Mendeleev Commun., 2020, 30, 567–568
for bis-germatrane 1 might reflect similar intramolecular
5
4
interactions, supposedly corresponding to a 5c–6e system,
though a more detailed analysis is complicated by the absence of
Ep of phenyl germatrane so far. Nevertheless, some estimation
can be done using the Epox of phenyl silatrane, which is reported
to be the same as that of 3-thienyl silatrane and approximately
100 mV more positive than Ep of methyl silatrane.9 By analogy,
from Ep of 3-thienyl and methyl germatranes (1.65 and 1.5 V,
respectively), the Ep of phenyl germatrane is expected to be
about 1.6–1.65 V. The Ep’s of other aryl germatranes also
conform this value.3 In this rough estimation, Ep of the new bis-
germatrane 1 is slightly lower than expected. Furthermore, Ep of
2-(3-bromothienyl)-bis-germatrane (1.975 V vs. SCE, ref. 5) is
also slightly lower (applying –0.31 V reference electrode
conversion) than that of its germatrane analogue (1.705 vs.
Ag/AgNO3, ref. 3). With a substituent-located HOMO in these
compounds, the formal electron-donor effect of bis-atrane cage
appears stronger than that of a simple atrane, albeit an opposite
trend would be expected supposing the participation of N lone
pair in two N®Ge dative interactions in bis-germatranes. Further
work on structural characterization and electronic properties of
this new class of carcass systems and of their radical cations is
forthcoming.
3
2
ꢁ0 µA
1
ꢀ000 ꢀ200 ꢀꢁ00 ꢀꢂ00 ꢀꢃ00 2000
EꢄmV vs. AgꢄAgCl
Figure 2 Cyclic voltammograms of 3×10–3
germatrane 1 at a GC disc electrode (1.7 mm) in 0.1 m Bu4NPF6 /MeCN at
scan rates of (1) 0.05, (2) 0.1, (3) 0.2, (4) 0.5 and (5) 1.0 V s–1. Temperature
298 K.
m
1,1'-diphenyl-bis-
cation 1 + (see Scheme 1). Within the given scan rate range, the
·
behaviour of this reversible one-electron system is comparable
to that of a standard ferrocene solution under the same conditions,
showing similar forward and reverse peak currents with the 1:1
ratio. Extrapolating Ep’s to zero peak currents allows one to
estimate the formal potential of this bis-germatrane 1 as
E0’ = 1.506 V. The separation of anodic and cathodic peak
potentials is DEp = 0.063 V, which is very close to 0.059 V, a
theoretical value for electrochemically reversible reactions.‡,7–9
The data on electrooxidation of phenylgermanium derivatives
are quite scarce, but from few electrochemical studies on phenyl
mono-germane derivatives, their chemically irreversible
oxidation occurs at 1.16–1.24 V vs. Fc+/Fc10 (ca 1.4 V vs.
Ag/AgCl). On the other hand, chemically reversible oxidation at
E1/2 = 0.88 V§ vs. Ag/AgCl6 was reported for the precursor of
bis-germatrane, tris(1,3-dihydroxyisopropyl)amine. Reversibility
of oxidation of the bis-germatrane can then be considered as an
argument that the center of electron withdrawal (HOMO) in this
molecule does not locate on the Ph substituent but is rather bis-
atrane nitrogen-located. Consequently, the resulting radical
cation center is sterically protected inside the bis-atrane cage
providing the remarkable stability to the whole system.
Russian co-authors acknowledge the support by the Russian
Science Foundation (grant no. 18-73-10180). V. R. and V. J. are
grateful for the support from European Regional Development
Fund ERDF – Latvia (no. 1.1.1.2/VIAA/3/19/577).
Online Supplementary Materials
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found
in the online version at doi: 10.1016/j.mencom.2020.09.004.
References
1 (a) J. G. Verkade, Coord. Chem. Rev., 1994, 137, 233; (b) Y. I. Baukov
and S. N. Tandura, in The Chemistry of Organic Germanium, Tin and
Lead Compounds, ed. Z. Rappoport, Wiley, 2002, vol. 2, ch. 16,
pp. 1061–1071.
2 C. Pereux and V. Jouikov, Chem. – Eur. J., 2014, 20, 9290.
3 L. Ignatovich and V. Jouikov, J. Organomet. Chem., 2014, 751, 546.
4 V. F. Sidorkin, E. F. Belogolova,Y. Wang, V. Jouikov and E. P. Doronina,
Chem. – Eur. J., 2017, 23, 1910.
5 V. Romanovs, J. Spura and V. Jouikov, Synthesis, 2018, 50, 3679.
6 Y. Jie, P. Livant, H. Li, M. Yang, W. Zhu, V. Cammarata, P. Almond,
T. Sullens, Y. Qin and E. Bakker, J. Org. Chem., 2010, 75, 4472.
7 A. J. Bard and L. R. Faulkner, Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals
and Applications, 2nd edn., Wiley, New York, 2001.
8 A. S. Mendkovich, V. B. Luzhkov, M. A. Syroeshkin, V. D. Sen,
D. I. Khartsii and A. I. Rusakov, Russ. Chem. Bull., Int. Ed., 2017, 66,
683 (Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Khim., 2017, 683).
The involvement of (N)pz electrons into the 3c–4e system in
germatranes increases their oxidation potentials by 400–500 mV
compared to Ep of triethanolamine.3,11 The same shift observed
‡
It is worth noting that the increase in the value of DEp with potential
sweep rate fully correlates with uncompensated resistance that was
evaluated from the cyclic voltammograms recorded for a ferrocene
solution under similar conditions in the same range of potential sweep
rates. Peak potential vs. peak current plots are linear for both 1 and
ferrocene solution, their slopes are identical and correspond to
uncompensated resistance in Ohm (thus, this indicates high chemical and
electrochemical reversibility of oxidation of 1). Extrapolation of the
linear plot to zero current makes it possible to obtain potential values
independent of uncompensated resistance. This approach allows one to
get the values of E0’ and DEp with good reproducibility (~1 mV).
9 M. A. Syroeshkin, M. N. Mikhailov, A. S. Mendkovich and
A. I. Rusakov, Russ. Chem. Bull., Int. Ed., 2009, 58, 41 (Izv. Akad.
Nauk, Ser. Khim., 2009, 41).
10 M. Okano and K. Mochida, Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn., 1991, 64, 1381.
11 K. Broka, J. Stradins, V. Glezer, G. Zelcans and E. Lukevics,
J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993, 351, 199.
§
Apparently, there is confusion between E1/2 and Ep/2 in ref. 6; allowing
57 mV for Ep – Ep/2 separation (ref. 7), one comes up with 0.94 V vs.
Ag/AgCl.
Received: 30th April 2020; Com. 20/6211
– 568 –