| Abstract: | The reaction of (η5‐L3)Ru(PPh3)2Cl], where; L3 = C9H7 ( 1 ), C5Me5 (Cp*) ( 2 ) with acetonitrile in the presence of NH4]PF6] yielded cationic complexes (η5‐L3)Ru(PPh3)2(CH3CN)]PF6]; L3= C9H7 (3]PF6) and L3 = C5Me5 (4]PF6), respectively. Complexes 3]PF6 and 4]PF6 reacts with some polypyridyl ligands viz, 2,3‐bis (α‐pyridyl) pyrazine (bpp), 2,3‐bis (α‐pyridyl) quinoxaline (bpq) yielding the complexes of the formulation (η5‐L3)Ru(PPh3)(L2)]PF6 where; L3 = C9H7, L2 = bpp, (5]PF6), L3 = C9H7, L2 = bpq, (6]PF6); L3 = C5Me5, L2 = bpp, (7]PF6) and bpq, (8]PF6), respectively. However reaction of (η5‐C9H7)Ru(PPh3)2(CH3CN)]PF6] (3]PF6) with the sterically demanding polypyridyl ligands, viz. 2,4,6‐tris(2‐pyridyl)‐1,3,5‐triazine (tptz) or tetra‐2‐pyridyl‐1,4‐pyrazine (tppz) leads to the formation of unexpected complexes Ru(PPh3)2(L2)(CH3CN)]PF6]2; L2 = tppz (9](PF6)2), tptz (11](PF6)2) and Ru(PPh3)2(L2)Cl]PF6]; L2 = tppz (10]PF6), tptz (12]PF6). The complexes were isolated as their hexafluorophosphate salts. They have been characterized on the basis of micro analytical and spectroscopic data. The crystal structures of the representative complexes were established by X‐ray crystallography. |
