160
J. Shi et al. / Inorganic Chemistry Communications 46 (2014) 159–162
to produce various N-arylated amines. Herein we report their syntheses,
crystal structures and catalytic properties.
Å) [8b]. The average Ni\N bond length (2.074(2) Å) is close to that
observed in [Ni (sppm) ](BPh (2.065(3) Å) [8c].
Compound 3·CH Cl ·0.5MeOH crystallizes in the monoclinic space
group P2/c, and its asymmetric unit contains one discrete [Ni(Tab)
3
4
4 2
)
As shown in Scheme S1, treatment of NiCl
,2′-bipy followed by addition of one equiv. of 1 in MeOH and MeCN
at room temperature afforded one trinuclear cationic complex 2 in
0% yield. Analogous reactions of NiCl ·6H O with dppe and
Zn(Tab) ](PF or Ni(ClO ·6H O with dppb and [Zn(Tab) ](PF
2 2
·6H O with 2 equiv. of
2
2
2
2
(dppe)]2 dication, two PF
+
−
anions, one CH Cl
2 2
solvent molecule and
6
8
2
2
half a MeOH solvent molecule. In the dication of 3, the Ni(1) center
has a square planar environment, coordinated by two S atoms from
two Tab ligands and two P atoms of a dppe ligand (Fig. 2). The average
Ni\S bond distance (2.2090(12) Å) in 3 (Table S2) is comparable to
those found in square planarly-coordinated Ni(II) complexes such as
[
4
6
)
2
4
)
2
2
4
6 2
)
under the similar reaction conditions afforded a mononuclear cationic
complex 3 in 85% yield and a dinuclear cationic complex 4 in 87%
yield. The reason that the above three metal and ligand substitution
reactions could be realized may be due to the facts that Ni(II) in 2–4
may have the higher thiolate binding ability than Zn(II) in 1 and the
N- or P-donor ligands (2,2′-bipy, dppe, dppb) in 2–4 are stronger than
Tab in 1. Complexes 2–4 are stable toward oxygen and moisture. They
[Ni(SAr)
Ar = 2-methylphenyl) [6a], [(dppe)Ni(Me)(SPh)] (2.2016(12) Å) [5],
and [Ni(SC HF (dppe)] (2.2112(15) Å) [6c]. The Ni\P bond length
(2.1820(12) Å) is close to that observed in [Ni(SC HF (dppe)]
(2.1766(14) Å) [6b], but shorter than those found in [Ni(SPh) (PMe
2 3 2
(PMe ) ] (2.2138(5) Å for Ar = phenyl; 2.2116(7) Å, for
6
4 2
)
6
4 2
)
are insoluble in toluene, hexane, and Et
2
O, but soluble in MeCN,
2
3 2
) ]
MeOH, DMSO and DMF. Their elemental analyses were consistent
with their chemical formula. The electronic spectrum of 2, 3 or 4 in
MeCN exhibited a strong and broad adsorption at 295 nm (2), 303 nm
(2.2199(7) Å) [6a]. The S(1)\Ni(1)\S(2) and P(1)\Ni(1)\P(2) bond
angles (99.40(4)° vs 86.36(4)°) in 3 are enlarged compared with those
of the corresponding ones of the similar Ni(II) complex [Ni(SC HF )
6 4 2
(
(
3), or 299 nm (4) (Fig. S1), which might be ascribed to the ligand
Tab)-to-metal charge transfer (LMCT) [21].
(dppe)] (92.31(6)° vs 85.78(5)°) [6b].
2 2
Compound 4·2(CH Cl )0.5 crystallizes in the triclinic space group Pī,
+
Compound 2·2.5MeCN crystallizes in the triclinic space group Pī,
and its asymmetric unit consists of one [Ni
2
(μ-Tab)
anions, and two halves of
solvent molecules. The tetracation of 4 consists of a dimeric
structure in which two [(Tab)Ni] fragments are connected by a pair of
μ-Tab ligands and one dppb ligand (Fig. 3). The resulting Ni core
structure is similar to those found in other dinuclear nickel(II) com-
plexes such as [Ni {(2,6-Ph PCH S} ][PF [7]. Ni(1) or Ni(2)
2 2
(Tab)
(dppb)]4
6
+
−
−
and its asymmetric unit contains one [Ni
hexacation, five and one-half of PF
3
(μ-Tab)
4
(2,2′-bipy)
4
]
tetracation, two PF
CH Cl
6 4
anions, two ClO
−
−
6
anions, one-half of a Cl ion, and
2
2
two and one-half of MeCN solvent molecules. The internal Ni(2) atom
in this hexacation is connected to two Ni(II) atoms, Ni(1) and Ni(3),
by two pairs of bridging Tab ligands, forming a trinuclear linear struc-
ture (Fig. 1). The central Ni(2) center adopts a square planar coordina-
tion geometry, coordinated by four S atoms of four μ-Tab ligands,
while the terminal Ni(1) or Ni(3) center is octahedrally coordinated
by two S atoms from two μ-Tab ligands and four N atoms from two
2 2
S
2
2
2
)
2
C
6
H
3
2
6 2
]
center in 4 again takes a square planar coordination geometry, coor-
dinated by three S atoms from one terminal and two μ-Tab ligands
and one P atom from one dppb ligand. The mean Ni–μ–S bond dis-
tance (2.2236(17) Å) (Table S2) in 4 is slightly longer than the cor-
responding one of 2. The Ni\P bond length (2.172(5) Å) in 4 is
2
,2′-bipy ligands. The mean terminal Ni–μ–S bond distance
2.4419(11) Å) (Table S2) is slightly longer than those of the corre-
sponding ones in complex [Ni (sppm) ](BPh (2.401(3) Å; sppm =
2-sulfanylphenyl)bis(pyrazolyl)methane) [8c]. This elongation may
(
3
4
)
4 2
2 2 2 2 6 3 2 6 2
close to those observed in [Ni {(2,6-Ph PCH ) C H S} ][PF ]
(
(2.183(2) Å) [7], but longer than that in 3. The terminal Ni\S bond
length (2.185(5) Å) is shorter than the corresponding value in 3.
The Ni(1)⋯Ni(2) contact is 2.8199(12) Å, which is much shorter
be due to large steric hindrance caused by the bulky 2,2′-bipy ligand
and the Tab ligand. The mean Ni(2)–μ–S bond length (2.2153(10) Å)
is shorter than that of [Ni
parable to those found in [{Ni(μ-SiPr)(μ-mtet)}
methylthioethanethiolate), [Ni{Ni(NH CH
3
(sppm)
4
](BPh
4
)
2
(2.270(3) Å) [8c], but com-
] (2.210(1) Å; mtet =2-
CH S) }]Cl (2.212(4)
than those observed in 2 and [Ni
2
{(2,6-Ph
2
PCH
2
)
2
C
6
H
(bss)
3
S}
2
][PF
](BF
6
]
2
6
(3.1959(12) Å) [7], but longer than that found in [Ni
(2.784(2) Å) [8a].
3
4
4
)
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fig. 1. View of the [Ni
scheme and 50% thermal ellipsoids. All H atoms were omitted for clarity.
3
(Tab)
4
(2,2′-bipy)
4
]6+ hexacation structure of 2 with a labeling
Fig. 2. View of the [Ni(Tab)
50% thermal ellipsoids. All H atoms were omitted for clarity.
(dppe)]2+ dication structure of 3 with a labeling scheme and
2