σ-Organyl complexes of ruthenium and osmium supported by a mixed-donor ligand

Article abstract of DOI:10.1039/b501906k

A series of vinyl, aryl, acetylide and silyl complexes [Ru(R) (κ²-MI)(CO)(PPh₃)₂] (R = CH=CH ₂, CH=CHPh, CH=CHC₆H₄CH₃-4, CH=CH^tBu, CH=CHCPh₂OH, C(C≡CPh)=CHPh, C ₆H₅, C≡CPh, SiMe₂OEt; MI = 1-methylimidazole-2-thiolate) were prepared from either [Ru(R)Cl(CO)(PPh ₃)₂] or [Ru(R)Cl(CO)(BTD)(PPh₃)₂] (BTD = 2,1,3-benzothiadiazole) by reaction with the nitrogen-sulfur mixed-donor ligand, 1-methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole (HMI), in the presence of base. In the same manner, [Os(CH=CHPh)(κ²-MI)(CO)(PPh₃)₂] was prepared from [Os(CH=CHPh)(CO)Cl(BTD)(PPh₃)₂]. The in situ hydroruthenation of 1-ethynylcyclohexan-1-ol by [RuH(CO)Cl(BTD)(PPh ₃)₂] and subsequent addition of the HMI ligand and excess sodium methoxide yielded the dehydrated 1,3-dienyl complex [Ru(CH=CHC ₆H₉)(κ²-MI)(CO)(PPh₃) ₂]. Dehydration of the complex [Ru(CH=CH-CPh₂OH) (κ²-MI)(CO)(PPh₃)₂] with HBF₄ yielded the vinyl carbene [Ru(=CHCH=CPh₂)(κ²-MI)(CO) (PPh₃)₂]BF₄. The hydride complexes [MH(κ²-MI)(CO)(PPh₃)₂] (M = Ru, Os) were obtained from the reaction of HMI and KOH with [RuHCl(CO)(PPh₃) ₃] and [OsHCl(CO)(BTD)(PPh₃)₂], respectively. Reaction of [Ru(CH=CHC₆H₄CH₃-4) (κ²-MI)(CO)(PPh₃)₂] with excess HC≡CPh leads to isolation of the acetylide complex [Ru(C≡CPh) (κ²-MI)(CO)(PPh₃)₂], which is also accessible by direct reaction of [Ru(C≡CPh)Cl(CO)(BTD)(PPh ₃)₂] with 1-methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole and NaOMe. The thiocarbonyl complex [Ru(CPh=CHPh)Cl(CS)(PPh₃)₂] reacted with HMI and NaOMe without migration to yield [Ru(CPh=CHPh)(κ²- MI)(CS)(PPh₃)₂], while treatment of [Ru(CH=CHPh)Cl(CO) ₂(PPh₃)₂] with HMI yielded the monodentate acyl product [Ru{η¹-C(=O)CH=CHPh}(κ²-MI)(CO) (PPh₃)₂]. The single-crystal X-ray structures of five complexes bearing vinyl, aryl, acetylide and dienyl functionality are reported. The Royal Society of Chemistry 2005.

Full text of DOI:10.1039/b501906k

View Article Online / Journal Homepage / Table of Contents for this issue
F U L L P A P E R
r-Organyl complexes of ruthenium and osmium supported by a
mixed-donor ligand
James D. E. T. Wilton-Ely,*a Sanaz J. Honarkhah,a Ming Wang,a Derek A. Tochera and
Alexandra M. Z. Slawinb
a Department of Chemistry, University College London, 20 Gordon Street, London,
UK WC1H 0AJ. E-mail: j.wilton-ely@ucl.ac.uk
b School of Chemistry, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Fife, UK KY16 9ST
Received 7th February 2005, Accepted 14th April 2005
First published as an Advance Article on the web 29th April 2005
2
=
=
A series of vinyl, aryl, acetylide and silyl complexes [Ru(R)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (R = CH CH2, CH CHPh,
t
=
=
=
=
CH CHC6H4CH3-4, CH CH Bu, CH CHCPh2OH, C(C≡CPh) CHPh, C6H5, C≡CPh, SiMe2OEt; MI =
1-methylimidazole-2-thiolate) were prepared from either [Ru(R)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2] or [Ru(R)Cl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2]
(BTD = 2,1,3-benzothiadiazole) by reaction with the nitrogen–sulfur mixed-donor ligand, 1-methyl-2-mercapto-
2
=
imidazole (HMI), in the presence of base. In the same manner, [Os(CH CHPh)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] was prepared
=
from [Os(CH CHPh)(CO)Cl(BTD)(PPh3)2]. The in situ hydroruthenation of 1-ethynylcyclohexan-1-ol by
[RuH(CO)Cl(BTD)(PPh3)2] and subsequent addition of the HMI ligand and excess sodium methoxide yielded the
dehydrated 1,3-dienyl complex [Ru(CH CHC6H9)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2]. Dehydration of the complex [Ru(CH CH-
2
=
=
2
2
=
=
CPh2OH)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] with HBF4 yielded the vinyl carbene [Ru( CHCH CPh2)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2]BF4.
The hydride complexes [MH(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (M = Ru, Os) were obtained from the reaction of HMI and KOH
2
=
with [RuHCl(CO)(PPh3)3] and [OsHCl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2], respectively. Reaction of [Ru(CH CHC6H4CH3-4)(j -
MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] with excess HC≡CPh leads to isolation of the acetylide complex [Ru(C≡CPh)(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2],
which is also accessible by direct reaction of [Ru(C≡CPh)Cl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2] with 1-methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole
=
and NaOMe. The thiocarbonyl complex [Ru(CPh CHPh)Cl(CS)(PPh3)2] reacted with HMI and NaOMe without
2
=
=
migration to yield [Ru(CPh CHPh)(j -MI)(CS)(PPh3)2], while treatment of [Ru(CH CHPh)Cl(CO)2(PPh3)2] with
1
2
=
=
HMI yielded the monodentate acyl product [Ru{g -C( O)CH CHPh}(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2]. The single-crystal
X-ray structures of five complexes bearing vinyl, aryl, acetylide and dienyl functionality are reported.
toimidazole was used to bridge two platinum(II) centres (through
Introduction
N and S donors), in all reports the molecule was used in the
neutral form as a monodentate ligand. No ruthenium or osmium
complexes have been reported. 1-Methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole
is readily deprotonated by potassium hydroxide or sodium
methoxide to give 1-methylimidazole-2-thiolate (MI) which can
act as a bidentate, three-electron S,N-donor. This forms a
strained, four-membered chelate which suggest its potential for
hemilabile behaviour. A series of complexes were prepared to
examine the ability of this ligand to support a wide range of
organic ligands bound to divalent ruthenium.
=
The coordinatively-unsaturated vinyl complexes [Ru(CR
CHR)Cl(CO)(PRꢀ3)2] (R = H, Ph etc.; Rꢀ = Pr,1 Ph2) have
been shown to be useful starting points for the exploration of
the chemistry of the vinyl ligand3–7 and this has been the focus
of our previous work on the addition of mono- bi- and tri-
dentate ligands.8 This has been mirrored by recent work on the
phosphavinyl analogues9 which shows a wealth of reactivity at
the unsaturated phosphorus ligand as well as at the metal centre.
i
The addition of p-acid ligands such as carbon monoxide10,11b
and isocyanide11a,c to [Ru(CR CHR)Cl(CO)(PR 3)2] yields co-
ꢀ
=
ordinatively saturated compounds10,11b and can even induce
migration of the vinyl group to form acyl complexes.11 In the
last ten years, significant interest has been shown in their reac-
tivity with polydentate donors such as pyrazolylborates8a–c and
macrocyclic thioethers.8c,d However, typically these ligands have
contained just one type of donor element (O, S or N). Bidentate
examples include carboxylate,12 xanthate13 dithiocarbamate,13,14
S2CPCy3,15 alkenyldithiocarboxylate,16 alkynyldithiocarboxy-
late,17 dihydrobispyrazolylborate,8a amidine,18 phenanthroline19
and bipyridyl19 ligands. Our current work explores the reactivity
of vinyl complexes with mixed-donor bidentate ligands and
the effect of these chelates on subsequent functional group
transformations. Their potential hemilabile behaviour is highly
desirable in many situations (e.g., catalysis) where a vacant site
needs to be generated for reaction to occur.
There has been significant biological interest in 1-methyl-2-
mercaptoimidazole (also referred to as 1-methylimidazole-2-
thiol, methimazole) as a thioureylene antithyroid agent that
inhibits the formation of thyroid hormones.20 Despite its high
profile as a biorelevant molecule and the presence of both sulfur
and nitrogen donors, there has been very little exploration of the
coordination chemistry of such mercaptoimidazoles as ligands
for metal complexes.21 Apart from one study21c in which mercap-
Results and discussion
Vinyl and acyl complexes
An excess of potassium hydroxide was added to a suspension of
1-methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole and the ruthenium hydride com-
plex [RuHCl(CO)(PPh3)3]. Due to the strong trans effect of the
hydride ligand in the starting material, the loss of the PPh3 ligand
occurs readily, creating a vacant site for coordination of the MI
ligand, and the reaction is complete within 10 min (31P NMR).
A pale green product was isolated in which the retention of both
hydride and carbonyl ligands was indicated by absorptions in the
solid state IR spectrum at 1978 and 1919 cm−1, respectively. The
presence of the hydride was confirmed by a triplet resonance
1
at −13.05 ppm in the H NMR spectrum showing coupling
of 19.4 Hz to the phosphorus nuclei of the phosphine ligands.
The coupling of the hydride peak and the singlet resonance
at 49.9 ppm in the 31P NMR spectrum indicated a mutually
trans-disposition for the phosphine ligands. Three additional
resonances were seen in the 1H NMR spectrum at 2.61 (s, NCH3),
5.58 (d, JHH = 1.4 Hz) and 5.67 (d, JHH = 1.4 Hz) ppm in addition
to those for the PPh3 ligands. Heteronuclear multiple quantum
coherence (HMQC) and heteronuclear multiple bond coherence
1 9 3 0
D a l t o n T r a n s . , 2 0 0 5 , 1 9 3 0 – 1 9 3 9
T h i s j o u r n a l i s
T h e R o y a l S o c i e t y o f C h e m i s t r y 2 0 0 5
©

View Article Online
2
=
(HMBC) NMR experiments permitted the latter resonances to
be assigned to the H4 and H5 protons (Chart 1) of the imidazole
ring, respectively. These features, common to all the complexes
discussed here, provided diagnostic evidence for the presence of
the MI ligand.
of this complex [Ru(CH CHC6H4CH3-4)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2]
(4), was isolated in an analogous fashion as a microcrystalline
solid. The 13C NMR spectrum displayed resonances for the MI
ligand similar to those for complex 1. Two low field triplets
at 154.2 (t, JCP = 11.0 Hz) and 206.5 ppm (t, JCP = 16.1 Hz)
were assigned to the a-carbon of the vinyl and the carbonyl
ligand, respectively. The b-carbon of the vinyl ligand could not
be observed directly in the 13C NMR spectrum but an HMQC
experiment showed a cross peak with the Ha proton locating the
Cb carbon at 134.4 ppm, underneath the virtual triplet of the
phosphine ortho/meta-resonance. Slow diffusion of ethanol into
a dichloromethane solution of complex 4 yielded single crystals
suitable for an X-ray diffraction study (Fig. 1).
Chart 1 Numbering scheme for the 1-methylimidazole-2-thiolate (MI)
and ethenyl ligands.
Typical features were observed for the carbonyl (t, 206.1 ppm,
JCP = 15.0 Hz) and triphenylphosphine ligands in the 13C NMR
spectrum alongside four resonances for the MI ligand with
that at highest field assigned to the methyl carbon (30.2 ppm).
HMQC and HMBC NMR experiments were used to assign the
resonance at 155.6 ppm to the quaternary C4 carbon and the
117.3 and 125.7 ppm resonances to the C5 and C4 carbons,
respectively. The overall composition of the complex was
confirmed by a molecular ion in the Fast Atom Bombardment
(FAB) mass spectrum at m/z 767 and elemental analysis. On the
basis of these data, the structure of the complex was formulated
as [RuH(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (1).
The 16-electron ruthenium vinyl species [Ru(CR CHR )Cl-
ꢀ
=
(CO)(PPh3)2] are conveniently prepared by hydroruthen-
ation of the appropriate alkyne by [RuHCl(CO)(PPh3)3].2
Coordinatively-saturated variants are accessible from start-
ing materials [RuHCl(CO)(L)(PPh3)2] bearing weakly coordi-
nating ligands (L) such as BTD (2,1,3-benzothiadiazole),10,22
acetonitrile,23 pyridine24a and pyrazoles.24b Reaction of the pale
2
=
=
orange complex, [RuCl(CH CH2)(CO)(PPh3)2], with 1-methyl-
Fig. 1 Molecular structure of [Ru(CH CHC6H4Me-4)(j -MI)(CO)-
◦
˚
(PPh3)2] (4). Selected bond lengths (A) and angles ( ): Ru1–C52
1.808(6), Ru1–C43 2.058(6), Ru1–N5 2.159(4), Ru1–P2 2.3591(16),
Ru1–P1 2.3796(16), Ru1–S1 2.5907(16), S1–C1 1.737(5), C1–N5
1.335(6), C43–C44 1.319(7); C52–Ru1–C43 91.9(2), C43–Ru1–N5
94.88(19), C52–Ru1–P2 92.31(18), C43–Ru1–P2 90.71(16), N5–Ru1–P2
88.23(11), C52–Ru1–P1 87.54(18), C43–Ru1–P1 88.03(16), N5–Ru1–P1
92.08(11), P2–Ru1–P1 178.72(6), C52–Ru1–S1 107.25(19), N5–Ru1–S1
66.00(12), P2–Ru1–S1 91.29(5), P1–Ru1–S1 89.97(5), N5–C1–S1
115.9(4), Ru1–C43–C44 128.7(5).
2-mercaptoimidazole in the presence of sodium methoxide led
to the isolation of a pale yellow–green solid in good yield
(Scheme 1).
t
2
=
The complex [Ru(CH CH Bu)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (5) was
t
=
obtained from [Ru(CH CH Bu)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2] by a simi-
lar route to that used for compound 4. The reaction was
sufficiently clean that complex 5 could also be isolated
directly from [RuHCl(CO)(PPh3)3] by sequential treatment
with 3,3-dimethylbut-1-yne, 1-methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole and
NaOMe. Interestingly, reaction between the hydride complex, 1,
and excess terminal alkyne failed to generate vinyl complexes of
the type discussed above. Although complex 1 is coordinatively
saturated, creation of a suitable vacant site could be envisaged
as resulting from dissociation of an arm of the MI chelate (or of
a PPh3 ligand). However, the requirement for hydrometallation
of a vacant site cis to be the hydride may not be satisfied by
hemilability of the MI ligand in this case.
Scheme 1 Reagents: (i) MI, KOH or NaOMe.
The 1H NMR spectrum of the complex showed a doublet of
doublets at 4.76 ppm (3JHbHa = 17.5, 2JHbHb = 1.3 Hz) for the b-
ꢀ
proton trans to Ha. Another doublet of doublets was observed at
5.25 ppm for the bꢀ-proton (3JHb Ha = 9.9, JHb Hb = 1.7 Hz). The
proton, attached to the carbon directly bonded to ruthenium
(Ha), appears as a doublet of doublet of triplets at 7.38 ppm,
A compound bearing a disubstituted vinyl ligand was pre-
ꢀ
ꢀ
=
pared by the reaction of the enynyl complex [RuCl{C(C≡CPh)
CHPh}(CO)(PPh3)2]25 with 1-methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole in
coupling to both b-protons (3JHaHb = 17.5, JHaHb = 10.0 Hz) and
the presence of sodium methoxide. The presence of the vinyl lig-
ꢀ
=
to the two phosphorus nuclei (JHaP = 3.2 Hz). Similar spectro-
and in the resulting yellow complex, [Ru{C(C≡CPh) CHPh}-
scopic data for the MI ligand were observed to those for complex
(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (6), was indicated by a m(C≡C) absorption
at 2150 cm−1 in the solid-state IR spectrum and a singlet in the
1H NMR spectrum for the vinylic proton at 6.16 ppm.
2
=
1. The new product was formulated as [Ru(CH CH2)(j -
MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (2). Under the same experimental conditions,
2
=
the yellow complex, [Ru(CH CHPh)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (3),
Our previous work has explored the involvement of thio-
carbonyl ligands in migratory insertion reactions with organic
groups.8c,e In order to explore the effect of incorporating a
thiocarbonyl ligand into the system, the orange 16-electron thio-
was prepared from [Ru(CH CHPh)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2]. The 1H
NMR spectrum of 3 showed well-defined resonances for the
=
3
3
vinylic a- and b-protons at 7.92 (ddt, JHH = 16.2 Hz, JPH
=
3.6 Hz) and 5.92 ppm (3JHH = 16.2 Hz). The tolyl version
carbonyl complex [Ru(CPh CHPh)Cl(CS)(PPh3)2] was treated
=
D a l t o n T r a n s . , 2 0 0 5 , 1 9 3 0 – 1 9 3 9
1 9 3 1

View Article Online
with 1-methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole and sodium methoxide.
2
=
A bright yellow solid, formulated as [Ru(CPh CHPh)(j -
MI)(CS)(PPh3)2] (7), was obtained from this reaction. The IR
spectra showed an intense m(CS) absorption at 1260 cm−1, con-
firming the continuing presence of the thiocarbonyl ligand and
thus ruling out the possibility of a migratory insertion process
to yield [Ru(g -SCCPh CHPh)(j -MI)(PPh3)2]. There is prece-
dent for the addition of sulfur donors such as [9]aneS3 (1,4,7-
trithiacyclononane) to induce migration in the same precursor
to yield [Ru(g -SCCPh CHPh)([9]aneS3)(CO)(PPh3)] . Single
crystals were grown of this complex from a dichloromethane–
ethanol mixture and a structural study undertaken. The resulting
X-ray structure is shown in Fig. 2.
2
2
=
2
+ 8f
=
Scheme 2 Reagents: (i) CO; (ii) MI, NaOMe.
with dihydrobis(pyrazol-1-yl)borate to yield the acetyl com-
1
2
11e
=
plex [Ru{g -C( O)CH3}(CO){j -H2B(pz)2}(PMe3)2]. It has
been noted, based on empirical observation, that the propen-
sity for migration is greater for alkyl than aryl or vinyl
ligands.3 An elegant study by Esteruelas and co-workers
compared these propensities in a single complex by treat-
i
=
ing [Ru(CH3)(CH CHPh)(CO)2(P Pr3)2] with carbon monox-
ide. The product was found to be an equilibrium mix-
1
ture of the starting material and the acetyl species [Ru{g -
i
11f
=
=
C( O)CH3}(CH CHPh)(CO)(P Pr3)2].
Dehydration reactions
A fascinating extension of the use of conventional alkynes in
hydrometallation reactions is the use of propargylic alcohols.
Hydroruthenation of 1,1-diphenylprop-2-yn-1-ol with [RuHCl-
2
=
Fig. 2 Molecular structure of [Ru(CPh CHPh◦ )(j -MI)(CS)(PPh3)2]
=
(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2] has been shown to yield [Ru(CH
˚
(7). Selected bond lengths (A) and angles ( ): Ru1–C1 1.789(2),
CHCPh2OH)Cl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2].10 The BTD and chloride
Ru1–C6 2.102(2), Ru1–N1 2.2195(19), Ru1–P1 2.3845(6), Ru1–P2
2.4037(6), Ru1–S2 2.5807(6), S2–C2 1.715(2), N1–C2 1.326(3),
C6–C13 1.337(3); C1–Ru1–C6 90.45(9), C6–Ru1–N1 95.57(8),
C1–Ru1–P1 88.34(7), C6–Ru1–P1 94.09(6), N1–Ru1–P1 91.12(5),
C1–Ru1–P2 87.84(7), C6–Ru1–P2 95.93(6), N1–Ru1–P2 91.63(5),
P1–Ru1–P2 169.30(2), C1–Ru1–S2 108.29(7), N1–Ru1–S2 65.69(5),
P1–Ru1–S2 85.601(19), P2–Ru1–S2 86.116(19), N1–C2–S2 118.54(17),
C13–C6–Ru1 126.64(17).
ligands in this complex were readily replaced by the MI ligand
2
=
to yield [Ru(CH CHCPh2OH)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (9). This
complex gave rise to a molecular ion at m/z 977 in the FAB-MS
spectrum along with a fragmentation for [M − OH]+. This can
be effected on a preparative level by treatment of a diethyl ether
suspension of complex 9 with HBF4·OEt2, which resulted in a
dramatic colour change to yield an intense green precipitate.
The solution IR spectrum of this material displayed a m(CO)
absorption at 1969 cm−1, a shift of 46 cm−1 to higher frequency
Treatment of the coordinatively-saturated, colourless com-
11b
=
plex [RuCl(CH CHPh)(CO)2(PPh3)2]
with 1-methyl-2-
1
mercaptoimidazole and sodium methoxide led to isolation of
an intense yellow product that displayed not only a strong
m(CO) absorption at 1906 cm−1, but also a peak of medium
intensity to lower frequency at 1716 cm−1 in the IR spectrum.
with respect to the precursor. In the H NMR spectrum, no
resonance due to a hydroxy group was observed. Instead, new
doublet resonances at 8.13 and 14.81 ppm were noted, both
showing couplings of 13.4 Hz. These data compare well to
1
The H NMR spectrum of the complex showed two mutually
those reported (8.70, 17.94 ppm, JHH = 10.2 Hz) for the Grubbs
26
coupled doublets at 5.70 ppm (3JHH = 15.3 Hz) and 6.46 ppm,
(3JHH = 15.3 Hz) with no sign of coupling to the phosphorus
nuclei. The resonances were attributed to the protons of a
migrated vinyl ligand (an acyl). Their chemical shift values are
vinyl carbene complex [RuCl2( CHCH CPh2)(PPh3)2],
=
=
which indicated that protonation and subsequent dehydration
2
=
=
had occurred to yield the cation, [Ru( CHCH CPh2)(j -
MI)(CO)(PPh3)2]BF4 (10) (Scheme 3). The vinyl carbene ligand
is a strong chromophore and also gives rise to a distinctive
band at 1605 cm−1 in the solid-state IR spectrum. A noteworthy
observation is that treatment of 9 in deuterochloroform with
HBF4·Et2O resulted initially in the expected green coloration
which then gave way to a red solution consisting of a number
of species (31P NMR). A possible explanation for this is that
after the initial reaction, the presence of excess acid results in
protonation at the nitrogen centre(s) of the MI ligand.
2
consistent with those found for the thioacyl complex [Ru(g -
SCCH CHPh)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2]. Typical resonances were also
seen for the MI ligand. On the basis of these observations, a
molecular ion at m/z 899 in the FAB mass spectrum and micro-
analytical data, the product was formulated as the monodentate
8e
=
1
2
=
=
acyl complex [Ru{g -C( O)CH CHPh}(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2]
(8) (Scheme 2). Although migration has been shown to occur
ꢀ
ꢀ
=
on treatment of [Ru(CR CHR )Cl(CO)(PPh3)2] (R = R = Me,
Et, Ph) with CO, when R = H and Rꢀ = Ph, the dicarbonyl
complex used here is obtained as the sole product.11b
A number of examples have been reported of vinyl migra-
tion induced by addition of p-acid ligands such as carbon
monoxide or isocyanide.11a–d It is rare for such a transfor-
mation to be observed on addition of a polydentate lig-
and. An example is the treatment of [Ru(CH3)I(CO)2(PMe3)2]
=
The complex [Ru{CH CH(HO)C6H10}Cl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2]
has been shown to result from hydroruthenation of 1-ethynyl-
cyclohexanol by [RuHCl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2].27 Treatment of
this vinyl compound with HMI in the presence of an excess
of sodium methoxide led to a new complex that exhibited a
singlet at 42.5 ppm in the 31P NMR spectrum. A carefully dried
sample was analysed by 1H NMR spectroscopy. The region
1 9 3 2
D a l t o n T r a n s . , 2 0 0 5 , 1 9 3 0 – 1 9 3 9

View Article Online
The isolation of the c-hydroxyvinyl intermediate proved
difficult due to rapid dehydration even with a single equivalent
of base.
Complexes bearing r-organyl and r-silyl ligands
The study was broadened to include other species bearing sigma-
bonded ligands. Roper described how mercury reagents could
be used to prepare coordinatively-unsaturated r-aryl complexes
such as [Ru(C6H5)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2].29 This red complex undergoes
rapid reaction with the deprotonated MI ligand to yield
[Ru(C6H5)(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (12) as shown in Scheme 4.
Scheme
3
Reagents: (i) HC≡CCPh2OH; (ii) MI, NaOMe; (iii)
HBF4·OEt2; (iv), HC≡CC(OH)C6H10; (v) NaOMe.
between 1.4 and 2.0 ppm showed three multiplets at 1.41, 1.48
and 1.94 ppm, integrating for a sum of eight protons. These
were assigned to the CH2 protons of the vinyl substituent. No
resonance attributable to a hydroxy proton was observed. In
addition to characteristic resonances for the MI ligand and
the vinylic a- and b-protons, a broadened triplet resonance,
integrating for one proton, was noted at 4.79 ppm showing
coupling of 3.5 Hz. This feature was assigned to an olefinic
proton on a cyclohexenyl substituent formed by dehydration
of the c-hydroxyvinyl moiety under basic conditions. 1H NMR
data reported for E-(2-cyclohex-1-enyl)styrene28 supports this
assignment with a triplet at 5.90 ppm (JHH = 4.0 Hz) reported
for the analagous feature in the organic product. On the
Scheme 4 Reagents: (i) HgPh2, HSiMe2Cl, EtOH; (ii) HgPh2; (iii) MI,
NaOMe.
The aryl ligand was identified in the 1H NMR spectrum from
an overlapping multiplet at 6.41 ppm for the meta- and para-
protons and a doublet at 6.99 ppm (JHH = 6.7 Hz) attributed
to the ortho-protons. Single crystals of this complex were also
obtained and a structural study undertaken (Fig. 4):
=
basis of these data, the complex was formulated as [Ru(CH
CHC6H9)(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (11) (Scheme 3). Single crystals
were grown by slow diffusion of ethanol into a dichloromethane
solution of the complex and the structure determined (Fig. 3).
2
=
Fig. 3 Molecular structure of [Ru(CH CHC6H9)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2]
Fig. 4 Molecular structure of [Ru(C6H5)(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (12).
◦
◦
˚
˚
(11). Selected bond lengths (A) and angles ( ): Ru1–C1 1.821(3), Ru1–C2
2.085(3), Ru1–N1 2.151(2), Ru1–P1 2.3516(8), Ru1–P2 2.3749(9),
Ru1–S1 2.5940(9), O1–C1 1.148(3), C2–C3 1.307(4), C4–C5 1.335(4);
C1–Ru1–C2 89.82(12), C2–Ru1–N1 94.27(9), C1–Ru1–P1 92.70(9),
C2–Ru1–P1 92.90(7), N1–Ru1–P1 87.83(6), C1–Ru1–P2 87.31(9),
C2–Ru1–P2 90.10(7), N1–Ru1–P2 91.94(6), P1–Ru1–P2 176.99(3),
C1–Ru1–S1 109.92(9), N1–Ru1–S1 65.95(6), P1–Ru1–S1 89.75(2),
P2–Ru1–S1 87.42(2), C3–C2–Ru1 128.1(2), N1–C10–S1 117.4(2).
Selected bond lengths (A) and angles ( ): Ru1–C1 1.821(2), Ru1–C2
2.077(2), Ru1–N1 2.189(2), Ru1–P2 2.3663(6), Ru1–P1 2.3802(6),
Ru1–S1 2.5954(6); C1–Ru1–C2 90.99(11), C1–Ru1–N1 171.96(9),
C2–Ru1–N1 96.95(9), C1–Ru1–P2 90.43(8), C2–Ru1–P2 91.45(6),
N1–Ru1–P2 90.70(5), C1–Ru1–P1 88.20(8), C2–Ru1–P1 91.66(6),
N1–Ru1–P1 90.23(5), P2–Ru1–P1 176.62(2), C1–Ru1–S1 106.28(8),
C2–Ru1–S1 162.34(7), N1–Ru1–S1 65.90(5), P2–Ru1–S1 84.90(2),
P1–Ru1–S1 92.52(2), N1–C8–S1 118.48(18).
D a l t o n T r a n s . , 2 0 0 5 , 1 9 3 0 – 1 9 3 9
1 9 3 3

View Article Online
The compound [Ru(C6H5)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2] is also a versatile
starting material for complexes with other r-bonded ligands
such as [Ru(SiMe2OEt)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2],30 which was found to
react with the MI ligand in an analogous fashion to the vinyl
and aryl species discussed above to give [Ru(SiMe2OEt)(j2-
MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (13). Resonances for the methyl (0.07 ppm)
and ethoxy (1.24, 3.69 ppm) groups were observed at typical
chemical shift values in the 1H NMR spectrum.
Acetylide complexes of ruthenium(II) are readily accessible
by a variety of routes.3 For example, the complex [Ru(C≡CPh)-
Cl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2] can be conveniently prepared from
[RuHCl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2] and Hg(C≡CPh)2,31 however, it is
worth noting that [RuHCl(CO)(PPh3)3] reacts with mercury bis-
(acetylides) to yield the but-3-en-1-yn-3-yl complexes, [Ru{C-
=
(C≡CR) CHR}Cl(CO)(PPh3)2], rather than products bearing
an acetylide ligand.25,32 Treatment of [Ru(C≡CPh)Cl(CO)-
(BTD)(PPh3)2] with 1-methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole and base
yields [Ru(C≡CPh)(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (14) in moderate yield
as shown in Scheme 5:
Fig. 5 Molecular structure of [Ru(C≡CPh)(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (14).
◦
˚
Selected bond lengths (A) and angles ( ): Ru1–C1 1.845(2), Ru1–C2
2.019(2), Ru1–N1 2.1441(18), Ru1–P1 2.3617(8), Ru1–P2 2.3638(8),
Ru1–S1 2.5618(7), C2–C3 1.204(3); C1–Ru1–C2 90.58(9), C1–Ru1–N1
101.96(8), C1–Ru1–P1 90.55(7), C2–Ru1–P1 91.35(6), N1–Ru1–P1
90.04(5), C1–Ru1–P2 91.68(7), C2–Ru1–P2 88.84(6), N1–Ru1–P2
89.29(5), P1–Ru1–P2 177.759(18), C2–Ru1–S1 101.08(6), N1–Ru1–S1
66.43(5), P1–Ru1–S1 87.696(19), P2–Ru1–S1 90.076(19), C3–C2–Ru1
176.63(19), N1–C10–S1 116.47(15).
[OsHCl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2]8c has been prepared recently and
provides a useful entry point into osmium(II) chemistry through
the lability of the 2,1,3-benzothiadiazole (BTD) ligand. This is
important as a combination of steric crowding and the trans
effect of the hydride in [OsHCl(CO)(PPh3)3]33 is not sufficient to
labilise a phosphine and generate a vacant coordination site, in
contrast to the ruthenium analogue.
Reaction of [OsHCl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2] with the HMI lig-
and in the presence of potassium hydroxide led to isolation
of [OsH(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (15) in good yield (Scheme 6).
Scheme 5 Reagents and conditions: (i) excess HC≡CPh, heat; (ii)
HC≡CC6H4Me-4; (iii) MI, NaOMe, (iv) Hg(C≡CPh)2, heat.
A high field triplet resonance was observed at −15.31 ppm (JPH
=
16.4 Hz) in the 1H NMR spectrum for the hydride. Hydroosma-
The retention of the acetylide functionality was indicated by
a m(C≡C) absorption of medium intensity at 2095 cm−1 in the
solid-state IR spectrum as well as resonances attributable to the
tion of phenylacetylene by [OsHCl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2] provides
8c
=
the purple complex [Os(CH CHPh)Cl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2].
1
This species reacts with 1-methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole in the
presence of KOH to give [Os(CH CHPh)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2]
(16). This complex could also be prepared directly
from [OsHCl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2] by sequential reaction with
phenylacetylene and 1-methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole with base
(Scheme 6).
protons of the phenyl substituent in the H NMR spectrum.
2
=
A crystal structure of this complex was obtained from a single
crystal grown by the slow diffusion method (Fig. 5)
Our previous work8c and that of others18,19 has shown an
acetylide ligand can be generated by heating vinyl species
2
=
with excess alkyne. Thus, heating [Ru(CH CHC6H4Me-4)(j -
MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (4) with excess phenylacetylene in 1,2-
dichloroethane yielded the acetylide complex [Ru(C≡CPh)(j2-
MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (14) by a second route. The mechanism of
this reaction is unclear but a plausible suggestion18,19 is the
formation of a Ru(IV) intermediate from oxidative addition of
the H–C bond of the alkyne followed by reductive elimination of
1
=
H2C C(H)C6H4Me-4 (detected by H NMR). For this pathway
to occur, a vacant site at the metal centre needs to be created
either by dissociation of a ligand (e.g., PPh3) or by opening of the
MI chelate. No free triphenylphosphine was detected in samples
of the reaction mixture analysed by 31P NMR spectroscopy.
Hemilabile behaviour is potentially an important facet of mixed-
donor ligands. We plan to investigate this behaviour in future
work using high-pressure NMR and IR techniques.
Osmium complexes
This investigation of the coordination properties of the MI lig-
and was extended to include osmium complexes. The compound
Scheme 6 Reagents: (i) MI, NaOMe, (ii) HC≡CPh.
1 9 3 4
D a l t o n T r a n s . , 2 0 0 5 , 1 9 3 0 – 1 9 3 9

View Article Online
Structural discussion
Of all the structures discussed here, the acetylide complex
[Ru(C≡CPh)(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (14) is unique by virtue of
the r-organyl ligand being trans to the nitrogen donor of the MI
ligand in contrast to the other four structures, where the sulfur
occupies this position. As a result, the Ru–S and Ru–N distances
to the MI ligand are significantly different to those for the other
complexes. Undoubtedly a factor in this is the well-documented
strong trans influence of the acetylide ligand.3 Recently the struc-
ture of the acetylide complex [Ru(C≡CtBu)Cl(j2-Me2bipy)-
(PPh3)2] (Me2bipy = dimethylbipyridyl) has been reported.36 In
this structure, the trans influence of the C≡CtBu ligand results
All compounds investigated by X-ray diffraction in this study
have distorted octahedral geometries with cis-interligand angles
in the range 65.54–110.19◦. The smallest of these angles in each
case corresponds to the N–Ru–S bite angle of the methylim-
idazolethiolate (MI) chelate, which range from 65.69(5)◦
◦
2
=
in [Ru(CPh CHPh)(j -MI)(CS)(PPh3)2] (7) to 66.43(5) in
[Ru(C≡CPh)(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (14). The MI ligand is planar
indicating that the lone pair of the methyl-substituted nitrogen
atom is also involved in the bonding in the imidazole ring.
The only exception to this is the structure of [Ru(C6H5)(j2-
MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (12) in which this methyl substituent deviates
from the plane of the imidazole ring by around 5◦. No previous
structural study has been carried out for a complex bearing the
MI ligand bonded in a bidentate fashion. A number of structures
exist with the MI ligand coordinated in monodentate mode, in
the two-electron donating thione form. The structure of the com-
plex [CuI(MI)(PPh3)2] has recently been reported21a in which the
˚
in Ru–N bond lengths of 2.120(4) A (trans to acetylide) and
˚
2.051(3) A (trans to chloride). This compares well with the Ru1–
˚
N1 distance of 2.1441(18) A in complex 14. The Ru1–C2 bond
˚
length of 2.019(2) A in 14 is similar to the same feature in [Ru(C≡
t
2
˚
C Bu)Cl(j -Me2bipy)(PPh3)2] of 2.053(5) A, while the C2–C3
triple bond is slightly longer [1.204(3) A] in 14 than the distance
˚
t
2
˚
found in [Ru(C≡C Bu)Cl(j -Me2bipy)(PPh3)2] of 1.174(6) A.
The acetylide ligand is essentially linear in both complexes.
˚
C–S length [1.692(4) A] has significant double bond character
and the distance between this carbon and each nitrogen to which
it is bonded is closer to a single bond [1.339(5) and 1.341(5)
A]. These will be compared to the corresponding distances
Conclusion
˚
This report has demonstrated the 1-methylimidazole-2-thiolate
(MI) ligand to be an effective bidentate mixed-donor chelate for
complexes of ruthenium(II) bearing a wide range of r-organyl
and r-silyl groups. These are the first examples of ruthenium
and osmium complexes bearing this ligand as bidentate donor.
Functional group transformations in the presence of acid and
base and at elevated temperatures (80 ◦C) have also revealed the
MI ligand to be robust. This is the first report to investigate
the complexation and structural properties of this ligand.
Further work is currently underway to investigate the hemilabile
properties of this ligand in catalytic processes.
found in the MI ligand coordinated in a bidentate manner in
2
=
the complexes reported here. For [Ru(CH CHC6H4CH3-4)(j -
˚
MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (4), the C1–S1 length is longer at 1.737(5) A
˚
˚
while the C1–N2 [1.349(6) A] and C1–N5 [1.335(6) A] lengths
do not differ from those in the copper complex. The bond
distances within the MI ligand do not vary significantly in
the complexes 4, 7, 11, 12 and 14. The C1–S1 bond length in
complex 4 is slightly shorter than the C–S bond of 1.781(8) A
in the thiolate complex [Ru(g -C5H5)(SPh)(dippe)]BPh4 and
˚
5
34
considerably longer than the C–S bond length of 1.615(9)
5
˚
=
A in the thioaldehyde complex [Ru(g -C5H5){S CH(C6H4Cl-
4)}(dppm)]PF6.35 The Ru1–S1 distance of 2.5907(16) A is longer
˚
Experimental
˚
than the Ru–S bond lengths in both the thioaldehyde [2.252(2) A]
˚
and thiolate [2.272(2) A] literature complexes mentioned above.
Apart from where stated, all manipulations were carried out
under aerobic conditions using commercially available solvents
and reagents as received. IR spectra were obtained using a
Shimadzu FTIR 8700 spectrometer with KBr plates and Nujol
mulls or in CH2Cl2 solution. Spectroscopic features due to the
triphenylphosphine ligands have been omitted to aid clarity. The
term ‘sh’ denotes a shoulder on a larger carbonyl-associated
absorption in the IR spectrum, while ‘tv’ indicates a virtual
triplet nuclear magnetic resonance. NMR spectroscopy was
carried out at 25 ◦C using Bruker AMX-300 (1H: 299.87 MHz,
31P: 121.39 MHz, 13C: 75.40 MHz) or Bruker DRX-500 (1H:
501.13 MHz, 13C: 125.77 MHz) spectrometers. FAB-MS spectra
(nitrobenzyl alcohol matrices) were measured using a VG 70-SB
magnetic sector mass spectrometer. All solid-state IR samples
were measured with KBr plates unless stated otherwise. Elemen-
tal microanalyses were performed at University College London.
Crystal solvates were confirmed by integration of the dichloro-
methane resonance in the1H NMR spectra of the complexes.
Of all the complexes discussed here, in which the r-organyl
ligand is trans to the sulfur of the MI ligand, the Ru–S1 length,
2.5807(6) A, in [Ru(CPh CHPh)(j -MI)(CS)(PPh3)2] (7) stands
2
˚
=
out as being significantly shorter than the others.
The bond distances and angles of the vinyl ligands in the com-
plexes 4, 7 and 11 are similar and compare well to coordinatively-
=
saturated literature complexes such as [Ru(CH CHC3-
H7)Cl(CO)(Me2Hpz)(PPh3)2] (Me2Hpz = 3,5-dimethylpyra-
zole).24b However, the Ru1–C43–C44 angle, 128.7(5)◦, is con-
siderably smaller than that found in the literature complex of
134(1)◦. The structure of complex 7, the only example discussed
here with a disubstituted vinyl ligand, revealed that the phenyl
substituent of the vinyl a-carbon adopts a torsion angle of 81.58◦
for the Ru1–C6–C7–C8 linkage.
The crystal of the dienyl complex [Ru(CH CHC6H9)(j -
2
=
MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (11) chosen for structural analysis contained
two independent molecules in the asymmetric unit, one of which
showed moderate levels of disorder. The ordered molecule was
found to have similar bond distances and angles to those associ-
ated with the vinyl ligand in complexes 4 and 7. The dienyl unit
and its cyclohexenyl substituent were found to be essentially
coplanar with only slight deviation from the plane around the
C7, C8 and C9 atoms. The C4–C5 distance in the cyclohexenyl
The complexes [RuHCl(CO)(PPh3)3],37 [RuHCl(CO)(BTD)-
8a
(PPh3)2],22 [Ru(CH CH2)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2], [Ru(CH CHC6-
=
=
H4CH3-4)Cl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2],10
[Ru(CH CHPh)Cl(CO)-
=
(PPh3)2],2 [Ru(CH CHPh)Cl(CO)2(PPh3)2],
[Ru(CH CH -
11b
t
=
=
Bu)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2],38
[Ru(CH CHCPh2OH)Cl(CO)(BTD)-
=
(PPh3)2],10 [Ru{CH CHC(OH)C6H10}(BTD)(PPh3)2],27 [Ru{C-
=
˚
25
ring is clearly a double bond at 1.335(4) A while the remaining
lengths are all typical for C–C single bonds (1.496–1.544 A).
The vinyl C2–C3 distance is 1.307(4) A and the single bond
=
=
(C≡CPh) CHPh}Cl(CO)(PPh3)2], [Ru(CPh CHPh)Cl(CS)-
(PPh3)2],8g [Ru(C6H5)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2]29 [Ru(C≡CPh)Cl(CO)-
(BTD)(PPh3)2],31 [Ru(SiMe2OEt)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2],30 [OsHCl-
˚
˚
8c
8c
between the vinyl and cyclohexenyl double bonds (C3–C4) falls
=
(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2], [Os(CH CHPh)Cl(BTD)(CO)(PPh3)2],
were prepared according to published procedures.
˚
between single and double bond in length [1.470(4) A].
˚
The bond length for Ru–S1 [2.5954(6) A] in the phenyl
complex [Ru(C6H5)(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (12) shows that the
trans influence of the aryl group is comparable to that of the
Preparation of [RuH(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (1)
˚
vinyl ligand [Ru1–S1 2.5907(16) A in 4]. Otherwise the structure
[RuHCl(CO)(PPh3)3] (200 mg, 0.210 mmol) and 1-methyl-2-
mercaptoimidazole (26 mg, 0.228 mmol) were suspended in
is unremarkable.
D a l t o n T r a n s . , 2 0 0 5 , 1 9 3 0 – 1 9 3 9
1 9 3 5

View Article Online
1
[m(CO)] cm−1. 31P{ H} NMR (CDCl3): 43.0 ppm. 1H NMR
(CDCl3): 2.23 [s, NCH3, 3H], 2.50 [s, CH3, 3H] 5.67 [d, NCH,
1H, JHH = 1.8 Hz], 5.86 [d, Hb, 1H, JHbHa = 16.2 Hz], 6.17 [d,
dichloromethane (20 mL) and ethanol (10 mL) and treated with
potassium hydroxide (18 mg, 0.321 mmol) in water (0.5 mL)
and ethanol (5 mL). The reaction was stirred for 1 h to yield a
pale green solution. The solvent volume was concentrated under
reduced pressure until precipitation of a pale green product was
complete. This was washed with water (5 mL), ethanol (10 mL)
and hexane (10 mL). Yield: 130 mg (81%). IR (CsI/Nujol):
1978 [m(RuH)], 1919 [m(CO)], 1310, 1289, 971 cm−1. IR (CH2Cl2):
NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.8 Hz], 6.38, 6.83 [(AB)2, C6H4, 4H, JAB
=
=
7.9 Hz], 7.21, 7.43 [m × 2, C6H5, 30H], 7.81 [dt, Ha, 1H, JHaHb
16.2 Hz, JHaP = 3.8 Hz] ppm. 13C{ H} NMR (CDCl3): 21.1
[s, CCH3], 30.4 [s, NCH3], 115.8 [s, NC5H], 122.2 [s, NC4H],
124.3 [s, o/m-C6H4], 127.4 [tv, o/m-PC6H5, JCP = 4.5 Hz], 128.3
[o/m-C6H4], 129.1 [s, p-PC6H5], 132.6 [s, p-C6H4], 133.1 [tv, ipso-
PC6H5, JCP = 21.2 Hz], 134.4 [tv, o/m-PC6H5, JCP = 5.4 Hz]
134.4 [Cb, obscured], 139.2 [s, ipso-C6H4], 153.9 [s, NCN], 154.2
[t, Ca, JCP = 11.0 Hz], 206.5 [t, CO, JCP = 16.1 Hz] ppm. FAB-
MS m/z (abundance): 883 (2) [M]+, 766 (0.6) [M − vinyl]+, 654
(0.4) [M − vinyl − MI]+, 621 (3) [M − PPh3]+, 593 (1) [M −
CO − PPh3]+. Anal. Calc. for C50H44N2OP2RuS: C, 67.9; H, 5.0;
N, 3.2%. Found: C, 68.0; H, 5.0; N, 3.2%.
1
1
1973 (sh) [m(RuH)] 1919 [m(CO)] cm−1. 31P{ H} NMR (CDCl3):
49.9 ppm. 1H NMR (CDCl3): −13.05 [t, RuH, 1H, JPH
=
19.4 Hz], 2.61 [s, CH3, 3H], 5.58 [d, NCH4, 1H, JHH = 1.4 Hz],
5.67 [d, NCH5, 1H, JHH = 1.4 Hz], 7.25, 7.62 [m × 2, C6H5,
1
30H] ppm. 13C{ H} NMR (CD2Cl2): 30.2 [s, CH3], 117.3 [s,
NC5H], 125.7 [s, NC4H], 127.9 [tv, o/m-PC6H5, JCP = 5.9 Hz],
129.7 [s, p-PC6H5], 134.6 [tv, o/m-PC6H5, JCP = 4.6 Hz], 135.4
[tv, ipso-PC6H5, JCP = 20.7 Hz], 155.6 [s, NCN], 206.1 [t, CO,
JCP = 15.0 Hz] ppm. FAB-MS m/z (abundance): 767 (0.8) [M]+,
739 (0.2) [M − CO]+, 652 (0.3) [M − MI]+. Anal. Calc. for
C41H36N2OP2RuS: C, 64.2; H, 4.7; N, 3.7%. Found: C, 63.8; H,
4.8; N, 3.6%.
t
2
=
Preparation of [Ru(CH CH Bu)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (5)
Pale yellow microcrystalline product (73 mg, 66%) obtained by
the same general procedure as for 2 from [Ru(CH CH Bu)-
t
=
2
=
Preparation of [Ru(CH CH2)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (2)
Cl(CO)(PPh3)2] (100 mg, 0.130 mmol). IR (KBr/Nujol): 1909
[m(CO)], 1572, 1320, 1288, 1258, 972 cm−1. IR (CH2Cl2): 1908
=
[Ru(CH CH2)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2] (100 mg, 0.140 mmol) and 1-
1
[m(CO)] cm−1. 31P{ H} NMR (CDCl3): 43.6 ppm. 1H NMR
methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole (18 mg, 0.158 mmol) were sus-
pended in a mixture of dichloromethane (20 mL) and ethanol
(10 mL). Sodium methoxide (9 mg, 0.167 mmol) was dissolved
in ethanol (10 mL) and added to the mixture dropwise which
resulted in a colour change to a yellow solution. The reaction
was stirred for 1 h. The solvent volume was concentrated under
reduced pressure until pale yellow–green crystals precipitated.
The product was filtered, washed with water (5 mL), ethanol
(10 mL) and hexane (10 mL) and dried. Yield: 75 mg (68%).
IR (KBr/Nujol): 1900 [m(CO)], 1542, 1308, 1277, 1257, 1140,
(CDCl3): 0.42 [s, CMe3, 9H], 2.49 [s, CH3, 3H], 5.92 [d, Hb,
1H, JHbHa = 15.9 Hz], 5.51 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.7 Hz], 6.05
[d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.7 Hz], 6.44 [dt, Ha, 1H, JHaHb = 15.9,
JHaP = 3.3 Hz], 7.23–7.96 [m, PC6H5, 30H] ppm. FAB-MS m/z
(abundance): 850 (25) [M]+, 767 (15%) [M − vinyl]+, 654 (6) [M −
vinyl − MI]+, 625 (12) [M − vinyl − MI − CO]+, 588 (100) [M −
PPh3]+, 560 (57) [M − CO − PPh3]+, 505 (16) [M − vinyl −
PPh3]+, 477 (52) [M − vinyl − CO − PPh3]+. Anal. Calc. for
C47H46N2OP2RuS·0.5CH2Cl2: C, 63.9; H, 5.3; N, 3.1%. Found:
C, 64.0; H, 5.2; N, 3.1%.
1
854 cm−1. IR (CH2Cl2): 1913 [m(CO)] cm−1. 31P{ H} NMR
(CDCl3): 43.6 ppm. 1H NMR (CDCl3): 2.44 [s, CH3, 3H], 4.76
[dd, Hb, 1H, JHbHa = 17.5, JHbHb = 1.3 Hz], 5.25 [dd, Hbꢀ, 1H,
ꢀ
2
=
Preparation of [Ru{C(C≡CPh) CHPh}(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2]
ꢀ
ꢀ
JHb Ha = 9.9, JHb Hb = 1.7 Hz], 5.58 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.6 Hz],
(6)
6.13 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.6 Hz], 7.26, 7.53 [m × 2, C6H5, 30H],
ꢀ
7.38 [ddt, Ha, 1H, JHaHb = 17.5, JHaHb = 10.0 Hz, JHaP = 3.2 Hz]
Pale yellow product (69 mg, 64%) obtained by the same
ppm. FAB-MS m/z (abundance): 794 (37) [M]+, 767 (100) [M −
CO]+, 681 (4) [M − MI]+, 654 (13) [M − vinyl − MI]+, 625
(7) [Ru(PPh3)2]+, 532 (57) [M − PPh3]+, 504 (53) [M − CO −
PPh3]+, 477 (48) [M − vinyl − CO − PPh3]+. Anal. Calc. for
C43H38N2OP2RuS·0.8CH2Cl2: C, 61.0; H, 4.6; N 3.3%. Found:
C, 60.8; H, 4.5; N, 3.2%.
general procedure as for 2 from [Ru{C(C≡CPh) CHPh}-
=
Cl(CO)(PPh3)2] (100 mg, 0.112 mmol). IR (KBr/Nujol): 2150
[m(C≡C)], 1921 [m(CO)], 1653, 1308, 1297, 905 cm−1. IR
(CH2Cl2): 2160 [m(C≡C)], 1924 [m(CO)] cm−1. 31P{ H} NMR
1
(CDCl3): 40.7 ppm; 1H NMR (CDCl3): 2.42 [s, CH3, 3H], 5.72
=
[d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.7 Hz], 6.16 [s, RuC CH, 1H], 6.71 [d,
NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.7 Hz], 6.91 [d, ortho-CC6H5, 2H, JHH
=
2
7.5 Hz], 6.94 [t, para-CC6H5, 1H, JHH = 7.2 Hz], 7.05 [t, meta-
CC6H5, 2H, JHH = 7.5 Hz], 7.23, 7.53 [m × 2, PC6H5 + CC6H5,
30H + 5H] ppm. FAB-MS m/z (abundance): 969 (2%) [M]+,
856 (0.5%) [M − MI]+, 767 (0.5%) [M − vinyl]+, 700 (1%)
[M − PPh3]+, 680 (5%) [M − CO − PPh3]+. Anal. Calc. for
C57H46N2OP2RuS·0.25CH2Cl2: C, 69.4; H, 4.7; N, 2.8%. Found:
C, 68.9; H, 4.8; N, 2.7%.
=
Preparation of [Ru(CH CHPh)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (3)
Yellow product (143 mg, 65%) obtained by the same general pro-
=
cedure as for 2 from [Ru(CH CHPh)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2] (200 mg,
0.252 mmol). IR (KBr/Nujol): 1938 [m(CO)], 1593, 1310, 1283,
1
1246, 848 cm−1. IR (CH2Cl2): 1915 [m(CO)] cm−1. 31P{ H} NMR
(CDCl3): 42.9 ppm. 1H NMR (CDCl3): 2.50 [s, CH3, 3H], 5.69
[d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.6 Hz], 5.92 [d, Hb, 1H, JHbHa = 16.2 Hz],
6.21 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.6 Hz], 6.48 [d, ortho-CC6H5, 2H,
JHH = 7.3 Hz], 6.88 [t, para-CC6H5, 1H, JHH = 7.3 Hz], 7.02 [t,
meta-CC6H5, 2H, JHH = 7.3 Hz], 7.24, 7.48 [m × 2, PC6H5, 30H],
7.92 [dt, Ha, 1H, JHaHb = 16.2, JHaP = 3.6 Hz] ppm. FAB-MS
m/z (abundance): 869 (1.5) [M]+, 765 (0.25%) [M − vinyl]+, 607
(2.4) [M − PPh3]+, 579 (1) [M − CO − PPh3]+. Anal. Calc. for
C49H42N2OP2RuS: C, 67.7; H, 4.9; N, 3.2%. Found: C, 67.3; H,
4.9; N, 3.2%.
2
=
Preparation of [Ru(CPh CHPh)(j -MI)(CS)(PPh3)2] (7)
Yellow product (101 mg, 62%) obtained by the same gen-
eral procedure as for 2 from [Ru(CPh CHPh)Cl(CS)(PPh3)2]
=
(150 mg, 0.170 mmol). IR (KBr/Nujol): 1716, 1591, 1577, 1554,
1320, 1284, 1260 [m(CS)], 967, 922 cm−1. 31P{ H} NMR (C6D6):
1
1
35.5 ppm; H NMR (C6D6): 1.92 [s, CH3, 3H], 4.40 [d, NCH,
1H, JHH = 1.5 Hz], 5.36 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.5 Hz], 6.40 [s,
=
RuC CH, 1H], 6.56 [d, ortho-CC6H5, 2H, JHH = 8.1 Hz], 6.70
2
=
Preparation of [Ru(CH CHC6H4CH3-4)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2]
(4)
[d, ortho-CC6H5, 2H, JHH = 7.2 Hz], 6.86 [t, para-CC6H5, 1H,
JHH = 7.8 Hz], 7.00 × 7.81 [m, PC6H5 + CC6H5, 30H + 5H] ppm.
FAB-MS m/z (abundance): 961 (1) [M]+, 848 (0.5) [M − MI]+,
782 (0.4) [M − vinyl]+, 699 (1.6) [M − PPh3]+, 585 (1.3) [M −
MI − PPh3]+. Anal. Calc. for C55H46N2P2RuS2·0.75CH2Cl2: C,
65.3; H, 4.7; N, 2.7%. Found: C, 65.4; H, 4.7; N, 2.7%.
Olive green product (65 mg, 59%) obtained by the same
=
general procedure as for 2 from [Ru(CH CHC6H4CH3-
4)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2] (100 mg, 0.124 mmol). IR (CsI/Nujol): 1909
[m(CO)], 1309, 1291, 968, 890, 843, 829 cm−1. IR (CH2Cl2): 1916
1 9 3 6
D a l t o n T r a n s . , 2 0 0 5 , 1 9 3 0 – 1 9 3 9

View Article Online
1
2
=
=
reduced pressure until precipitation of the product was complete.
This was recrystallised from dichloromethane and ethanol to
yield a pale microcrystalline yellow product. This was filtered
and washed with water (5 mL), ethanol (10 mL) and hexane
(10 mL) and dried. Yield: 92 mg (67%). IR (KBr/Nujol): 1911
[m(CO)] cm−1. IR (CH2Cl2): 1908 [m(CO)], 1310, 1288, 1240, 1184,
Preparation of [Ru{g -C( O)CH CHPh}(j -MI)(CO)-
(PPh3)2] (8)
=
[Ru(CH CHPh)Cl(CO)2(PPh3)2] (100 mg, 0.122 mmol) and 1-
methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole (15 mg, 0.131 mmol) were sus-
pended in dichloromethane (20 mL) and treated with potassium
hydroxide (7 mg, 0.125) in water (0.5 mL) and ethanol (5 mL).
The reaction was stirred for 2 h. The solvent volume was
concentrated under reduced pressure until precipitation of the
yellow product was complete and then washed with water
(5 mL), ethanol (10 mL) and hexane (10 mL). The product can be
recrystallised from dichloromethane and ethanol. Yield: 72 mg
1
1
968, 919 cm−1. 31P{ H} NMR (CDCl3): 42.5 ppm. H NMR
(CDCl3): 1.41 [m, C6H8, 4H], 1.48 [m, C6H8, 2H], 1.94 [m, C6H8,
=
2H], 2.50 [s, CH3, 3H], 4.79 [t(br), cyclohexene-C CH, 1H,
JHH = 3.5 Hz], 5.63 [d, Hb, 1H, JHbHa = 16.2 Hz], 5.64 [d, NCH,
1H, JHH = 1.6 Hz], 6.15 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.6 Hz], 7.00 [dt,
Ha, 1H, JHaHb = 16.2, JHaP = 3.3 Hz], 7.17–7.58 [m, PC6H5, 30H]
ppm. FAB-MS m/z (abundance): 874 (8) [M]+, 767 (3) [M −
vinyl]+, 612 (11) [M − PPh3]+, 584 (13) [M − CO − PPh3]+,
505 (4) [M − vinyl − PPh3]+, 477 (10) [M − vinyl − CO −
PPh3]+. Anal. Calc. for C49H46N2OP2RuS: C, 67.3; H, 5.3; N,
3.2%. Found: C, 67.0; H, 5.1; N, 3.1%.
=
(66%). IR (KBr/Nujol): 1906 [m(CO)], 1716 [m(C O)], 1621,
1575, 1549, 1266, 993 cm−1. IR (CH2Cl2): 1920 [m(CO)], 1723
−1
1
1
[m(C O)] cm . 31P{ H} NMR (CD2Cl2): 41.2 ppm; H NMR
=
(CD2Cl2): 2.40 [s, CH3, 3H], 5.69 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.5 Hz],
=
=
5.70 [d, CHPh, 1H, JHH = 15.3 Hz], 6.46 [d, C( O)CH, 1H,
JHH = 15.3 Hz], 6.83 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.5 Hz], 7.00 [m,
ortho-CC6H5 + para-CC6H5, 2H + 1H], 7.17–7.51 [m, PC6H5 +
meta-CC6H5, 30H + 2H] ppm. FAB-MS m/z (abundance): 899
(0.5) [M]+. Anal. Calc. for C50H42N2O2P2RuS·CH2Cl2: C, 62.3;
H, 4.5; N, 2.9%. Found: C, 62.0; H, 4.7; N, 2.7%.
Preparation of [Ru(C6H5)(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (12)
Colourless crystalline product (51 mg, 66%) obtained by the
same general procedure as for 2 from [Ru(C6H5)Cl(CO)(PPh3)3]
(70 mg, 0.091 mmol). IR (KBr/Nujol): 1908 [m(CO)], 1312, 1286,
2
1
1016, 972, 846 cm−1. IR (CH2Cl2): 1915 [m(CO)] cm−1. 31P{ H}
=
Preparation of [Ru(CH CHCPh2OH)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (9)
NMR (CDCl3): 41.2 ppm; 1H NMR (CDCl3): 2.52 [s, CH3, 3H],
Yellow product (67 mg, 71%) obtained by the same general
procedure as for 2 from [Ru(CH CHPh2OH)Cl(CO)(BTD)-
5.78 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.7 Hz], 6.42 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH
=
=
1.7 Hz], 6.41 [m, meta-CC6H5 + para-CC6H5, 2H + 1H], 6.99
[d, ortho-CC6H5, 2H, JHH = 6.7 Hz], 7.10–7.40 [m, PC6H5, 30H]
ppm. FAB-MS m/z (abundance): 842 (25) [M]+, 765 (13) [M −
Ph]+, 729 (6) [M − MI]+, 581 (27) [M − PPh3]+, 553 (100) [M −
CO − PPh3]+, 504 (7) [M − Ph − PPh3]+, 476 (20) [M − Ph −
CO − PPh3]+. Anal. Calc. for C47H40N2OP2RuS·2/3CH2Cl2: C,
63.6; H, 4.6; N, 3.1%. Found: C, 63.6; H, 4.7; N, 3.1%.
(PPh3)2] (100 mg, 0.097 mmol). IR (KBr/Nujol): 1917 [m(CO)],
1574, 1313, 1285, 1188, 924, 896, 843 cm−1. IR (CH2Cl2): 1923
[m(CO)] cm−1. 31P{ H} NMR (CDCl3): 43.9 ppm. 1H NMR
1
(CDCl3): 1.11 [s, OH, 1H], 2.41 [s, CH3, 3H], 5.38 [d, NCH,
1H, JHH = 1.6 Hz], 5.63 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.6 Hz], 5.74 [d,
Hb, 1H, JHbHa = 16.0 Hz], 6.83 [m, C6H5, 2H], 7.02 [dt, Ha, 1H,
JHaHb = 16.0, JHaP = 2.7 Hz], 7.09 [m, C6H5, 4H], 7.19–7.95 [m,
PC6H5 + C6H5, 30H + 4H] ppm. FAB-MS m/z (abundance):
977 (15) [M]+, 960 (4) [M − OH]+, 767 (4) [M − vinyl]+, 715 (2)
[M − PPh3]+, 697 (4) [M − OH − PPh3]+, 504 (5) [M − vinyl −
PPh3]+, 477 (13) [M − vinyl − CO − PPh3]+. Anal. Calc. for
C56H48N2O2P2RuS·0.25CHCl3: C, 67.2; H, 4.8; N, 2.8%. Found:
C, 67.1; H, 4.8; N, 2.5%.
Preparation of [Ru(SiMe2OEt)(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (13)
Pale yellow product (43 mg, 56%) obtained by the same general
procedure as for 2 from [Ru(SiMe2OEt)Cl(CO)(PPh3)3] (70 mg,
0.088 mmol). IR (KBr/Nujol): 1903 [m(CO)], 1881, 1272, 1216,
1
1175, 923, 808 cm−1. IR (CH2Cl2): 1906 [m(CO)] cm−1. 31P{ H}
1
NMR (CDCl3): 45.6 ppm. H NMR (CDCl3): 0.07 [s, SiCH3,
2
=
=
Preparation of [Ru( CHCH CPh2)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2]BF4
6H], 1.24 [t, CH2CH3, 3H, JHH = 7.0 Hz], 2.09 [s, NCH3, 3H],
(10)
3.69 [q, CH2CH3, 3H, JHH = 6.8 Hz], 5.74 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH
=
1.6 Hz], 6.76 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.6 Hz], 7.26–7.58 [m, PC6H5,
30H] ppm. FAB-MS m/z (abundance): 868 (5) [M]+, 766 (17)
[M − SiMe2OEt]+, 653 (35) [M − MI − SiMe2OEt]+, 625 (15)
[Ru(PPh3)2]+. Anal. Calc. for C45H46N2O2P2RuSSi: C, 62.1; H,
5.3; N, 3.2%. Found: C, 62.4; H, 5.2; N, 3.1%.
=
[Ru(CH CHPh2OH)(MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (9) (50 mg, 0.051 mmol)
was suspended in diethyl ether (5 mL) and treated with
HBF4·OEt2 (one drop, excess) causing an intense green pre-
cipitation. The reaction was stirred for 10 min and the
precipitate filtered, washed with diethyl ether (10 mL) and
dried. Yield: 32 mg (60%). IR (KBr/Nujol): 1958 [m(CO)],
Preparation of [Ru(C≡CPh)(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (14)
(a) Yellow product (50 mg, 65%) obtained by the same general
=
=
1572 [m(Ru CC C)], 1285, 1211, 1186, 1159, 1055 [m(B–F)],
−1
−1
=
=
939 cm . IR (CH2Cl2): 1969 [m(CO)], 1605 [m(Ru CC C)] cm .
31P{ H} NMR (CDCl3): 36.1 ppm. H NMR (CDCl3): 2.28 [s,
NCH3, 3H], 6.20 [d, ortho-CC6H5, 2H, JHH = 6.9 Hz], 6.29
[d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.7 Hz], 6.39 [s(br), NCH, 1H], 7.25–
1
1
procedure as for 2 from [Ru(C≡CPh)Cl(CO)(PPh3)2] (70 mg,
=
0.089 mmol). (b) [Ru(CH CHC6H4Me-4)(MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (4)
(50 mg, 0.057 mmol) and phenylacetylene (30 mg, 0.294 mmol)
were dissolved in 1,2-dichloroethane (20 mL) and heated to
reflux for 3 h. All solvent was then removed under reduced
pressure and the residue dissolved in dichloromethane (10 mL).
Ethanol (20 mL) was added and the solvent volume concentrated
under reduced pressure until precipitation of a yellow product
was complete. This was washed with water (5 mL), ethanol
(10 mL), hexane (10 mL) and dried. Yield: 28 g (57%). The
product was recrystallised from a chloroform–ethanol mixture.
IR (KBr/Nujol): 2095 [m(C≡C)], 1958, 1940 [m(CO)], 1595,
1319, 1288, 968, 843 cm−1. IR (CH2Cl2): 2098 [m(C≡C)], 1938
7.95 [m, PC6H5 + CC6H5, 30H + 8H], 8.13 [d, Hb, 1H, JHH
=
13.4 Hz], 14.81 [d, Ha, 1H, JHH = 13.4 Hz] ppm. FAB-MS m/z
(abundance): 959 (3) [M]+, 696 (2) [M − PPh3]+, 553 (1) [M −
CO − MI − PPh3]+, 407 (4) [M − CO − 2PPh3]+. Anal. Calc.
for C56H45BF4N2OP2RuS: C, 64.4; H, 4.4; N, 2.7%. Found: C,
64.7; H, 4.3; N, 2.5%.
2
=
Preparation of [Ru(CH CHC6H9)(j -MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (11)
[RuHCl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2] (130 mg, 0.157 mmol) was dis-
solved in tetrahydrofuran (15 mL) and treated with 1-ethynyl-
cyclohexan-1-ol (39 mg, 0.314 mmol). The reaction was heated
to reflux for 5 minutes and allowed to cool. The resulting
solution was stirred and 1-methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole (18 mg,
0.158 mmol) added followed by an ethanolic solution (10 mL)
of sodium methoxide (17 mg, 0.315 mmol). The reaction was
stirred for 1 h and the solvent volume concentrated under
1
[m(CO)] cm−1. 31P{ H} NMR (CDCl3): 42.7 ppm; 1H NMR
(CDCl3): 2.52 [s, CH3, 3H], 5.54 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.5 Hz],
5.88 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.5 Hz], 6.49 [d, ortho-CC6H5, 2H,
JHH = 6.8 Hz], 6.96 [t, meta-CC6H5, 2H, JHH = 6.8 Hz], 7.15–
7.9 [m, PC6H5 + para-CC6H5, 30H + 1H] ppm. FAB-MS m/z
(abundance): 866 (32) [M]+, 765 (11) [M − C≡CPh]+, 754 (2)
D a l t o n T r a n s . , 2 0 0 5 , 1 9 3 0 – 1 9 3 9
1 9 3 7

View Article Online
Table 1 Crystal data for compounds 4, 7, 11, 12 and 14
4
7·CH2Cl2
11
12·2CH2Cl2
14
Chemical formula
Mr
C50H44N2OP2RuS
883.94
Monoclinic
Pale green
0.10 × 0.05 × 0.05
P21/c
22.696(4)
17.373(3)
23.941(5)
90.00
115.104(4)
90.00
8548(3)
8
1.374
125(2)
0.530
3648
36848
12288 (0.1120)
0.0474
C56H48Cl2N2P2RuS2
1046.99
Triclinic
C49H46N2OP2RuS
873.95
Monoclinic
Pale yellow
0.36 × 0.33 × 0.28
P21/c
21.805(4)
17.420(3)
24.246(5)
90.00
114.296(3)
90.00
8394(3)
8
1.383
150(2)
0.539
3616
72069
20066 (0.0485)
0.0469
C49H44Cl4N2OP2RuS
1013.73
Monoclinic
Pale yellow
0.44 × 0.12 × 0.08
P21/c
23.5333(18)
10.4216(8)
19.0208(15)
90.00
100.4770(10)
90.00
4587.2(6)
4
1.468
150(2)
0.730
C49H40N2OP2RuS
867.90
Monoclinic
Pale yellow
0.34 × 0.29 × 0.12
P21/c
14.773(3)
15.086(4)
19.255(5)
90.00
109.123(4)
90.00
4054.4(16)
4
1.422
150(2)
0.558
Crystal system
Crystal colour
Crystal size/mm
Space group
Yellow
0.48 × 0.32 × 0.29
¯
P1
˚
a/A
10.9391(7)
12.3109(7)
19.1341(11)
104.0690(10)
100.5600(10)
97.9500(10)
2411.6(2)
2
1.442
293(2)
0.630
1076
21333
11124 (0.0148)
0.0378
0.0980
1.881, −1.684
˚
b/A
˚
c/A
a/◦
b/◦
c /◦
3
˚
V/A
Z
Dc/g cm−3
T/K
l(Mo-Ka)/mm−1
F(000)
2072
39496
10943 (0.0347)
0.0434
0.1056
1784
35137
9688 (0.0449)
0.0368
0.0995
Reflections collected
Unique reflections (Rint
R1 (I > 2r(I))
wR2 (all data)
)
0.0937
0.605, −0.585
0.1159
1.238, −0.976
−3
˚
Dqmax, min/e A
1.276, −0.814
0.923, −0.428
[M − MI]+, 725 (2) [M − CO − MI]+, 652 (5) [M − MI −
C≡CPh]+, 605 (29) [M − PPh3]+, 576 (28) [M − CO − PPh3]+.
Anal. Calc. for C49H40N2OP2RuS·0.25CHCl3: C, 65.9; H, 4.5; N,
3.1%. Found: C, 66.2; H, 4.6; N, 3.1%.
Calc. for C49H42N2OOsP2S: C, 61.4; H, 4.4; N, 2.9%. Found: C,
60.9; H, 4.3; N, 2.8%.
Crystallography
Crystals of complexes 4, 7, 11, 12 and 14 were grown by slow
diffusion of a dichloromethane solution of the complexes into
ethanol. A single crystal of each compound was mounted on
a glass fibre and all geometric and intensity data were taken
from this sample on a Bruker SMART APEX CCD diffrac-
tometer using graphite-monochromated Mo-Ka radiation (k =
Preparation of [OsH(j2-MI)(CO)(PPh3)2] (15)
Colourless product (84 mg, 90%) obtained by the same general
procedure as for 2 from [OsHCl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2] (100 mg,
0.109 mmol). IR (KBr/Nujol): 2098 [m(OsH)], 2060, 1888
[m(CO)], 1309, 1292, 971, 891, 844, 812 cm−1. IR (CH2Cl2): 2087
˚
0.71073 A) at 150
125
2 K (11, 12 and 14), 293
2 K (7) or
1
[m(OsH)], 1898 [m(CO)] cm−1. 31P{ H} NMR (CDCl3): 23.0 ppm.
2 K (4). Data reduction and integration was carried
1H NMR (CDCl3): −15.31 [t, OsH, 1H, JHP = 16.4 Hz], 2.48 [s,
CH3, 3H], 5.40 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.7 Hz], 5.47 [d, NCH,
1H, JHH = 1.7 Hz], 7.28, 7.62 [m × 2, PC6H5, 30H] ppm.
FAB-MS m/z (abundance): 857 (1.3) [M]+. Anal. Calc. for
C41H36N2OOsP2S: C, 57.5; H, 4.2; N, 3.3%. Found: C, 57.3;
H, 4.2; N, 3.3%.
out with SAINT+ and absorption corrections applied using
the programme SADABS. The structures were solved by direct
methods and developed using alternating cycles of least-squares
refinement and difference-Fourier synthesis. All non-hydrogen
atoms were refined anisotropically. Hydrogen atoms were placed
in calculated positions and their thermal parameters linked to
those of the atoms to which they were attached (riding model).
Structure solution and refinement used the SHELXTL PLUS
V6.10 program package.39 See Table 1 for selected crystal data.
CCDC reference numbers 262800–262804.
2
=
Preparation of [Os(CH CHPh)(CO)(j -MI)(PPh3)2] (16)
(a) Pale yellow product (72 mg, 77%) obtained by the same
=
general procedure as for 2 from [Os(CH CHPh)Cl(CO)(BTD)-
See http://www.rsc.org/suppdata/dt/b5/b501906k/ for cry-
stallographic data in CIF or other electronic format.
(PPh3)2] (100 mg, 0.098 mmol). (b) [OsHCl(CO)(BTD)(PPh3)2]
(50 mg, 0.055 mmol) and phenylacetylene (12 mg, 0.118 mmol)
were dissolved in dichloromethane (20 mL) and stirred for
10 min to give a deep purple solution. A dichloromethane
solution (5 mL) of 1-methyl-2-mercaptoimidazole (7 mg,
0.061 mmol) was added followed by potassium hydroxide (5 mg,
0.089 mmol) in water (0.5 mL) and ethanol (5 mL) and the
reaction stirred for a further hour. Reduction in solvent volume
(rotary evaporator) yielded a pale yellow product which was
washed with water (5 mL), ethanol (10 mL) and hexane (10 mL).
Yield: 41 mg (78%). The product can be recrystallised from
dichloromethane and ethanol. IR (KBr/Nujol): 1891 [m(CO)],
1309, 1291, 968, 954, 9001, 805 cm−1. IR (CH2Cl2): 1897
Acknowledgements
J. D. E. T. W.-E. gratefully acknowledges the Ramsay Memorial
Trust for provision of a Fellowship. We thank the Department
of Chemistry, the University of London Central Research Fund
and the UCL Graduate School for consumables and Johnson
Matthey Ltd for a generous loan of ruthenium salts.
References
1 H. Werner, M. A. Esteruelas and H. Otto, Organometallics, 1986, 5,
2295.
2 M. R. Torres, A. Vegas, A. Santos and J. Ros, J. Organomet. Chem.,
1986, 309, 169.
3 For an overview of the vinyl and acetylide chemistry of ruthenium(II),
see: A. F. Hill, in Comprehensive Organometallic Chemistry II, ed.
E. W. Abel, F. G. A. Stone and G. Wilkinson, Pergamon, Oxford,
1995, vol. 7.
4 S. Jung, K. Ilg, C. D. Brandt, J. Wolf and H. Werner, Eur. J. Inorg.
Chem., 2004, 469; S. Jung, C. D. Brandt, J. Wolf and H. Werner,
1
[m(CO)] cm−1. 31P{ H} NMR (CDCl3): 16.4 ppm; 1H NMR
(CDCl3): 2.41 [s, NCH3, 3H], 5.35 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH = 1.8 Hz],
5.81 [d, Hb, 1H, JHH = 16.6 Hz], 6.06 [d, NCH, 1H, JHH
=
1.8 Hz], 6.41 [d, ortho-C6H5, 2H, JHH = 7.0 Hz], 6.78 [t, para-
C6H5, 1H, JHH = 7.3 Hz] 6.94 [d, meta-C6H5, 2H, JHH = 7.5 Hz],
7.08, 7.41 [m × 2, C6H5, 30H], 8.36 [dt, Ha, 1H, JHH = 16.6 Hz,
JPH = 3.0 Hz] ppm. FAB-MS m/z (abundance): 957 (0.4) [M]+,
856 (0.6) [M − vinyl]+, 714 (0.5) [M − CO − vinyl − MI]+. Anal.
1 9 3 8
D a l t o n T r a n s . , 2 0 0 5 , 1 9 3 0 – 1 9 3 9

View Article Online
Dalton Trans., 2004, 375; H. Werner, S. Jung, P. Gonzalez-Herrero,
K. Ilg and J. Wolf, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem., 2001, 1957; S. Jung, K. Ilg,
J. Wolf and H. Werner, Organometallics, 2001, 20, 2121; H. Werner,
W. S t u¨er, S. Jung, B. Weberndo¨rfer and J. Wolf, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem.,
2002, 1076; H. Werner, A. Stark, P. Steinert, C. Grunwald and J.
Wolf, Chem. Ber., 1995, 128, 49.
J. Ros and A. Romero, J. Organomet. Chem., 1992, 426, 383; (d) C.
Bohanna, M. A. Esteruelas, F. J. Lahoz, E. On˜ate and L. A. Oro,
Organometallics, 1995, 14, 4685; (e) G. Bellachioma, G. Cardaci,
V. Gramlich, A. Macchioni, F. Pieroni and L. M. Venanzi, J. Chem.
Soc., Dalton Trans., 1998, 947; (f) C. Bohanna, M. A. Esteruelas, F. J.
Lahoz, E. On˜ate and L. A. Oro, Organometallics, 1995, 14, 4685.
12 (a) H. Loumrhari, L. Matas, J. Ros, M. R. Torres and A. Perales,
J. Organomet. Chem., 1991, 403, 373; (b) M. R. Torres, A. Perales,
H. Loumrhari and J. Ros, J. Organomet. Chem., 1990, 384, C61;
(c) M. R. Torres, A. Perales, H. Loumrhari and J. Ros, J. Organomet.
Chem., 1990, 385, 379.
13 H. Loumrhari, J. Ros and M. R. Torres, Polyhedron, 1991, 10, 421.
14 R. B. Bedford and C. S. J. Cazin, J. Organomet. Chem., 2000, 598, 20.
15 A. L. Hector and A. F. Hill, J. Organomet. Chem., 1993, 447, C7.
16 H. Loumrhari, J. Ros, R. Ya´n˜ez and M. R. Torres, J. Organomet.
Chem., 1991, 408, 233.
17 H. Adams, P. E. McHugh, M. J. Morris, S. E. Spey and P. J. Wright,
J. Organomet. Chem., 2001, 619, 209.
18 J. Lo´pez, A. Santos, A. Romero and A. M. Echavarren, J. Organomet.
Chem., 1993, 443, 221.
19 A. Santos, J. Lo´pez, A. Gala´n, J. J. Gonza´lez, P. Tinoco and A. M.
Echavarren, Organometallics, 1997, 16, 3482.
20 U. Bandyopadhyay, K. Biswas and R. K. Banerjee, Toxicol. Lett.,
2002, 128, 117; A. D. Toft, N. Engl. J. Med., 2001, 345, 512; D. S.
Cooper, N. Engl. J. Med., 1984, 311, 1353; E. C. Bartels and R. W.
Sjogren, Clin. Endocrinol., 1951, 11, 1057.
21 (a) D. Li, Y-F. Luo, T. Wu and S. W. Ng, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. E,
2004, 60, 726; (b) A. Silvestri, G. Ruisi and M. A. Girasolo, J. Inorg.
Biochem., 2002, 92, 171; (c) G. Lowe, S. A. Ross, M. Probert and A.
Cowley, Chem. Commun., 2001, 1288; (d) J. Jolley, W. I. Cross, R. G.
Pritchard, C. A. McAuliffe and K. B. Nolan, Inorg. Chim. Acta.,
2001, 315, 36; (e) R. S. Balestrero, D. M. Forkey and J. G. Russell,
Magn. Reson. Chem., 1986, 24, 651; (f) R. A. McAllister, Nature,
1952, 169, 708.
22 The BTD complexes were prepared using the same procedure
reported for the BSD (2,1,3-benzoselenadiazole) analogues, in N. W.
Alcock, A. F. Hill and M. S. Roe, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1990,
1737.
5 R. Castarlenas, M. A. Esteruelas and E. On˜ate, Organometallics,
2001, 20, 2294; M. A. Esteruelas, C. Garc´ıa-Yebra, M. Oliva´n,
E. On˜ate and M. Tajada, Organometallics, 2000, 19, 5098; R.
Castarlenas, M. A. Esteruelas and E. On˜ate, Organometallics, 2000,
19, 5454; M. L. Buil, M. A. Esteruelas, C. Garc´ıa-Yebra, E.
Gutie´rrez-Puebla and M. Oliva´n, Organometallics, 2000, 19, 2184;
C. Bohanna, M. L. Buil, M. A. Esteruelas, E. On˜ate and C.
Valero, Organometallics, 1999, 18, 5176; C. Bohanna, B. Callejas,
A. J. Edwards, M. A. Esteruelas, F. J. Lahoz, L. A. Oro, N. Ruiz
and C. Valero, Organometallics, 1998, 17, 373; M. A. Esteruelas,
A. V. Go´mez, A. M. Lo´pez and E. On˜ate, Organometallics, 1998,
17, 3567; M. A. Esteruelas, F. Liu, E. On˜ate, E. Sola and B.
Zeier, Organometallics, 1997, 16, 2919; M. L. Buil, S. Elipe, M. A.
Esteruelas, E. On˜ate, E. Peinado and N. Ruiz, Organometallics, 1997,
16, 5748; M. A. Esteruelas, F. J. Lahoz, E. On˜ate, L. A. Oro and E.
Sola, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1996, 118, 89; C. Bohanna, M. A. Esteruelas,
J. Herrero, A. M. Lo´pez and L. A. Oro, J. Organomet. Chem., 1995,
498, 199; C. Bohanna, M. A. Esteruelas, F. J. Lahoz, E. On˜ate, L. A.
Oro and E. Sola, Organometallics, 1995, 14, 4825.
6 B. Go´mez-Lor, A. Santos, M. Ruiz and A. M. Echavarren, Eur. J. In-
org. Chem., 2001, 2305; A. M. Castan˜o, A. M. Echavarren, J. Lo´pez
and A. Santos, J. Organomet. Chem., 1989, 379, 171; J. Montoya,
A. Santos, A. M. Echavarren and J. Ros, J. Organomet. Chem.,
1990, 390, C57; H. Loumrhari, J. Ros, M. R. Torres, A. Santos
and A. M. Echavarren, J. Organomet. Chem., 1991, 411, 255; J.
Montoya, A. Santos, J. Lo´pez, A. M. Echavarren, J. Ros and A.
Romero, J. Organomet. Chem., 1992, 426, 383; J. Lo´pez, A. Romero,
A. Santos, A. Vegas, A. M. Echavarren and P. Noheda, J. Organomet.
Chem., 1989, 373, 249.
7 A. Pedersen, M. Tilset, K. Folting and K. G. Caulton,
Organometallics, 1995, 14, 875; A. V. Marchenko, H. Ge´rard, O.
Eisenstein and K. G. Caulton, New. J. Chem., 2001, 25, 1244;
A. V. Marchenko, H. Ge´rard, O. Eisenstein and K. G. Caulton,
New. J. Chem., 2001, 25, 1382.
23 J. Lo´pez, A. Romero, A. Santos, A. Vegas, A. M. Echavarren and P.
Noheda, J. Organomet. Chem., 1989, 373, 249.
8 (a) A. F. Hill, A. J. P. White, D. J. Williams and J. D. E. T. Wilton-
Ely, Organometallics, 1998, 17, 4249; (b) N. W. Alcock, A. F. Hill
and R. P. Melling, Organometallics, 1991, 10, 3898; (c) A. F. Hill
and J. D. E. T. Wilton-Ely, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1999, 3501;
(d) J. C. Cannadine, A. F. Hill, A. J. P. White, D. J. Williams and
J. D. E. T. Wilton-Ely, Organometallics, 1996, 15, 5409; (e) A. F. Hill,
A. J. P. White, D. J. Williams and J. D. E. T. Wilton-Ely, unpublished
results; (f) A. F. Hill, C. T. Ho and J. D. E. T. Wilton-Ely, Chem.
Commun., 1997, 2207; (g) J. Cannadine, A. Hector and A. F. Hill,
Organometallics, 1992, 11, 2323.
9 R. B. Bedford, A. F. Hill and C. Jones, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl.,
1996, 35, 547; R. B. Bedford, A. F. Hill, C. Jones, A. J. P. White, D. J.
Williams and J. D. E. T. Wilton-Ely, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans.,
1997, 139; R. B. Bedford, A. F. Hill, C. Jones, A. J. P. White, D. J.
Williams and J. D. E. T. Wilton-Ely, Chem. Commun., 1997, 179;
A. F. Hill, C. Jones, A. J. P. White, D. J. Williams and J. D. E. T.
Wilton-Ely, Chem. Commun., 1998, 367; A. F. Hill, C. Jones, A. J. P.
White, D. J. Williams and J. D. E. T. Wilton-Ely, J. Chem. Soc.,
Dalton Trans., 1998, 1419; R. B. Bedford, A. F. Hill, C. Jones, A. J. P.
White, D. J. Williams and J. D. E. T. Wilton-Ely, Organometallics,
1998, 17, 4744; A. F. Hill, C. Jones and J. D. E. T. Wilton-Ely, Chem.
Commun., 1999, 451.
24 (a) A. Romero, A. Santos, J. Lo´pez and A. M. Echavarren,
J. Organomet. Chem., 1990, 391, 219; (b) M. R. Torres, A. Santos, A.
Perales and J. Ros, J. Organomet. Chem., 1988, 353, 221.
25 A. F. Hill, M. C. J. Harris and R. P. Melling, Polyhedron, 1992, 11,
781.
26 S. T. Nguyen, L. K. Johnson, R. H. Grubbs and J. W. Ziller, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 1992, 114, 3974.
27 M. C. J. Harris and A. F. Hill, J. Organomet. Chem., 1992, 438, 209.
28 I. M. Lyapkalo, M. Webel and H.-U. Reibig, Eur. J. Org. Chem.,
2002, 3646; R. Tamura, M. Kato, K. Saegusa, M. Kakihana and D.
Oda, J. Org. Chem., 1987, 52, 4121.
29 W. R. Roper and L. J. Wright, J. Organomet. Chem., 1977, 142, C1;
C. E. F. Rickard, W. R. Roper, G. E. Taylor, J. M. Waters and L. J.
Wright, J. Organomet. Chem., 1990, 389, 375.
30 S. M. Maddock, C. E. F. Rickard, W. R. Roper and L. J. Wright,
Organometallics, 1996, 15, 1793.
31 R. B. Bedford, A F. Hill, A. R. Thompsett, A. J. P. White and D. J.
Williams, Chem. Commun., 1996, 1059.
32 A. F. Hill and R. P. Melling, J. Organomet. Chem., 1990, 396, C22.
33 L. Vaska, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1964, 86, 1943.
34 A. Coto, I. de los R´ıos, M. Jime´nez Tenorio, C. Puerta and P. Valerga,
J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1999, 4309.
10 The BTD complexes were prepared using the same procedure re-
ported for the BSD (2,1,3-benzoselenadiazole) analogues, in M. C. J.
Harris and A. F. Hill, Organometallics, 1991, 10, 3903.
11 (a) J. Montoya, A. Santos, A. M. Echavarren and J. Ros,
J. Organomet. Chem., 1990, 390, C57; (b) H. Loumrhari, J. Ros, M. R.
Torres, A. Santos and A. M. Echavarren, J. Organomet. Chem., 1991,
411, 255; (c) J. Montoya, A. Santos, J. Lo´pez, A. M. Echavarren,
35 N. Kuhnert, N. Burzlaff, E. Dombrowski and W. A. Schenk,
Z. Naturforsch., Teil B, 2002, 57, 259.
36 C. J. Adams and S. J. A. Pope, Inorg. Chem., 2004, 43, 3492.
37 K. R. Laing and W. R. Roper, J. Chem. Soc. A, 1970, 2149.
38 M. R. Torres, A. Vegas, A. Santos and J. Ros, J. Organomet. Chem.,
1987, 326, 413.
39 SHELTXTL V 6.10 Bruker AXS, 2000.
D a l t o n T r a n s . , 2 0 0 5 , 1 9 3 0 – 1 9 3 9
1 9 3 9