M. Taimisto et al. · Formation and Structural Characterization of [RuCl2(CO)2(SPh2)2]
963
˚
lengths span a range of 1.885(3)– 1.927(4) A, and the
The cations and anions of 3 are connected into a
˚
Ru-O bond length is 2.148(2) A. In addition to the cor- three-dimensional network by hydrogen bonding, as
responding bond lengths in 1, these values can be com- shown in Fig. 6. The water of crystallization is in-
pared to those observed for [RuCl2(CO)3(OH2)] in a volved in four hydrogen bonds. There are two short
˚
diglyme adduct [8], which shows Ru-OH2, Ru-C, and oxygen-hydrogen distances of 1.880 and 1.957 A
˚
Ru-Cl bond lengths of 2.105(4), 1.889(5)– 1.905(5) A, [H(11B)···O(1) and H(13B)···O(1), respectively; the
and 2.395(3) A, respectively. Both in 2 and in the respective O-H···O angles are 176.4 and 161.8◦]
˚
diglyme complex the Ru-C bond trans to the aqua lig- and two hydrogen-chlorine contacts of 2.350 and
˚
and is shorter than the Ru-C bonds trans to the chlorido 2.578 A [H(1A)···Cl(22) and H(1B)···Cl(21), respec-
ligands.
tively; the two respective O-H···Cl angles are 175.9
and 145.6◦]. The coordinated water molecules of the
cation also form weak hydrogen bonds with the chlo-
rido ligands of the anion.
The complexes of 2 are packed together in pairs by
four H···Cl hydrogen bonds (see Fig. 4) that span a
˚
range of 2.326– 2.399 A. In the case of the diglyme
The reaction of [RuCl2(CO)3]2 and SPh2 in
THF affords [RuCl2(CO)2(SPh2)2] (1) in mod-
erate yield [3]. The stirring of [RuCl2(CO)3]2
and SPh2 in CH2Cl2 at room temperature pro-
duces a mixture of [RuCl2(CO)3(OH2)] (2) and
[Ru(H2O)6][RuCl3(CO)3]2·2H2O (3). A small amount
of [RuCl2(CO)2(SPh2)2] is obtained upon prolonged
reflux of the reagents.
adduct, diglyme acts as a hydrogen-bond acceptor for
the coordinated water molecule [8]. The distance be-
tween the oxygen atoms of water molecules and the
˚
oxygen atoms of the diglyme molecules is 2.71 A.
The molecular structure of 3 is shown in Fig. 5
together with the atomic numbering scheme, and the
selected bond distances and angles are listed in Ta-
ble 2. 3 is composed of [Ru(OH2)6]2+ cations and
[RuCl3(CO)3]− anions. Ruthenium shows octahedral
coordination in both ions. The Ru-O bonds in the
The formation of 2 and 3 in CH2Cl2 in air may be
formulated as follows:
˚
H2O
cation show lengths of 2.070(6)– 2.118(6) A and can
2[RuCl2(CO)3]2 −−→ [RuCl2(CO)3(OH2)]
be compared to the Ru-O bonds in hexaaquaruthe-
+[Ru(OH2)6][RuCl3(CO)3]2 +3CO
nium(II) p-toluenesulfonate that exhibit an average
˚
length of 2.122 A [9]. The carbonyl and chlorido lig-
Upon reflux, the aqua ligand in 2 is substituted by
SPh2. [RuCl2(CO)2(SPh2)2] (1) is obtained by the sub-
sequent substitution of CO by a second SPh2 molecule.
The very small yield may be explained by the forma-
tion of [Ru(OH2)6][RuCl3(CO)3]2 that removes ruthe-
nium from further reaction.
ands in the [RuCl3(CO)3]− anion are in the facial con-
figuration. The Ru-Cl distances range from 2.410(2) to
˚
2.426(2) A. They are near to the Ru-Cl bond lengths
in 1 and 2 and are also comparable to the corre-
sponding bonds in (H5O2)[RuCl3(CO)3]·SbCl3 (av-
˚
erage 2.419 A) [10], (S5N5)[RuCl3(CO)3] (average
˚
Acknowledgments
2.412 A) [11], and [Ru(CO)3(η-C5H5)][RuCl3(CO)3]
˚
(average 2.404 A) [12]. The Ru-C bond lengths also
Financial support from Academy of Finland and Finnish
Cultural Foundation (Lapland Foundation) is gratefully ac-
knowledged.
˚
show typical values ranging 1.879(9)– 1.914(9) A (c.f.
the corresponding bond lengths in 1 and 2).
[1] W. Hieber, P. John, Chem. Ber. 103, 2161 (1970).
[2] R. Oilunkaniemi, R. S. Laitinen, M. Ahlgre´n, Inorg.
Chem. Commun. 3, 8 (2000).
[5] G. M. Sheldrick, SHELXS-97, Program for Crys-
tal Structure Determination, University of Go¨ttingen
(1997).
[3] M. Ahlgre´n, M. S. Hannu-Kuure, J. Komulainen, R.
S. Laitinen, R. Oilunkaniemi, T. A. Pakkanen, R. J.
Suontamo, M. Taimisto, International Conference on
Coordination Chemistry, Heidelberg, July 21 – 26, Ab-
stracts, p. 600 (2002).
[6] G. M. Sheldrick, SHELXL-97, Program for Crystal
Structure Refinement, University of Go¨ttingen (1997).
[7] J. S. Jaswal, S. J. Rettig, B. R. James, Can. J. Chem.
68, 1808 (1990).
[8] J. J. Bergmeister, B. E. Hanson, J. S. Merola, Inorg.
Chem. 29, 4831 (1990).
[4] G. M. Gray, C. H. Duffey, Acta Crystallogr. C52, 861
(1996).
Brought to you by | Tufts University
Authenticated
Download Date | 7/10/18 10:19 AM