3322 Organometallics, Vol. 27, No. 14, 2008
Communications
further conversion to fully oxidized 14+ (Figure 1). There is
only one CO band for 1 (ν˜(CO) 1909 cm-1) and 14+ (ν˜(CO)
1968 cm-1) but a broad asymmetric band for 12+. According
to spectral deconvolution this band results from overlapping
individual absorptions at 1924 and 1942 cm-1 (Supporting
Information, Figure S3). Any combination of two out of the
three pathways of electron delocalization in such systems
(diagonal, lateral, or cross conjugation,; see Chart S1 of the
Supporting Information) would render each of the four styryl
ruthenium moieties equivalent.7,12,13 The presence of two
pairs of electronically different carbonyl ruthenium moieties
in 12+ thus signals that only one of these pathways is effective
on the fast IR time scale of about 10-12 s. The overall CO
band shift of 57 cm-1 between neutral 1 and fully oxidized
14+ is significantly smaller than that of ca. 130-150 cm-1
that would be expected of a metal-centered oxidation process
and that of 81 cm-1 for [{(PiPr3)2(CO)ClRu}2(µ-CHdCHC6-
H4CHdCH-1,4)],14 where also one electron per vinyl ruthe-
nium moiety is released. This is a consequence of the more
extended π-chromophore of 1, which leads to an exception-
ally strong ligand contribution to the redox orbitals.
Chart 1
S2, Supporting Information). Comparison of the slopes of i vs
t1/2 plots in chronoamperometry and of the step heights in
steady-state voltammetry to those of decamethylferrocene
according to the method of Baranski9 established that each
anodic couple involves the transfer of two electrons. The peak-
to-peak separations, particularly of the first couple, are notably
smaller than that of decamethylferrocene under identical condi-
tions. This signals that there is only a small splitting between
the first and the second oxidations underlying the first wave
and between the third and the fourth oxidations that give rise
to the second wave. Similar behavior has been noted for metal-
free tetrakis(4-dimethylaminophenyl)ethene.10 Half-wave po-
tentials as determined by digital simulation11 are -0.028 V (0
f +), -0.013 V (+ f 2+), 0.400 V (2+ f 3+), and 0.434
V (3+ f 4+), from which comproportionation constants Kc,1
) 1.8 ( 0.2, Kc,2 ) (9.6 ( 0.8) × 106, and Kc,3 ) 3.8 ( 0.6
are calculated (eqs 1–4).
The comproportionation constant of one-electron-oxidized 1+,
while small at Kc,1 ) 1.8 ( 0.2, is still large enough to allow
for its detection by ESR spectroscopy. The room-temperature
ESR spectrum (Supporting Information, Figure S4) consists of
an unresolved isotropic signal at g ) 2.0157. When the
temperature is lowered to 110 K, a rhombic splitting of the g
tensor is observed with individual g tensor components gx )
2.072, gy ) 2.034, and gz ) 2.014 ( gav ) 2.040, ∆g ) 0.058).
This characterizes 1+ as a metal-stabilized but mainly ligand-
centered paramagnetic species, as is also the case for other vinyl
ruthenium complexes with π-conjugated substituents attached
to the vinyl group.14–16
In the electronic spectrum of 1 the bands of parent tetrakis(4-
ethynylphenyl)ethene8 are preserved but undergo a bathochromic
shift of 8100 and 4100 cm-1, respectively (Supporting Informa-
tion, Figure S5). This goes along with an approximate doubling
in molar absorptivity. Both these observations point to efficient
electronic conjugation across the entire organometallic chro-
mophore. Upon oxidation to the dication 12+ the 390 nm band
of 1 decreases in intensity and is gradually replaced by intense,
broad absorptions that extend over the low-energy part of the
optical spectrum and the near-IR. Distinct maxima are observed
at 8400, 13 680, and 15 080 cm-1 (Figure 2). The intermediate
radical monocation, while not separately detected in this regime,
gives rise to a characteristic absorption at about 4730 cm-1
which intensifies during the initial stages of the electrolysis and
then gradually disappears, while the absorption bands of 12+
continue to grow (Supporting Information, Figure S6). Further
oxidation with slow scanning through the second wave generates
the tetracation 14+. It is another strongly absorbing species with
peak maxima at 11 610, 14 870, and 17 660 cm-1 and thus has
energies distinctly higher than those of the corresponding
dication but considerably lower energies in comparison to those
Kc,1
1
2+ + 10 a 21+
(1)
(2)
Kc,2
1
3+ + 1+ a 212+
Kc,3
1
4+ + 12+ a 213+
(3)
(4)
Kc ) exp (nF∆E1⁄2 ⁄ RT)
Stepwise oxidation inside a thin-layer electrolysis cell
induced a blue shift of the CO band of 1 during the
conversion of the neutral form to the dication 12+ and its
(6) All synthetic work was performed with dry solvents under a dry
nitrogen atmosphere. Synthesis of 1: a solution of 97 mg (0.227 mmol) of
tetrakis(4-ethynylphenyl)ethene in 10 mL of CH2Cl2 was added dropwise
with stirring to a solution of 450 mg (0.926 mmol) of [HRu(CO)Cl(PiPr3)2]
in 10 mL of CH2Cl2. After addition was complete, the solution was
concentrated to 1.5 mL under vacuum and 25 mL of methanol was added.
The resulting red solid was isolated by filtration, washed with three 5 mL
portions of methanol, and dried under vacuum to give 457 mg (0.192 mmol,
84.7%) of 1 as a red powder. Selected spectroscopic data of complex 1: 1H
3
3
NMR (400 MHz, CD2Cl2, 298 K) δ 8.42 (dt, 4H, JH-H )13.4 Hz, JP-H
3
) 0.9 Hz, Ru-CH), 6.77, 6.71 (each d, 8H, JH-H ) 8.2 Hz, C6H4), 5.90
3
4
(dt, 4H, JH-H ) 13.4 Hz, JP-H ) 2.1 Hz, Ru-CHdCH), 2.74 (m, 24H,
PCH(CH3)2), 1.29 (m, 144H, PCH(CH3)2); 13C NMR (100.6 MHz, CD2Cl2,
2
2
298 K): δ 203.4 (t, JP-C ) 13.1 Hz, CO), 150.8 (t, JP-C ) 10.8 Hz,
4
Ru-CH), 140.5 (s, CdCC), 139.8 (s, CdC), 137.0 (t, JP-C ) 2.0 Hz,
3
Ru-CHdCHC), 134.8 (t, JP-C ) 3.4 Hz, Ru-CHdCH), 131.7, 123.3
(each s, (CH styryl)), 24.8 (vt, JP-C ) 9.8 Hz, CH(CH3)2), 21.1, 19.9 (each
s, CH(CH3)2); 31P{1H} NMR (CD2Cl2, 121.5 MHz, 298 K) δ 38.3 (s); IR
(KBr, ν˜ in cm-1): 2962, 2930, 2873 (m, ν˜CH), 1909 (s, ν˜CO), 1598, 1567,
1536, 1504 (m, ν˜CdC, aryl, vinyl, ethene); UV/vis (CH2Cl2, λmax (εmax in L
mol-1 cm-1)) 312 (sh, 47 000), 352 (86 000), 400 (sh, 46 000), 525 (2800).
Anal. Calcd (found) for C110H192Cl4O4P8Ru4: C, 55.69 (55.43); H, 8.16
(8.53).
(12) Hilger, A.; Gisselbrecht, J.-P.; Tykwinski, R. R.; Boudon, C.;
Schreiber, M.; Martin, R. E.; Lu¨thi, H. P.; Gross, M.; Diederich, F. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 2069.
(13) Giuffreda, M. G.; Bruschi, M.; Lu¨thi, H. P. Chem. Eur. J. 2004,
10, 5671.
(14) Maurer, J.; Sarkar, B.; Schwederski, B.; Kaim, W.; Winter, R. F.;
Za´lisˇ, S. Organometallics 2006, 25, 3701.
(15) Maurer, J.; Winter, R. F.; Sarkar, B.; Fiedler, J.; Za´lisˇ, S. Chem.
Commun. 2004, 1900.
(7) Sengupta, S. Synlett 2004, 1191.
(8) Tanaka, K.; Hiratsuka, T.; Kojima, Y.; Osano, Y. T. J. Chem. Res.,
Synop. 2002, 209.
(9) Baranski, A. S.; Fawcett, W. R.; Gilbert, C. M. Anal. Chem. 1985,
57, 166.
(10) Phelps, J.; Bard, A. J. J. Electroanal. Chem. Interfacial Electrochem.
1976, 68, 313.
(16) Maurer, J.; Linseis, M.; Sarkar, B.; Schwerderski, B.; Niemeyer,
M.; Kaim, W.; Za´lisˇ, S.; Anson, C.; Zabel, M.; Winter, R. F. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2008, 130, 259.
(11) Rudolph, M.; Feldberg, S. DigiSim3, Version 3.03, DigiSim3,
Version 3.03; Bioanalytical Systems, Inc.,1994.