C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
axes are parallel to one another. As a result, computations
unambiguously support that 3 and 4 possess a Mo-Mo quintuple
bond, and these two extremely short Mo-Mo bonds are due to
strong interactions between two d5 Mo(I) centers.
Note also that the Cr-Cr quintuple bond lengths4 can be
successfully predicted by the semiempirical pyramidality effect.18
However, the estimated Mo-Mo quintuple bond lengths for 3 and
4 by the pyramidality effect are 2.053 and 2.044 Å, respectively,
which significantly deviate from the experimental values 2.0187(9)
and 2.0157(4) Å, respectively. This discrepancy has also occurred
to most of the Mo-Mo quadruply bonded tetragonal complexes.17
In summary, we have demonstrated a method to construct the
Mo-Mo quintuple bonds. The second Mo-Mo δ bonds of the
quintuple bonded dimolybdenum compounds 3 and 4 were devel-
oped from reduction of their respective quadruply bonded Mo2
precursors 1 and 2. Both 3 and 4 possess an extremely short
Mo-Mo quintuple bond of 2.02 Å. The bonding schemes, 2 δ, 2
π, and 1 σ, of the Mo-Mo quintuple bonds of 3 and 4 were
corroborated by sophisticated DFT calculations. Owing to the low-
coordinate and -valent Mo-Mo centers, 3 and 4 provide a good
platform to explore their chemistry. Reactivity studies of 3 and 4
are currently underway.
Figure 2. Molecular structures of 3 (top) and 4 (bottom) with thermal
ellipsoids shown at the 35% probability level.
Acknowledgment. We are indebted to the National Science
Council, Taiwan for support under Grant NSC 96-2113-M-007-
019-MY3 and 97-2113-M-009-001-MY2. The computational facil-
ity is supported by NCTU under the grant from MoE ATU Plan.
complexes 1-4 remain intact due to the C-N bond lengths of their
backbones being 1.32-1.35 Å.
Typically for most multiply bonded metal-metal complexes, the
most interesting metrical parameter is the metal-metal bond length.
The Mo-Mo quintuple bond lengths of 3 and 4 are 2.0187(9) and
2.0157(4) Å, respectively, dramatically shorter than those in 1 and
2. Though the X-ray determined the shortest Mo-Mo quadruple
bond is 2.037(3) Å in the tetragonal dimolybdenum complex,
Mo2(µ-η2-pyNC(O)CH3)4 (Cotton et al.),15 this unusually short
quadruple bond was suggested to be unreliable. It is interesting to
note that these values suggest that the Mo-Mo quintuple bond
lengths do not or slightly correlate with the steric bulk of the
ancillary ligands. It is also important to note that the Mo-Mo bond
lengths in 3 and 4 are substantially shorter than the theoretically
predicted Mo-Mo quintuple bond lengths of 2.03-2.10 Å.10
Conclusively, the ultrashort Mo-Mo quintuple bonds herein are
unequivocally a consequence of the formations of 1 σ, 2 π, and 2
δ bonding interactions between two Mo atoms, although a δ bond
contributes only slightly to the bond shortening.1 In comparison,
in terms of Cotton’s “formal shortness ratio” (FSR), 3 and 4 has
an FSR of 0.776 and 0.775, while the FSR of N2 is 0.786.1
To understand the electronic structures and bonding schemes of
3 and 4, we carried out computations using BP8616 density
functional theory (DFT) with def2-TZVP and def2-TZVPP basis
sets.17 Geometry optimizations on diamagnetic 3 gave metrical
parameters (Table S10 in SI) that are in excellent agreement with
the X-ray structure. For example, the computed Mo-Mo bond
lengths are 2.029 (def2-TZVP) and 2.021 Å (def2-TZVPP). As for
the electronic structures, the calculations at BP86/def2-TZVP
showed that there is no N-Mo π bonding interactions, and
considerable metal-metal bonding characters can be found through
HOMO to HOMO-2, HOMO-10, and HOMO-12 as shown in
Figure S5 (SI). Those between HOMO-3 and HOMO-9 are
primarily contributed from ligands. Of these five Mo-Mo bonding
orbitals, HOMO-10 (dxz + dxz) and HOMO-12 (dyz + dyz) represent
two Mo-Mo π bonds, while the Mo-Mo σ character is found at
Supporting Information Available: Experimental details for syn-
thesis, X-ray crystallographic data of 1-4 with tables and CIF files.
This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://
pubs.acs.org.
References
(1) Cotton, F. A.; Murillo, L. A.; Walton, R. A. Multiple Bonds Between Metal
Atoms, 3rd ed.; Springer: 2005.
(2) Cotton, F. A.; Curtis, N. F.; Johnson, B. F. G.; Mague, J. T.; Wood, J. S.;
Harris, C. B.; Robinson, W. R.; Lippard, S. J. Science 1964, 145, 1305.
(3) Nguyen, T.; Sutton, A. D.; Brynda, S.; Fettinger, J. C.; Long, G. J.; Power,
P. P. Science 2005, 310, 844.
(4) (a) Hsu, C.-W.; Yu, J.-S. K.; Yen, C.-H.; Lee, G.-H.; Wang, Y.; Tsai, Y.-
C. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 9933. (b) Tsai, Y.-C.; Hsu, C.- W.;
Yu, J.-S. K.; Lee, G.-H.; Wang, Y.; Kuo, T.-S. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.
2008, 47, 7250.
(5) Wolf, R.; Ni, C.; Nguyen, T.; Brynda, M.; Long, G. J.; Sutton, A. D.;
Fischer, R. C.; Fettinger, J. C.; Hellman, M.; Pu, L.; Power, P. P. Inorg.
Chem. 2007, 46, 11277.
(6) Kreisel, K. A.; Yap, G. P. A.; Dmitrenko, O.; Landis, C. R.; Theopold,
K. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 14162.
(7) Noor, A.; Wagner, F. R.; Kempe, R. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 7246.
(8) (a) Kraus, D.; Lorenz, M.; Bondybey, V. E. PhysChemComm 2001, 4, 44.
(b) Pelin, M. J.; Foosnces, T.; Gruen, D. M. J. Chem. Phys. 1981, 74,
5547. (c) Bursten, B. E.; Cotton, F. A.; Hall, M. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1980, 102, 6349. (d) Atha, P. M.; Hillier, I. H.; Guest, M. F. Chem. Phys.
Lett. 1980, 75, 84.
(9) Efermov, Y. M.; Samoilova, A. N.; Kozhukhovsky, V. B.; Gurvich, L. V.
J. Mol. Spectrosc. 1978, 73, 430.
(10) (a) Merino, G.; Donald, K. L.; D’Acchioli, J. S.; Hoffmann, R. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 15295. (b) Weinhold, F.; Landis, C. R. Valency
and Bonding: A Natural Bond Orbital Donor-Acceptor PerspectiVe;
Cambridge Univ. Press: Cambridge, 2005; pp 555-559.
(11) Tsai, Y.-C.; Lin, Y.-M.; Yu, J.-S. K.; Hwang, J.-K. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2006, 128, 13980.
(12) Brencic, J. V.; Cotton, F. A. Inorg. Chem. 1970, 9, 351.
(13) (a) Schubert, E. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 62. (b) Baker, M. V.; Field,
L. D.; Hambley, T. W. Inorg. Chem. 1988, 27, 7. (c) Evans, D. F. J. Chem.
Soc. 1959, 2003.
(14) Geometry optimizations of 3 indicated that it is more stable with C2h
symmetry than with D2h symmetry.
(15) Cotton, F. A.; Daniels, L. M.; Hillard, E. A.; Murillo, C. A. Inorg. Chem.
2002, 41, 2466.
(16) (a) Becke, A. D. Phys. ReV. A 1988, 38, 3098–3100. (b) Perdew, J. P.
Phys. ReV. B 1986, 33, 8822.
2
2
2
2
HOMO-2 (dz + dz ). HOMO (dxy + dxy) and HOMO-1 (dx -y
+
(17) Weigend, F.; Ahlrichs, R. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2005, 7, 3297.
(18) Mota, F.; Novoa, J. J.; Losada, J.; Alvarez, S.; Hoffmann, R.; Silvestre, J.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 6216.
2
2
dx -y ) clearly indicate a pair of Mo-Mo δ bonds. Note that HOMO-
1, the side-on sd δ bond, results from hybridization of s (36.7%)
and d (63.3%) orbitals, oriented such that the main hybrid orbital
JA905035F
9
J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 131, NO. 35, 2009 12535