Synthesis, characterization, and reactivity of half-sandwich Ru(II) complexes containing phosphine, arsine, stibine, and bismutine ligands

The synthesis and some reactions of the Ru(II) and Ru(IV) half-sandwich complexes [RuCp(EPh3)(CH3CN)2]+ (E=P, As, Sb, Bi) and [RuCp(EPh3)(η3-C3H5)Br]+ have been investigated. The chemistry of this class of compounds is characterized by a competitive coordination of EPh3 either via a RuE or a η6-arene bond, where the latter is favored when the former is weaker, that is in going down the series. Thus in the case of Bi, the starting material [RuCp(CH3CN)3]+ does not react with BiPh3 to give [RuCp(BiPh3)(CH3CN)2]+ but instead gives only the η6-arene species [RuCp(η6-PhBiPh2)]+ and [(RuCp)2(μ-η6,η6-Ph2BiPh)]2+. Similarly, the EPh3 ligand can be replaced by an aromatic solvent or an arene substrate. Thus, the catalytic performance of [RuCp(EPh3)(CH3CN)2]+ for the isomerization of allyl-phenyl ethers to the corresponding 1-propenyl ethers is best with E=P, while the conversion drops significantly using the As and Sb derivatives. By the same token, only [RuCp(PPh3)(CH3CN)2]+ is stable in a non-aromatic solvent, whereas both [RuCp(AsPh3)(CH3CN)2]+ and [RuCp(SbPh3)(CH3CN)2]+ rearrange upon warming to [RuCp(η6-PhEPh2)]+ and related compounds. In addition, the potential of [RuCp(EPh3)(CH3CN)2]+ as precatalysts for the transfer hydrogenation of acetophenone and cyclohexanone has been investigated. Again aromatic substrates are clearly less suited than non-aromatic ones due to facile η6-arene coordination leading to catalystʹs deactivation.