posted on 2013-02-18, 00:00authored byJuan Forniés, Consuelo Fortuño, Susana Ibáñez, Antonio Martín, Piero Mastrorilli, Vito Gallo, Athanassios Tsipis
The reaction of [NBu4][(C6F5)2Pt(μ-PPh2)2Pt(μ-PPh2)2Pt(O,O-acac)]
(48 VEC) with [HPPh3][ClO4] gives the 46 VEC
unsaturated [(C6F5)2Pt1(μ-PPh2)2Pt2(μ-PPh2)2Pt3(PPh3)](Pt2–Pt3) (1), a trinuclear compound endowed
with a Pt–Pt bond. This compound displays amphiphilic behavior
and reacts easily with nucleophiles L, yielding the saturated complexes
[(C6F5)2PtII(μ-PPh2)2PtII(μ-PPh2)2PtII(PPh3)L] [L = PPh3 (2), py (3)]. The reaction with the electrophile
[Ag(OClO3)PPh3] affords the adduct 1·AgPPh3, which evolves, even at low temperature,
to a mixture in which [(C6F5)2PtIII(μ-PPh2)2PtIII(μ-PPh2)2PtII(PPh3)2]2+(PtIII–PtIII) and 2 (plus silver metal) are present. The nucleophilic nature of 1 is also demonstrated through its reaction with cis-[Pt(C6F5)2(THF)2], which
results in the formation of [Pt4(μ-PPh2)4(C6F5)4(PPh3)] (4). The structure and NMR features indicate that 1 can be better considered as a PtII–PtIII–PtI complex instead of a PtII–PtII–PtII derivative. Theoretical
calculations (density functional theory) on similar model compounds
are in agreement with the assigned oxidation states of the metal centers.
The strong intermetallic interactions resulting in a Pt2–Pt3 metal–metal bond and the respective
bonding mechanism were verified by employing a multitude of computational
techniques (natural bond order analysis, the Laplacian of the electron
density, and localized orbital locator profiles).