Reviews
Organometallics, Vol. 20, No. 23, 2001 4751
and XeF4 have no permanent dipole moment. Despite
the high opposite partial charges on Xe and F, there is
no intermolecular interaction in crystalline XeF2
product with a half-life of ∼30 min at room temperature
and ∼2 weeks at -192 °C and a “vapor pressure
significantly larger (?) than that of XeF2” was not
unambiguously characterized or reproduced success-
fully. Schmeisser et al. tried to add CF3 radicals to Xe0
in analogy to the direct synthesis of XeF2 by addition
of fluorine atoms to Xe0, but without success.26 The
successful introduction of O and N groups into the XeII
moiety by metathesis stimulated different groups to
examine metathetical methods for carbon-xenon(II)
bond formation. By direct analogy with the introduction
of oxygen- and nitrogen-containing groups Seppelt and
coworkers27 reacted the CH acid [FSO2]3CH with XeF2
but observed only the formation of [FS(O)2]3CF. A
similar result was obtained in the reactions of K[CH3-
(NO2)2C] with XeF2 in CH2Cl2.28
Or ga n oxen on iu m (II) Sa lts by Su bstitu tion of
Bor on in Or ga n obor a n es (Xen od ebor yla tion ). In
the case of the nucleophilic introduction of organic
groups into XeF2 it is necessary to overcome the low
electrophilicity of the Xe center in XeF2. Additionally,
the lack of a permanent dipole moment in XeF2 explains
its low reactivity. One solution to overcome these
problems is the use of organic group transfer reagents
with a Lewis acidic center, which polarizes the hyper-
valent F-Xe-F bond and increases the electrophilicity
of the xenon atom. However, the degree of polarization
should be not too high, because too strong a polarization
favors the oxidation ability of [FXe]+. The first exami-
nation of this concept was carried out using an ap-
propriate triarylborane as the source of the organic
group. Tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane was found to react
with xenon difluoride with formation of arylxenonium
fluoroborates8,9,29 (eq 1).
15
(shortest intermolecular distance Xe‚‚‚F ) 3.42 Å) and
16
there are only very weak ones in crystalline XeF4
(>3.22 Å; the sum of van der Waals radii of Xe and F is
3.47 Å).17
Xenon difluoride shows no tendency to form stable
adducts with nucleophiles, even with the fluoride anion.
The absence of 18[F]-19[F] fluorine exchange under
neutral or basic conditions in the system (Xe19F2
+
18[F]-)18 is in agreement with the property of XeF2 of
forming no adducts.
In contrast to XeF2, the molecules XeF4 and XeF6,
with a higher partial charge on Xe, form fluoride ion
adducts.19,20 XeF2 interacts readily with Lewis acids as
a consequence of the relatively high negative partial
charge of the fluorine atoms. Depending on the strength
of the Lewis acid, the solid-state structures of such
adducts show that the Xe-F distance involving the
interacting F atom becomes longer (mainly an electro-
static Xe‚‚‚F interaction) but without complete separa-
tion, whereas the second Xe-F bond becomes shorter
and more covalent (2c-2e bond). The [FXe]+ cation as
the extreme case is a strong oxidizing agent (EA )
10.6,21 10.9 eV22) and is not compatible with organic
nucleophiles. The electronegativity of XeII in XeF2 is 2.4
and increases to 2.5 in [FXe]+ (calculated by the cor-
relation of Allred and Rochow). The increase in elec-
tronegativity is accompanied by the change of Mulliken
charges on F from -0.666 to -0.284 and on Xe from
1.331 to 1.284 for the transition from XeF2 to [FXe]+
(ab initio calculations: RHF, LANL2DZ).23 A similar
tendency was calculated for the change from XeF4 (Xe,
2.494; F, -0.623) to [XeF3]+ (Xe, 2.283; 2 Fax, -0.500;
CH2Cl2
3
F
eq, -0.286).24 The comparison of the fluoride donor
(C6F5)3B + XeF2
or CH CN8
ability shows that XeF2 is a better fluoride donor than
XeF4. The higher effective charge on XeIV makes the
fluoride abstraction more difficult.
[C6F5Xe][(C6F5)nBF4-n] (1)
n ) 3, CH3CN;8 n ) 1, CH2Cl2;9 n ) 2, CH2Cl2
29
II. Cu r r en t P r ep a r a tive Meth od s of C-XeII Bon d
The attempted use of pentafluorophenyl-containing
Lewis acids having central atoms other than boron with
a tetrahedral or trigonal-bipyramidal configuration was
not successful.
F or m a tion
Attem p ted F or m a tion of Ca r bon -Xen on Com -
p ou n d s. In 1979 Lagow25 claimed to have synthesized
Xe(CF3)2 by reacting XeF2 with CF3 radicals. The waxy
Sch em e 1
(14) (a) Musher, J . I. Angew. Chem. 1969, 81, 68-83. (b) Lattman,
M. Hypervalent Compounds. In Encyclopedia of Inorganic Chemistry;
King, R. B., Ed.; Wiley: New York, 1994; Vol. 3, pp 1496-1511. (c)
Brel, V. K.; Zefirov, N. S. Hypervalent Compounds of Xenon. In
Chemistry of Hypervalent Compounds; Akiba, K., Ed.; Wiley-VCH:
New York, 1999; pp 389-408.
(15) Levy, H. A.; Agron, P. A. J . Am. Chem. Soc. 1963, 85, 241-
242.
(16) Templeton, D. H.; Zalkin, A.; Forrester, J . D.; Williamson, S.
M. J . Am. Chem. Soc. 1963, 85, 242.
(17) Bondi, A. J . Phys. Chem. 1964, 68, 441-451.
(18) (a) Schrobilgen, G. J .; Firnau, G.; Chirakal, R.; Garnett, E. S.
J . Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1981, 198-199. (b) Patrick, T. B.;
J ohry, K. K.; White, D. H.; Bertand, W. S.; Mokhtar, R.; Kilbourn, M.
R.; Welck, M. J . Can. J . Chem. 1986, 64, 138-141.
(19) Christe, K. O.; Curtis, E. C.; Dixon, D. A.; Mercier, H. P.;
Sanders, J . C. P.; Schrobilgen, G. J . J . Am. Chem. Soc. 1991, 113,
3351-3361.
(20) Peterson, S. W.; Holloway, J . H.; Coyle, B. A.; Williams, J . M.
Science 1971, 173, 1238-1239.
(21) Sladky, F.; Bulliner, P.; Bartlett, N. J . Chem. Soc. A 1969,
2179-2188.
(22) Schrobilgen, G. J . Lewis Acid Properties of Fluorinated Nobel
Gas Cations. In Synthetic Fluorine Chemistry; Olah, G. A., Chambers,
R. D., Prakash, G. K. S., Eds.; Wiley: New York, 1992; pp 1-30.
(23) Frohn, H.-J .; Klose, A.; Schroer, T.; Henkel, G.; Buss, V.; Opitz,
D.; Vahrenhorst, R. Inorg. Chem. 1998, 37, 4884-4890.
Scheme 1 illustrates the course of the xenodeboryla-
tion reaction: the interaction of boron with one basic
fluorine atom of XeF2 polarizes the xenon-fluorine
(24) Frohn, H. J . Abstracts of Papers; 219th National Meeting of
the American Chemical Society, San Franscisco, CA, March 26-30,
2000; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2000; FLUO 0048.
(25) Turbini, L.; Aikman, R.; Lagow, R. J . Am. Chem. Soc. 1979,
101, 5833-5834.
(26) Schmeisser, M.; Walter, R.; Naumann, D. Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem.
1980, 464, 233-239.
(27) Klo¨ter, G.; Pritzkow, H.; Seppelt, K. Angew. Chem. 1980, 92,
954-955.
(28) Tselinskii, I. V.; Mel’nikov, A. A.; Varyagina, L. G.; Trubitsin,
A. E. Zh. Org. Khim. 1985, 21, 2490-2493.
(29) Frohn, H.-J .; J akobs, S.; Henkel, G. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.
Engl. 1989, 28, 1506-1507.