389
M. E. Olmos et al. • Diphenyl(l-pyridyl)phosphine Sulfide
8.01 (m, py, 1H), 8.19 (m, py, 1H). - 31P {'H } NMR: b =
44.4 (broad, SPPh2py, 1P), 37.1 (broad, PPh3, 1P). - MS
(FAB): m/z (%) = 754.3 (100) [M-BF4]+; 492.1 (3.45)
[M-BF4-PPh3]+; 459.2 (43.16) [M -BF4-SPPh2py]+.
stirred at room temperature in the dark for 30 min. The
solution was concentrated in a vacuum and 20 ml of di-
ethylether was added to give 7 as a yellow solid, yield
0.160 g (73%). - 'H NMR: 6 = 7.60-7.70 (m, Ph, 20H +
py, 4 H), 8.01 (m, py, 2H), 8.51 (m, py, 2H). - 3,P{'H }
NMR: 6 = 45.0 (s). - MS (FAB): m/z (%) = 994.8 (4.75)
[M-C104]+; 786.9 (81.23) [M -2C104-Ag]+; 698.8 (100)
[M-2C104-Au]+.
C 35H29AuBF4NP2S (841.40)
Calcd C 49.96 H 3.47 N 1.67 S 3.81%,
Found C 49.66 H 3.33 N 1.42 S 4.39%.
[(PhiPAu)SPPh2{2-C 5H4N(AuPPhi)}][BF4]2 (4): To
a
freshly prepared solution of (triphenylphosphine)-
C34H28AgAuCl2N20 8P2S2 (1094.42)
gold(I) tetrafluoroborate (0.3 mmol, 0.164 g) in THF was
added ligand 1 (0.15 mmol, 0.044 g). The mixture was
stirred for 1 h and the solution was then concentrated in
a vacuum. Addition of diethylether leads to the precipita-
tion of complex 4 as a white solid, yield 0.100 g (48%).
- 'H NMR: 6 = 7.11-7.80 (m, Ph, 40H + py, 2H), 8.01
(m, py, 1H), 8.32 (m, py, 1H). - 3IP { 1H} NMR (22°C):
6 = 43.6 (broad, SPPh2py, IP), 36.5 (broad, Ph3P -Au-
S, IP), 31.5 (broad, Ph3P -Au-N); -60°C: 6 = 44.1 (d,
Vpp = 7.6 Hz, SPPh2py, IP), 36.6 (d, Ph3P -Au-S, IP),
32.4 (s, Ph3P -Au-N). - MS (FD): m/z (%) = 754.0 (100)
[Au(PPh3)(SPPh2py)]+.
Calcd C 36.31 H 2.58 N 2.57 S 5.86%,
Found C 36.91 H 2.88 N 2.47 S 5.86%.
[AgCu(p-SPPh2py)2(CNMe)][BF4]2 (8): To
a so-
lution of [Cu(NCM e)4]BF4 (0.2 mmol, 0.063 g) in
dichloromethane (15 ml) was added 6 (0.2 mmol, 0.157
g), and the reaction mixture was stirred in the dark for
1 h under nitrogen. The solution was concentrated in a
vacuum and diethylether was added to precipitate com-
plex 8 as a yellow solid, yield 0.141 g (72%). - 1H NMR:
8 = 4.05 (s, NCMe, 3H), 7.58-7.78 (m, Ph, 20H + py,
4H), 8.54 (m, py, 2H), 8.10 (m, py, 2H). - 31P {1H} NMR
(CD2C12): <5= 51.7 (s). - MS (FD): m/z (%) = 849.0 (3.36)
[M-BF4-NCM e]+; 740.1 (14.05) [M-2BF4-Cu]+; 699.1
(40.71) [Ag(SPPh2py)2]+; 653.1 (100) [Cu(SPPh2py)2]+.
C53H44A u ^ F 8NP3S (1387.47)
Calcd C 45.88 H 3.20 N 1.01 S 2.31%,
Found C 45.62 H 3.27 N 0.87 S 2.22%.
[AufSPPhipyhJClOi (5):To a solution of ligand 1(0.4
mmol, 0.118 g) in dichloromethane (20 ml) was added
[Au(tht)2]C104 (0.2 mmol, 0.095 g). After 1 h of stirring
at room temperature the solution was concentrated in a
vacuum. Addition of diethylether led to the precipitation
of 5 as a white solid. Yield 0.135 g (76%). - 'H NMR:
6 = 7.27-7.77 (m, Ph, 20H + py, 2 H), 7.91 (m, py, 2H),
8.00 (m, py, 2H), 8.73 (m, py, 2H). - 3iP {'H } NMR: 6 =
38.6 (s). - MS (FAB): m/z (%) = 787.2 (100) [M-C104]+;
492.0 (21.46) [Au(SPPh2py)]+.
C36H3,AgB2CuF8N3P2S2 (976.76)
Calcd C 44.27 H 3.20 N 4.32 S 6.56%,
Found C 44.64 H 3.56 N 4.41 S 5.69%.
Crystal structure determinations: Suitable single crys-
tals of compounds 2 and 6 were sealed into glass capil-
laries and used for measurement of precise cell constants
and intensity data collection. During data collection, three
standard reflections were measured periodically as a gen-
eral check of crystal and instrument stability. No signifi-
cant changes were observed for both compounds. Diffrac-
tion intensities were corrected for Lorentz and polariza-
tion effects. An absorption correction was applied for
compound 2. The structures were solved by Patterson
methods and refined by full matrix least-squares calcula-
tions against F2. The thermal motion of all non-hydrogen
atoms was treated anisotropically. The BF4~ anion of 6
showed disorder and was refined in split positions. All
hydrogen atoms were placed in idealized calculated po-
sitions and allowed to ride on their corresponding carbon
atoms with fixed isotropic contributions (UiSO(fix) = 1.5 •
Ueq of the attached C atom). As mentioned, compound
2 is isomorphous to the triphenyl phosphine analogue[4,
5]. In fact, a superposition of both compounds (Fig. 3)
showed no significant differences. Thus, the unambigu-
ous recognition of the nitrogen atom on the basis of con-
formational changes compared to the nitrogen-free ana-
logue, or by means of the temperature factors C versus
N, have failed. Further information on crystal data, data
C 34h .8AuC 1N ,04P^S2 (887.10)
Calcd C 46.03 H 3.18 N 3.16 S 7.23%,
Found C 45.70 H 3.09 N 3.10 S 7.31%.
[Ag(SPPh2pyh]B F 4 (6): To a solution of silver tetraflu-
oroborate (0.2 mmol, 0.039 g) in 20 ml of acetone was
added ligand 1 (0.4 mmol, 0.118 g), and the solution was
stirred for 1 h in the dark. The solution was then concen-
trated in a vacuum and 15 ml of diethylether was added
to precipitate 6 as a white solid, yield 0.108 g (69%). -
‘H NMR: 6 = 7.41 (m, py, 2H), 7.50 (m, py, 2H), 7.54-
7.70 (m, Ph, 20H), 7.80 (m, py, 2H), 7.91 (m, py, 2H). -
31P{'H } NMR: Ö= 47.8 (s).
C34H28AgBF4N2P2S2(785.36)
Calcd C 52.00 H 3.59 N 3.57 S 8.16% ,
Found C 51.15 H 3.78 N 3.43 S 8.63%.
[AgAu(p-SPPIi2py)2](C l04)2 (7): To an acetone solu-
tion (10 ml) of silver perchlorate (0.2 mmol, 0.041 g)
was added 5 (0.2 mmol, 0.177 g), and the mixture was
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Authenticated
Download Date | 7/9/15 7:58 PM