those of binuclear copper() complexes with µ-1,1-azide
bridges, which are usually over 3.0 Å.2,7–9 Since the Cu ؒ ؒ ؒ Cu
distances of two independent cations in [Cu2(µ-Ph2Ppypz)2-
(MeCN)2][ClO4]2 are 3.625(1) and 3.587(1) Å,6 the short
Cu(1)᎐Cu(2) distance is mainly caused, not by the rigidity of
the bridging phosphine ligand, but by the desire for both CuI
atoms to maximize σ bonding with the sp orbital of the azide
ligand, which is indicated by the very acute angles N(7)᎐Cu(1)᎐
Cu(2) {52.1(4) [44.1(4)]} and N(7)᎐Cu(2)᎐Cu(1) {48.1(4)
[48.8(6)]Њ}. This is the probable reason for the stabilisation of
the CuI state. The azide bridge angle Cu(1)᎐N(7)᎐Cu(2) is
79.8(4) [87.1(5)]Њ, and such a small angle has never been found
in binuclear copper() complexes with µ-1,1-azide bridges.2,7–9
The Cu᎐N (pypz) bond lengths of 2.150(4) and 2.030(5) Å for
Cu(1), and 2.084(4) and 2.084(4) Å for Cu(2) are typical for
a copper() centre chelated by nitrogen heterocycles.10 The
N᎐Cu᎐N ‘bite angles’ of 78.0(2) for Cu(1) and 78.5(2)Њ for
Cu(2) for the bidentate pyridylpyrazole fragments are usual for
relatively rigid bidentate diamine ligands, and the values are
very similar to that [78.9(3)Њ] found in [Cu3LЈ2(MeCN)2][PF6]3
[LЈ = 2,6-bis(5-methylpyrazol-3-yl)pyridine]11 and those [78.9(2)
and 78.6(2)Њ] found in [Cu2(µ-Ph2Ppypz)2(MeCN)2][ClO4]2.6
Fig. 2 shows a perspective drawing of the cation [Cu2(µ-Ph2-
Ppypz)2(µ-1,1-SCN)]ϩ in 2 with the atom numbering scheme.
The molecular structure is very similar to that in 1ؒEt2O except
that the µ-1,1-azide bridge is replaced here by a µ-1,1-
thiocyanate bridge. The choice of sulfur rather than nitrogen as
the bridge atom is presumably associated with the class b or
‘soft’ nature of CuI. The bond length of 2.766(1) Å for
Cu(1)᎐Cu(2) is similar to that in 1ؒEt2O, but shorter than that
[2.796(8) Å] of [Cu2L(µ-1,1-SCN)2] (L = macrocyclic Schiff
base).5 The Cu᎐S distances of 2.374(1) and 2.412(1) Å are in
good agreement with the corresponding distances [2.37(1) and
2.39(1) Å] in [Cu2L(µ-1,1-SCN)2].5 The Cu᎐S᎐Cu angle of
70.6(1)Њ is smaller than the azide angle in 1ؒEt2O, which is a
consequence of the longer Cu᎐S distances compared to Cu᎐N.
Fig. 1 Perspective view (35% thermal ellipsoids) of the [Cu2(µ-
Ph2Ppypz)2(µ-1,1-N3)]ϩ cation in 1ؒEt2O. For clarity the disordered
azide ligand is shown in only one of its two populated locations; dimen-
sions relating to the N(7Ј) atom of the alternative location are enclosed
in square brackets. Pertinent bond lengths (Å) and angles (Њ):
Cu(1)᎐Cu(2) 2.773(1), Cu(1)᎐P(1) 2.192(2), Cu(2)᎐P(2) 2.173(1), Cu(1)᎐
N(7) 2.10(2) [2.09(2)], Cu(1)᎐N(4), 2.030(5), Cu(1)᎐N(6), 2.150(4),
Cu(2)᎐N(7) 2.22(1) [1.93(1)], Cu(2)᎐N(1), 2.084(4), Cu(2)᎐N(3)
2.084(4); Cu(1)᎐N(7)᎐Cu(2) 79.8(4) [87.1(5)], N(7)᎐Cu(1)᎐Cu(2)
52.1(4), [44.1(4)], N(7)᎐Cu(2)᎐Cu(1) 48.1(4) [48.8(6)], N(6)᎐Cu(1)᎐P(1)
130.4(1), N(4)᎐Cu(1)᎐Cu(2) 152.4(2), N(1)᎐Cu(2)᎐Cu(1) 154.7(1),
N(3)᎐Cu(2)᎐P(2) 139.9(1), N(4)᎐Cu(1)᎐N(6) 78.0(2), N(1)᎐Cu(2)᎐N(3)
78.5(2)
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the Hong Kong Research Grants
Council Earmarked Grant Ref. No. CUHK 311/94P and the
National Natural Science Foundation of China.
References
1 E. I. Solomon, M. J. Baldwin and M. D. Lowery, Chem. Rev., 1992,
92, 521; K. D. Karlin and Z. Tyeklár, Bioinorganic Chemistry of
Copper, Chapman and Hall, New York, London, 1993, pp. 143–196.
2 See, for example, (a) L. K. Thompson, S. S. Tandon and M. E.
Manuel, Inorg. Chem., 1995, 34, 2356; (b) J. H. Satcher, jun., M. W.
Droege, T. J. R. Weakley and R. T. Taylor, Inorg. Chem., 1995, 34,
3317; (c) G. A. van Albada, M. T. Lakin, N. Veldman, A. L. Spek
and J. Reedijk, Inorg. Chem., 1995, 34, 4910; (d) M.-V. Chow,
Z.-Y. Zhou and T. C. W. Mak, Inorg. Chem., 1992, 31, 4900.
3 R. F. Ziolo, A. P. Gaughan, Z. Dori, C. G. Pierpont and
R. Eisenberg, Inorg. Chem., 1971, 10, 1289.
4 See, for example, M. Julve, M. Verdaguer, G. De Munno, J. A. Real
and G. Bruno, Inorg. Chem., 1993, 32, 795; V. Kettmann,
J. Kratsmar-Smogrovic, O. Svajlenova and M. Zemlicka,
Z. Naturforsch., Teil B, 1992, 47, 1565; G. De Munno, G. Bruno,
F. Nicolo, M. Julve and J. A. Real, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. C, 1993,
49, 457.
5 S. M. Nelson, F. S. Esho and M. G. B. Drew, J. Chem. Soc., Chem.
Commun., 1981, 388.
6 S.-M. Kuang, Q.-G. Wang, Z.-Z. Zhang and T. C. W. Mak,
unpublished work.
7 K. D. Karlin, B. I. Cohen, J. C. Hayes, A. Farooq and J. Zubieta,
Inorg. Chem., 1987, 26, 147.
Fig. 2 Perspective view (35% thermal ellipsoids) of the [Cu2(µ-
Ph2Ppypz)2(µ-1,1-SCN)]ϩ cation in 2. Pertinent bond lengths (Å) and
angles (Њ): Cu(1)᎐Cu(2) 2.766(1), Cu(1)᎐S(1) 2.374(1), Cu(1)᎐N(4)
2.088(3), Cu(1)᎐N(6) 2.096(2), Cu(2)᎐S(1) 2.412(1), Cu(2)᎐N(1)
2.083(3), Cu(2)᎐N(3) 2.119(2); Cu(1)᎐S(1)᎐Cu(2) 70.6(1), S(1)᎐Cu(1)᎐
Cu(2) 54.1(1), S(1)᎐Cu(2)᎐Cu(1) 55.3(1), N(6)᎐Cu(1)᎐P(1) 138.0(1),
N(4)᎐Cu(1)᎐Cu(2) 159.9(1), N(1)᎐Cu(2)᎐Cu(1) 158.6(1), N(3)᎐Cu(2)᎐
P(2) 135.6(1), N(4)᎐Cu(1)᎐N(6) 78.2(2), N(1)᎐Cu(2)᎐N(3) 78.0(2)
8 M. A. S. Goher and T. C. W. Mak, Inorg. Chim. Acta, 1985, 99, 223.
9 T. C. W. Mak and M. A. S. Goher, Inorg. Chim. Acta, 1986, 115, 17.
10 M. Melnik, L. Macaskova and C. E. Holloway, Coord. Chem. Rev.,
1993, 126, 71.
11 A. T. Baker, D. C. Craig and G. Dong, Inorg. Chem., 1996, 35, 1091.
Received 29th September 1997; Communication 7/06986C
4478
J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1997, Pages 4477–4478