Coordination chemistry of 4-methyl-2,6,7-trioxa-1-phosphabicyclo[2,2,1]heptane: preparation and characterization of Ru(II) complexes

The complexes TpRuP(OCH(2))(2)(OCCH(3)](PPh(3))Cl (2) Tp = hydridotris(pyrazolyl)borate; P(OCH(2))(2)(OCCH(3)) (1) = (4-methyl-2,6,7-trioxa-1-phosphabicyclo2,2,1]heptane] and TpRu(L)(PPh(3))Cl L = P(OCH(2))(3)CEt (3), PMe(3) (4) or P(OMe)(3) (5)], (η(6)-C(6)H(6))Ru(L)Cl(2) L = PPh(3) (6), P(OMe)(3) (7), PMe(3) (8), P(OCH(2))(3)CEt (9), CO (10) or P(OCH(2))(2)(OCCH(3)) (11)] and (η(6)-p-cymene)Ru(L)Cl(2) L = P(OCH(2))(3)CEt (12), P(OCH(2))(2)(OCCH(3))P(OCH(2))(2)(OCCH(3)) (13), P(OMe)(3) (14) or PPh(3) (15)] have been synthesized, isolated, and characterized by NMR spectroscopy, cyclic voltammetry, mass spectrometry, and, for some complexes, single crystal X-ray diffraction. Data from cyclic voltammetry and solid-state structures have been used to compare the properties of (1) with other phosphorus-based ligands as well as carbon monoxide. Data from the solid-state structures of Ru(II) complexes show that P(OCH(2))(2)(OCCH(3)) has a cone angle of 104°. Cyclic voltammetry data reveal that the Ru(II) complexes bearing P(OCH(2))(2)(OCCH(3)) have more positive Ru(III/II) redox potentials than analogous complexes with the other phosphorus ligands; however, the Ru(III/II) potential for (η(6)-C(6)H(6))RuP(OCH(2))(2)(OCCH(3))]Cl(2) is more negative compared to the Ru(III/II) potential for the CO complex (η(6)-C(6)H(6))Ru(CO)Cl(2). For the Ru(II) complexes studied herein, these data are consistent with the overall donor ability of 1 being less than other common phosphines (e.g., PMe(3) or PPh(3)) or phosphites e.g., P(OCH(2))(3)CEt or P(OMe)(3)] but greater than carbon monoxide.