176
J.P. al Dulaimi et al. / Inorganica Chimica Acta 300–302 (2000) 175–180
solution was heated under reflux for 2 h whereupon it
changed from red to dark yellow. The insoluble by-
products in the reaction flask were then filtered off
under gravity and the filtrate volume was reduced to
approximately 5 cm3. A yellow product was precipi-
tated on adding diethyl ether to the filtrate, separated
off and recrystallised twice from CH2Cl2/diethyl ether
solutions. Yield: 59%. Anal. Calc. for C14H24N4Cl2Ru:
C, 40.0; H, 5.8; N, 13.3. Found: C, 39.8; H, 5.6; N,
12.7%.
2.4. [RuCl2(NCPh)2(CNBut)2] (4)
The complex was prepared in a similar manner to
that used for [RuCl2(NCMe)2(CNBut)2]. [RuCl3-
(NCPh)3] was used instead of [RuCl3(NCMe)3] and the
reactants were heated under reflux for 3 h. The product
is
a yellow solid. Yield: 78%. Anal. Calc. for
C24H28N4Cl2Ru: C, 52.9; H, 5.2; N, 10.3. Found: C,
52.5; H, 5.0; N, 10.3%.
The 1H NMR spectrum of 1 recorded in CDCl3
solution shows only the two signals (l=1.66 and 2.42
ppm), as expected.
2.5. [RuCl2(NCPh)2(CNcy)2]·CH2Cl2 (5)
The complex was prepared in a similar manner to
that used for [RuCl2(NCPh)2(CNBut)2] except that the
reactants were heated under reflux for 4 h. The product
2.2. [RuCl2(NCMe)2(CNcy)2] (2)
is
a yellow solid. Yield: 87%. Anal. Calc. for
The complex was prepared in a similar manner to
that used for [RuCl2(NCMe)2(CNBut)2] except that the
reactants were heated under reflux for 4 h. The product
C29H34N4Cl4Ru: C, 51.1; H, 5.0; N, 8.2. Found: C,
51.7; H, 5.1; N, 8.3%.
is
a yellow solid. Yield: 81%. Anal. Calc. for
2.6. [RuCl2(NCPh)2(CNxylyl)2] (6)
C18H28N4C2Ru: C, 45.7; H, 6.0; N, 11.8. Found: C,
45.2; H, 6.0; N, 11.4%.
The complex was prepared in a similar manner to
that used for [RuCl2(NCMe)2(CNxylyl)2]. [RuCl3-
(NCPh)3] was used instead of [RuCl3(NCMe)3]. The
product is a yellow solid. Yield: 78%. Anal. Calc. for
C32H28N4Cl2Ru: C, 60.0; H, 4.4; N, 8.7. Found: C,
59.6; H, 4.3; N, 8.4%.
Cyclic voltammetric experiments involved the use of
a PAR 174A polarographic analyzer and a PAR 175
waveform generator in conjunction with a Bryans In-
struments 60000 Series X-Y/t chart recorder. The ex-
periments were performed using a cell comprising a
platinum working electrode, a platinum counter-elec-
trode, and an Ag/AgCl reference electrode [8,9] cali-
brated against the ferrocenium–ferrocene couple
(+0.55 V) [10]. The voltammetric data were not cor-
2.3. [RuCl2(NCMe)2(CNxylyl)2] (3)
[RuCl3(NCMe)3] (0.10 g, 0.30 mmol) and xylyliso-
cyanide (0.20 g, 1.52 mmol) were dissolved in degassed
1:10 ethanol/dichloromethane (15 cm3) and approxi-
mately 0.2 g of mercury added. The mixture was heated
under reflux for 1 h. The insoluble by-products and
unreacted mercury in the reaction flask were filtered off
under gravity and the filtrate volume reduced to ap-
proximately 5 cm3. The yellow product which was
precipitated on adding diethyl ether to the filtrate was
recrystallised twice from CH2Cl2/diethyl ether solu-
tions. Yield: 54% Anal. Calc. for C22H24N4Cl2Ru: C,
51.2; H, 4.7; N, 10.8. Found: C, 51.2; H, 4.4; N, 10.2%.
Table 1
Analytical data on the complexes
Complex
number a
FAB mass spectral data b,c (m/z)
13C NMR signal
(ppm) d
NC
420 (M); 379 (M−MeCN); 344 (M−ClꢀMeCN); 337 (M−CNBut); 263 (M−ClꢀMeCNꢀCNBut) 152
CN
1
2
123
122
472 (M); 431 (M−MeCN); 396 (M−ClꢀMeCN); 355 (M−Clꢀ2MeCN); 286
(M−ClꢀCNcyꢀMeCN)
151
3
516 (M); 481 (M−Cl); 434 (M−2MeCN); 362 (M−2Clꢀ2MeCN); 307
(M−ClꢀMeCNꢀCNxylyl)
164
122
4
5
544 (M); 509 (M−Cl); 461 (M−CNBut); 441 (M−PhCN); 406 (M−ClꢀPhCN)
596 (M−CH2Cl2); 561 (M−Cl); 493 (M−PhCN); 458 (M−ClꢀPhCN); 349
(M−ClꢀPhCNꢀCNcy)
150
151
113
112
6
640 (M); 605 (M−Cl); 537 (M−PhCN); 502 (M−ClꢀPhCN); 473 (M−ClꢀCNxylyl)
163
112
a Refer to Section 2 for the identification of the complexes.
b Recorded in 3-nitrobenzyl alcohol matrix.
c M=molecular ion.
d Recorded in CDCl3 solvent.