Electronic and Structural Comparisons between Iron(II/III) and Ruthenium(II/III) Imide Analogs.

To examine structural and electronic differences between iron and ruthenium imido complexes, a series of compounds was prepared with different phosphine basal sets. The starting material for the ruthenium complexes was Ru(NAr/Ar*)(PMe3)3 (Ru1/Ru1*), where Ar = 2,6-(iPr)2C6H3 and Ar* = 2,4,6-(iPr)3C6H2, which were prepared from cis-RuCl2(PMe3)4 and 2 equiv of LiNHAr/Ar*. The starting materials for the iron complexes were the analogous Fe(NAr/Ar*)(PMe3)3 species (Fe1/Fe1*), which were not isolated but could be generated in situ from FeCl2, PMe3, and LiNHAr/Ar*. With both iron and ruthenium, the PMe3 starting materials underwent phosphine replacement with chelating ligands to give new group 8 imido complexes in the +2 oxidation state. Addition of 1,2-bis(diphenylphosphino)ethane (dppe) to M1/M1* gave Ru(NAr/Ar*)(PMe3)(dppe) and Fe(NAr/Ar*)(PMe3)(dppe). Addition of 1,2-bis(dimethylphosphino)ethane (dmpe) provided Ru(NAr/Ar*)(dmpe)2. A triphos ligand, {P(Me)2CH2}3SitBu (tP3), was also examined. Addition of tP3 to Fe1 provided Fe(NAr)(tP3) (Fe4), but a similar reaction with Ru1 only gave intractable materials. Oxidation of Fe4 with AgSbF6 gave {Fe(NAr)(tP3)}+SbF6- (Fe4a). Oxidation of Ru2 with AgSbF6 gave the unstable cation {Ru(NAr)(PMe3)(dppe)}+, which dimerized in the presence of acetonitrile via C-C bond formation at the aryl group C4 positions, affording {Ru(NAr)(PMe3)(NCMe)(dppe)}2+. This suggested that there was substantial radical character in the imide π system on oxidation and that an aromatic group substituted at the 4-position might provide greater stability. The cations {Fe(NAr*)(PMe3)(dppe)}+ (Fe2a*), {Ru(NAr*)(PMe3)(dppe)}+ (Ru2a*), and Fe4a were examined by EPR spectroscopy, which suggested differences in electronic structure depending on the metal and ligand set. CASPT2 calculations on model systems for Ru2a* and Fe2a* suggested that the large differences in electronic structure are related to the energy gap between the π-antibonding HOMO and the π-bonding HOMO-1. Both the geometry of the phosphines, which is slightly different between the iron and ruthenium analogs, and the metal center seem to contribute to this energetic difference.