Transition‐Metal Complexes [(PMe3)2Cl2M(E)] and [(PMe3)2(CO)2M(E)] with Naked Group 14 Atoms (E=C–Sn) as Ligands; Part 2: Complexation with W(CO)5 |
| |
Authors: | Pattiyil Parameswaran Dr Gernot Frenking Prof?Dr |
| |
Institution: | Fachbereich Chemie, Philipps‐Universit?t Marburg, Hans‐Meerwein‐Strasse, 35032 Marburg (Germany) |
| |
Abstract: | Density functional calculations at the BP86/TZ2P level were carried out to understand the ligand properties of the 16‐valence‐electron(VE) Group 14 complexes (PMe3)2Cl2M(E)] ( 1ME ) and the 18‐VE Group 14 complexes (PMe3)2(CO)2M(E)] ( 2ME ; M=Fe, Ru, Os; E=C, Si, Ge, Sn) in complexation with W(CO)5. Calculations were also carried out for the complexes (CO)5W–EO. The complexes (PMe3)2Cl2M(E)] and (PMe3)2(CO)2M(E)] bind strongly to W(CO)5 yielding the adducts 1ME–W(CO)5 and 2ME–W(CO)5 , which have C2v equilibrium geometries. The bond strengths of the heavier Group 14 ligands 1ME (E=Si–Sn) are uniformly larger, by about 6–7 kcal mol?1, than those of the respective EO ligand in (CO)5W‐EO, while the carbon complexes 1MC–W(CO)5 have comparable bond dissociation energies (BDE) to CO. The heavier 18‐VE ligands 2ME (E=Si–Sn) are about 23–25 kcal mol?1 more strongly bonded than the associated EO ligand, while the BDE of 2MC is about 17–21 kcal mol?1 larger than that of CO. Analysis of the bonding with an energy‐decomposition scheme reveals that 1ME is isolobal with EO and that the nature of the bonding in 1ME–W(CO)5 is very similar to that in (CO)5W–EO. The ligands 1ME are slightly weaker π acceptors than EO while the π‐acceptor strength of 2ME is even lower. |
| |
Keywords: | bonding analysis density functional calculations Group 14 elements isolobal relationship transition metals |
|
|