric structures.[6] Recently, one
of these compounds has been identified as the cyclic tetramer
(PhTeI)4.[7] The halogenation of PhSeSePh with Cl2 and Br2
Scheme 1. Synthesis of compounds 1–5.
The halogenation of the sterically more encumbered
compound RTeTeR (R = 2,6-Mes2C6H3) with one equivalent
of bromine or sulfuryl chloride produced the mixed-valent
aryltellurenyl halides RX2TeTeR (2, X = Cl; 3, X = Br) in
almost quantitative yield as blue and green crystalline
materials, respectively (Scheme 1). Compounds 1–3 can be
regarded as heavier congeners of F3CF2SSCF3.[2] The molec-
ular structures of 1–3 are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.[10]
ꢀ
The Te Te bond lengths of 2.7966(5) (1), 2.759(6) (2), and
2.7835(11) Š (3) are somewhat longer than those of the
[*]Prof. Dr. J. Beckmann, Dipl.-Chem. M. Hesse, Dr. H. Poleschner,
Prof. Dr. K. Seppelt
parent compounds PhTeTePh (2.712(2) Š)[11] and RTeTeR
(2.711(1) Š, R = 2,6-Mes2C6H3),[12] whereas the average Te
ꢀ
Institut für Chemie und Biochemie,
Anorganische und Analytische Chemie, Freie Universität Berlin
Fabeckstrasse 34–36, 14195 Berlin (Germany)
E-mail: beckmann@chemie.fu-berlin.de
seppelt@chemie.fu-berlin.de
ꢀ
Cl and Te Br bond lengths 2.517(5) and 2.695(2) Š compare
well with those of Ph2TeCl2 (2.505(3) Š) and Ph2TeBr2
(2.6818(6) Š), respectively.[13] In the crystal lattice, individual
molecules of PhBr2TeTePh (1) are associated by intermolec-
ular Te···Br interactions of 3.328(4) Š that may explain the
darker color and poorer solubility when compared to 2 and 3,
which lack similar contacts.
[**]X =Cl, Br; R=Ph, 2,6-Mes2C6H3; Mes=2,4,6-Me3C6H2. We thank
Mrs. Irene Brüdgam (Freie Universität Berlin) for the X-ray data
collection. The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) is grate-
fully acknowledged for financial support.
The reaction of RTeTeR (R = 2,6-Mes2C6H3) with one and
with three equivalents of iodine afforded 2,6-Mes2C6H3TeI (4)
Supporting information for this article is available on the WWW
under http://www.angewandte.org or from the author.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 8277 –8280
ꢀ 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
8277

Communications
Figure 1. Molecular structure of PhBr2TeTePh (1) with thermal ellip-
Figure 3. Molecular structure of 2,6-Mes2C6H3TeI (4) with thermal
ellipsoids set at 30% probability. Hydrogen atoms have been omitted
for clarity. Symmetry code: a=ꢀx, ꢀy, ꢀz. Selected bond lengths [Š]
and angles [8]: C10-Te1 2.130(5), Te1-I1 2.676(1), Te1···Te1a 4.057(2),
C10-Te1-I1 98.58(7).
soids set at 30% probability. Hydrogen atoms have been omitted for
clarity. Selected bond lengths [Š]and angles [ 8]: Te1-C10 2.132(4), Te1-
Br1 2.5995(6), Te1-Br2 2.7842(6), Te1-Te2 2.7966(5), Te2-C20 2.108(3);
C10-Te1-Te2 98.52(10), C20-Te2-Te1 97.19(9), Br1-Te1-C10 90.73(9),
Br1-Te1-Te2 96.98(2), Br2-Te1-C10 87.69(9), Br2-Te1-Te2 80.299(15),
Br1-Te1-Br2 176.61(2), C10-Te1-Te2-C20 98.19(14).
Figure 4. Molecular structure of 2,6-Mes2C6H3TeI···I2 (5) with thermal
ellipsoids set at 30% probability. Hydrogen atoms have been omitted
for clarity. Symmetry code: b=xꢀ1, y, z; c=1ꢀx, ꢀy, ꢀz. Selected
bond lengths [Š]and angles [ 8]: C10-Te1 2.148(5), Te1-I1 2.741(8), Te1-
I2 2.839(9), I2-I3 3.003(10), I1-I3b 3.296(9); Te1···I2c 3.684(1), I1-Te1-
I2 91.72(2), Te1-I2-I3 177.16(2), Te1-I1-I3b 170.97(2), I1-I3b-I2b
85.43(2).
Figure 2. Molecular structure of RCl2TeTeR (2, R=2,6-Mes2C6H3) with
thermal ellipsoids set at 30% probability. Hydrogen atoms have been
omitted for clarity. Selected bond lengths [Š]and angles [ 8]: Te1-C10
2.159(5), Te1-Cl1 2.498(5), Te1-Cl2 2.536(4), Te1-Te2 2.759(6), Te2-C20
2.149(5); C10-Te1-Te2 109.39(12), C20-Te2-Te1 96.35(12), Cl1-Te1-C10
86.68(11), Cl1-Te1-Te2 89.25(3), Cl2-Te1-C10 91.83(11), Cl2-Te1-Te2
86.08(3), Cl2-Te1-Cl1 174.33(4), C10-Te1-Te2-C20 154.71(16). The
molecular structure of RBr2TeTeR (3, R=2,6-Mes2C6H3) is almost
identical. Selected bond lengths [Š]and angles [ 8]: Te1-C10 2.186(9),
Te1-Br1 2.7011(15), Te1-Br2 2.6928(15), Te1-Te2 2.7835(11), Te2-C20
2.156(9); C10-Te1-Te2 109.2(2), C20-Te2-Te1 98.6(2), Br1-Te1-C10
87.8(2), Br1-Te1-Te2 87.53(3), Br2-Te1-C10 91.2(2), Br2-Te1-Te2
85.67(3), Br2-Te1-Br1 172.43(4), C10-Te1-Te2-C20 155.0(4).
halides, 2,4,6-tBu3C6H2TeI, has both secondary Te···I and I···I
interactions,[5b] and 2,4,6-tBu3C6H2TeX has only Te···X con-
tacts (X = Cl, Br).[5c,d] However, similar intermolecular
homoatomic (Cl···Cl) interactions were also observed in the
crystal lattice of ClF.[14] The synthesis and full characterization
of the tritelluride anions [(RTe)3]ꢀ (R = Ph, CF3)[15] and the
related diiodotelluride anion [(I2TeCF3)]ꢀ and their similarity
to the triiodide ion, I3ꢀ have demonstrated that the RTe group
has substantial pseudohalogen character, which is also evident
in the charge-transfer complex 5.
The structure of 5 is that of a 1D coordination polymer
ꢀ
ꢀ ꢀ ꢀ ꢀ
and the charge transfer complex 2,6-Mes2C6H3TeI···I2 (5),
respectively, as crystalline materials (Scheme 1). Complex 4 is
a green solid similar to 3, whereas the color of the charge-
transfer complex 5 is red in the transmitted light of the
microscope, but green with an intense metallic luster under
reflective daylight (pleochroism). The molecular structures of
4 and 5 are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.[10] In the solid
state, two molecules of 4 form a centrosymmetric dimer,
which are associated by secondary Te···Te contacts of
4.057(2) Š. In contrast, one of the few known aryltellurenyl
consisting of an alternating sequences of Te I I I chains.
Adjacent 1D chains are associated by Te···I interactions
(3.684(1) Š), whereas secondary I···I contacts are absent. The
ꢀ
primary Te I bond lengths of 2.741(8) and 2.839(9) Š are
slightly longer than that of 2,6-Mes2C6H3TeI (4) being
2.676(1) Š. The I I bond lengths of 3.003(10) and
3.296(9) Š lie midway between intramolecular (2.715 Š)
and intermolecular (3.496 Š) bond lengths of molecular
iodine. The two Te-I-I angles are almost linear, whereas the
I-I-I and the I-Te-I angles are close to right angles.
ꢀ
8278
www.angewandte.org
ꢀ 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 8277 –8280

Angewandte
Chemie
Compounds 1–5 are readily soluble in most common
organic solvents. At ꢀ408C, the 125Te NMR spectrum
([D8]toluene) of PhBr2TeTePh (1) shows two equally intense,
broad signals at d = 1291.0 and 823.7 ppm, which suggests that
the molecular structure is retained in solution.[16] However, no
spectrum of 1 was obtained at room temperature, which
points to a dynamic exchange processes taking place under
these conditions. The 125Te NMR spectrum (CDCl3) of
RBr2TeTeR (3, R = 2,6-Mes2C6H3) exhibits only one sharp
resonance at d = 1683.8 ppm, which is consistent with the idea
that 3 undergoes a reversible, presumably entropically
favored rearrangement reaction to 2,6-Mes2C6H3TeBr (3a)
Experimental Section
1–5: A solution of the appropriate diarylditelluride (PhTeTePh:
0.410 g, 1.00 mmol for 1, RTeTeR (R = 2,6-Mes2C6H3):[12] 0.882 g,
1.00 mmol for 2–5) in Et2O or CH2Cl2 (30 mL) was cooled to 08C and
slowly treated with the appropriate halogen or synthetic equivalent
(Br2: 160 mg, 1.00 mmol for 1, SO2Cl2: 135 mg, 1.00 mmol for 2, Br2:
160 mg, 1.00 mmol for 3, I2: 253 mg, 1.00 mmol for 4, I2: 761 mg,
3.00 mmol for 5). Analytically pure samples were obtained by
crystallization from CH2Cl2/pentane (1), diethyl ether (2–4) and
THF (5). Yields 550 mg, 0.96 mmol of 1 (96%, m.p. 408C); 858 mg,
0.90 mmol of 2 (90%); 990 mg, 0.95 mmol of 3 (95%); 1.08 g,
1.90 mmol of 4 (95%), 1.50 g, 1.82 mmol of 5 (91%). Compounds 2–5
decompose without melting.
Analytical data: 1: 125Te NMR (126 MHz, [D8]-toluene, ꢀ408C):
d = 1291.0 (integral 50%), 823.7 ppm (integral 50%). UV (Et2O,
0.1 mmol): lmax = 422 nm. Elemental analysis (%) calcd for
C12H10Br2Te2 (569.22 gmolꢀ1): C 25.32, H 1.77; found: C 25.19, H 1.71.
2: 125Te NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3): d = 1374.9 (integral 37%),
1090.4 (integral 26%), 1027.3 ppm (integral 37%). UV (Et2O,
0.1 mmol): lmax = 534 nm. Elemental analysis (%) calcd for
C48H50Cl2Te2 (953.09 gmolꢀ1): C 60.49, H 5.29; found: C 60.20, H 5.02.
3: 1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3): d = 7.37 (t, J = 7 Hz, 1H, Ar),
7.07 (d, J = 7 Hz, 2H, Ph), 6.84 (s, 4H, Mes), 2.27 (s, 6H, CH3),
1.99 ppm (s, 12H, CH3). 13C NMR (100 MHz, CDCl3): d = 148.2,
139.0, 137.8, 136.4, 130.9, 128.4, 128.3, 128.0 (Ar), 21.2, 20.8 ppm
(CH3). 125Te NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3): d = 1683.8 ppm. UV (Et2O,
0.1 mmol): lmax = 559 nm. Elemental Analysis (%) calcd for
C48H50Br2Te2 (1042.00 gmolꢀ1): C 55.33, H 4.84; found: C 54.95, H
4.82.
upon dissolution.[16] The Te Br and Te Te bonds appear to be
kinetically labile.
ꢀ
ꢀ
To estimate the relative stabilities of monomeric species
REX, mixed-valent dinuclear species RX2EER, and the
disproportionation products REX3 and REER (E = S, Se,
Te ; X = F, Cl, Br, I), ab initio calculations[17,18] of suitable
model compounds with R = CH3 were performed; the results
are summarized in Table 1. Within the fluoride series, there is
Table 1: Zero-point-energy-corrected reaction energies per chalcogen
atom of the dimerization DE1 and disproportionation DE2 of H3CEX.[a]
F
Cl
Br
I
4: 1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3): d = 7.49 (t, J = 8 Hz, 1H, Ar),
7.14 (d, J = 8 Hz, 2H, Ph), 6.96 (s, 4H, Mes), 2.37 (s, 6H, CH3),
2.07 ppm (s, 12H, CH3). 13C NMR (100 MHz, CDCl3): d = 149.6,
140.5, 137.6, 136.1, 130.9, 128.3, 128.0, 112.8 (Ar), 21.2, 21.0 ppm
(CH3). 125Te NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3): d = 1018.0 ppm. UV (Et2O,
0.1 mmol): lmax = 622 nm. Elemental analysis (%) calcd for C24H25ITe
(568.00 gmolꢀ1): C 50.75, H 4.44; found: C 50.35, H 4.41.
S
ꢀ11.93
ꢀ13.40
ꢀ2.19
ꢀ1.13
0.05
0.27
ꢀ0.87
ꢀ0.06
Se
Te
ꢀ14.42
ꢀ14.22
ꢀ6.12
ꢀ3.22
ꢀ4.50
ꢀ1.82
ꢀ8.01
ꢀ4.23
5: 1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl3): d = 7.15 (t, J = 8 Hz, 1H, Ar),
6.98 (d, J = 8 Hz, 2H, Ph), 6.95 (s, 4H, Mes), 2.29 (s, 6H, CH3),
2.19 ppm (s, 12H, CH3). 13C NMR (100 MHz, CDCl3): d = 138.2,
136.4, 135.7, 131.0, 129.0, 128.7, 127.8, 127.7, (Ar), 21.2, 21.0 ppm
(CH3). 125Te NMR (126 MHz, CDCl3): d = 905.1; (C6D6): d =
945.6 ppm. UV (toluene, 0.1 mmol): lmax = 496 nm. Elemental anal-
ysis (%)calcd for C24H25I3Te (821.81 gmolꢀ1): C 35.08, H 3.07; found:
C 35.24, H 3.32.
ꢀ19.44
ꢀ18.74
ꢀ12.58
ꢀ8.72
ꢀ11.11
ꢀ6.93
ꢀ8.29
ꢀ4.44
[a]Upper value: DE1 for dimerization, 2H3CEX!H3CX2EECH3 + 2DE1.
Lower value: DE2 for disproportionation, 3H3CEX!H3CEX3
H3CEECH3 + 3DE2. E=S, Se, Te; X=F, Cl, Br, I. Values in kcalmolꢀ1
+
.
Received: May 29, 2007
Revised: July 11, 2007
Published online: September 18, 2007
a strong thermodynamic driving force of the monomers
H3CEF (E = S, Se, Te) to undergo dimerization and dispro-
portionation reactions to form either H3CF2EECH3 or
H3CEF3 and H3CEECH3, respectively. For both processes,
the associated reaction energies per chalcogen atom (DE1/
DE2) are almost identical and range between ꢀ11.93 and
ꢀ19.44 kcalmolꢀ1, which is consistent with the observation
that an equilibrium exists between F3CSF and F3CF2SSCF3
prior to disproportionation to F3CSF3 and F3CSSCF3.[2]
Amongst all other halides, the tellurenyl species H3CTeCl
and H3CTeBr reveal the highest propensity to undergo
dimerization to form H3CCl2TeTeCH3 (DE1 = ꢀ12.58 kcal
molꢀ1) and H3CBr2TeTeCH3 (DE1 = ꢀ11.11 kcalmolꢀ1),
respectively, while the alternative disproportion reactions
are less favored (DE2 = ꢀ8.72 and ꢀ6.93 kcalmolꢀ1). In all
remaining cases, the driving force to undergo rearrangement
reactions is appears to be too small (DE1, DE2 > ꢀ10 kcal
molꢀ1), which explains the stability of most monomeric
tellurenyl iodides and selenenyl halides.[5,17]
Keywords: halides · hypervalent compounds ·
.
mixed-valent compounds · structure elucidation · tellurium
[1]a) F. Seel, R. Budenz, W. Gombler, Chem. Ber. 1970, 103, 1701;
b) M. V. Carlowitz, H. Oberhammer, H. Willner, J. E. Boggs, J.
Mol. Struct. 1983, 100, 161.
[2]a) F. Seel, W. Gombler, Angew. Chem. 1969, 81, 789; Angew.
Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1969, 8, 773; b) W. Gombler, Z. Anorg.
Allg. Chem. 1978, 439, 193.
[3]a) W. L. Dorn, A. Knöchel, P. Schulz, G. Klar, Z. Naturforsch. B
1976, 31, 1043; b) N. W. Alcock, W. D. Harrison, J. Chem. Soc.
Dalton Trans. 1984, 869.
[4]G. N. Ledesma, E. S. Lang, E. M. Vµzquez-López, U. Abram,
Inorg. Chem. Commun. 2004, 7, 478.
[5]a) W.-W. du Mont, H. U. Meyer, S. Kubinoik, S. Pohl, W. Saak,
Chem. Ber. 1992, 125, 761; b) T. M. Klapötke, B. Krumm, I.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 8277 –8280
ꢀ 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.angewandte.org 8279

Communications
Schwab, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. E 2005, 61, o4045; c) J. Beck-
0.0925 (I > 2s(I)); R1 = 0.0437, wR2 = 0.1013 (all data). GooF =
1.050, 235 parameters; e) Crystal data for 5 (C24H25I3Te): Mr =
821.74, monoclinic space group P21/n, a = 8.263(2), b =
14.659(4), c = 21.186(5) Š, b = 94.571(6)8, V= 2558.0(11) Š3,
mann, S. Heitz, M. Hesse, Inorg. Chem. 2007, 46, 3275; d) J.
Beckmann, M. Hesse, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. E 2007, 63, o1674.
[6]a) P. Schulz, G. Klar, Z. Naturforsch. B 1975, 30, 40; b) P. Schulz,
G. Klar, Z. Naturforsch. B 1975, 30, 43.
Z = 4, 1calcd = 2.134 mgmꢀ3
, crystal dimensions 0.23 ” 0.11 ”
[7]a) E. S. Lang, R. M. Fernandes, Jr., E. T. Silverira, U. Abram,
E. M. Vµzquez-López, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 1999, 625, 1401;
b) P. D. Boyle, W. I. Cross, S. M. Godfrey, C. A. McAuliffe, R. G.
Pritchard, S. Sarward, J. M. Sheffield, Angew. Chem. 2000, 112,
1866; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2000, 39, 1796.
0.04 mm3. 30687 collected and 5051 unique reflections. Final
residuals R1 = 0.0460, wR2 = 0.1066 (I > 2s(I)); R1 = 0.0862,
wR2 = 0.1251 (all data). GooF = 1.012, 253 parameters.
f) CCDC-651201 (1), CCDC-651202 (2), CCDC-651203 (3),
CCDC-651204 (4), and CCDC-651205 (5) contain the supple-
mentary crystallographic data for this paper. These data can be
obtained free of charge from The Cambridge Crystallographic
Data Centre via www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/data_request/cif.
[8]P. D. Boyle, S. M. Godfrey, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2001, 223, 265.
[9]S. Kubiniok, W.-W. du Mont, S. Pohl, W. Saak, Angew. Chem.
1988, 100, 434; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1988, 27, 431.
[10]a) Crystal data for 1: (C12H10Br2Te2·CH2Cl2): Mr = 651.70, mono-
clinic space group P21/c, a = 11.863(3), b = 13.797(3), c =
[11]G. Llabres, O. Dideberg, L. Dupont, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B
1972, 28, 2438.
[12]The synthesis and molecular structure of RTeTeR (R = 2,6-
Mes2C6H3) is given in the Supporting Information.
[13]a) N. W. Alcock, W. D. Harrison, J. Chem. Soc. Dalton Trans.
1982, 251; b) J. Beckmann, D. Dakternieks, A. Duthie, C.
Mitchell, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. E 2004, 60, o2511.
[14]R. Boese, A. D. Boese, D. Bläser, M. Y. Antipin, A. Ellern, K.
Seppelt, Angew. Chem. 1997, 109, 1538; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
Engl. 1997, 36, 1489.
[15]a) A. C. Hillier, S.-Y. Liu, A. Sella, M. R. J. Elsegood, Angew.
Chem. 1999, 111, 2918; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 2745;
b) D. Witthaut, K. Kirschbaum, O. Conrad, D. M. Giolando,
Organometallics 2000, 19, 5238; c) H. T. M. Fischer, D. Nau-
mann, W. Tyrra, Chem. Eur. J. 2006, 12, 2515.
11.379(2) Š, b = 103.615(4)8, V= 1810.0(6) Š3, Z = 4, 1calcd
=
2.401 mgmꢀ3, crystal dimensions 0.2 ” 0.1 ” 0.1 mm3. 19452 col-
lected and 3386 unique reflections. After absorption correction,
this and the following structures were solved by direct methods
and refined anisotropically on F2. Final residuals R1 = 0.0233,
wR2 = 0.0411 (I > 2s(I)); R1 = 0.0452, wR2 = 0.0508 (all data).
GooF = 1.050, 229 parameters; b) Crystal data for
2
¯
(C48H50Cl2Te2): Mr = 953.00, triclinic space group P1, a =
11.6979(16), b = 14.1242(19), c = 14.871(2) Š, a = 109.732(3),
b = 97.715(3)8, g = 109.289(3), V= 2097.7(5) Š3, Z = 2, 1calcd
=
1.509 mgmꢀ3, crystal dimensions 0.25 ” 0.11 ” 0.08 mm3. 26336
collected and 8788 unique reflections. Final residuals R1 =
0.0402, wR2 = 0.0798 (I > 2s(I)); R1 = 0.0925, wR2 = 0.1068 (all
data). GooF = 1.017, 469 parameters; c) Crystal data for 3
(C48H50Br2Te2): Mr = 1041.94, monoclinic space group P21/n,
a = 12.036(5), b = 27.064(11), c = 13.914(5) Š, b = 108.288(8)8,
V= 4304(3) Š3, Z = 4, 1calcd = 1.608 mgmꢀ3, crystal dimensions
0.40 ” 0.16 ” 0.015 mm3. 34641 collected and 4882 unique reflec-
tions. Final residuals R1 = 0.0543, wR2 = 0.1239 (I > 2s(I)); R1 =
0.1078, wR2 = 0.1568 (all data). GooF = 1.018, 469 parameters;
d) Crystal data for 4 (C24H25ITe): Mr = 567.94, monoclinic space
group P21/n, a = 11.6436(19), b = 12.6391(19), c = 15.191(2) Š,
[16]There is a correlation between the 125Te NMR chemical shift of
PhTeX (X = CN, H, Me) and the group electronegativity c:
d(125Te) = 1689.7cꢀ3553.7. Consequently, the expected 125Te
NMR chemical shift of monomeric PhTeBr is estimated to be
d(125Te) = 1431 ppm. See Supporting Information for details.
[17]H. Poleschner, K. Seppelt, Chem. Eur. J. 2004, 10, 6565.
[18]The MP2 geometry-optimized energies including zero-point
energy (ZPE) corrections were obtained using the basis sets 6-
311 + G(3df,3pd) (C, H, F, Cl, Br, S, Se) and SDB-cc-pVTZ (I,
Te) and partly with aug-cc-pVTZ (C, H) and aug-cc-pVTZ-pp
(Se, I) with the appropriate relativistic electron core potentials
(ECP). See Supporting Information for details.
b = 92.911(4)8, V= 2232.7(6) Š3, Z = 4, 1calcd = 1.690 mgmꢀ3
,
crystal dimensions 0.55 ” 0.31 ” 0.08 mm3. 27262 collected and
5772 unique reflections. Final residuals R1 = 0.0350, wR2 =
8280 www.angewandte.org
ꢀ 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2007, 46, 8277 –8280