Crystal and molecular structures of dppm-bridged diiron dithiolate complexes [Fe 2(CO) 4(μ-SAr) 2(μ-dppm)] (Ar=Ph, p-tol; Ar 2=CN– p-tol)

Crystallographic studies have been carried out on three bis(diphenylphosphino)methane (dppm) bridged diiron dithiolate complexes. Both [Fe 2(CO) 4(μ-SAr) 2(μ-dppm)] (Ar=Ph, p-tol) adopt the expected anti configuration, while [Fe 2(CO) 4{μ-SC(N– p-tol)S}(μ-dppm)] is constrained to be syn. In each th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of organometallic chemistry 2003-04, Vol.672 (1), p.29-33
Main Authors: Hogarth, Graeme, O'Brien, Matthew, Tocher, Derek A
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Carbonyl
Diphosphine
Dithiolate
Iron
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Crystallographic studies have been carried out on three bis(diphenylphosphino)methane (dppm) bridged diiron dithiolate complexes. Both [Fe 2(CO) 4(μ-SAr) 2(μ-dppm)] (Ar=Ph, p-tol) adopt the expected anti configuration, while [Fe 2(CO) 4{μ-SC(N– p-tol)S}(μ-dppm)] is constrained to be syn. In each the diphosphine lies trans to one of the bridging sulfurs but this has no significant effect on the iron–sulfur bond lengths. Crystallographic studies have been carried out on three bis(diphenylphosphino)methane (dppm) bridged diiron dithiolate complexes. Both [Fe 2(CO) 4(μ-SAr) 2(μ-dppm)] (Ar=Ph, p-tol) adopt the expected anti configuration, while [Fe 2(CO) 4{μ-SC(N– p-tol)S}(μ-dppm)] is constrained to be syn. In each the diphosphine lies trans to one of the bridging sulfurs but this has no significant effect on the iron–sulfur bond lengths.
ISSN:0022-328X
1872-8561
DOI:10.1016/S0022-328X(03)00136-0