posted on 2015-09-30, 00:00authored byMatthew
P. Blake, Nikolas Kaltsoyannis, Philip Mountford
Reduction
of Fp<sub>2</sub> (Fp = CpFe(CO)<sub>2</sub>) or [Co(CO)<sub>3</sub>(PCy<sub>3</sub>)]<sub>2</sub> (<b>15</b>) with Mg-mercury
amalgam gave [Mg{TM(L)}<sub>2</sub>(THF)]<sub>2</sub> (TM(L) = Fp
or Co(CO)<sub>3</sub>(PCy<sub>3</sub>) (<b>19</b>)) in which
the TM is bonded to two Mg atoms. Reduction of <b>15</b> with
Ca-, Sr-, Ba-, Yb-, Eu- and Sm-mercury amalgam gave a series of compounds
“M{Co(CO)<sub>3</sub>(PCy<sub>3</sub>)}<sub>2</sub>(THF)<sub><i>n</i></sub>” (M = Ae or Ln) in which the M–Co
bonding varies with the charge-to-size ratio of M. For M = Ca or Yb
(<b>24</b>), each metal forms one M–Co bond and one M(μ-OC)Co
η<sup>1</sup>-isocarbonyl linkage. With M = Sr (<b>21</b>) or Eu (<b>25</b>), a switch from M–Co bonding to side-on
(η<sup>2</sup>) CO ligand coordination is found. Sm<sup>II</sup>{Co(CO)<sub>3</sub>(PCy<sub>3</sub>)}<sub>2</sub>(THF)<sub>3</sub> disproportionates in pentane to form Sm<sup>III</sup>{Co(CO)<sub>3</sub>(PCy<sub>3</sub>)}<sub>3</sub>(THF)<sub>3</sub> containing
two Sm<sup>III</sup>–Co bonds, in contrast with <b>25</b>, showing the importance of the Ln charge on Ln–TM bonding.
Diffusion NMR spectroscopy found that in solution, <b>21</b> and <b>24</b> are dimeric compounds [M{Co(CO)<sub>3</sub>(PCy<sub>3</sub>)}<sub>2</sub>(THF)<sub>3</sub>]<sub>2</sub> that, according
to DFT calculations, contain either one (Ae = Ca) or two (Ae = Sr)
Ae–Co bonds per Co atom. DFT calculations in combination with
Ziegler Rauk energy decomposition and atoms in molecules analysis
were used to assess the nature and energy of Ae–Co bonding
in a series of model compounds. The Ae–Co interaction energies
decrease from Be to Sr, and toward the bottom of the group, side-on
(η<sup>2</sup>) CO ligand coordination competes with Ae–Co
bonding. The PCy<sub>3</sub> ligand plays a pivotal role by increasing
solubility in nondonor solvents and the Ae–Co interaction energy.