Azooximates of bi- and tri-valent nickel 

Abstract

The reaction of arylazooximes, RC(NOH)NNPh (HL^R, R = Me or Ph), with nickel(II) acetate tetrahydrate in methanol under anaerobic conditions afforded [NiL^R₃]^- isolated as the NEt₄⁺ salt. One (L^Ph)^- ligand in [NiL^Ph₃]^- underwent facile displacement by L–L ligands like 2,2′-bipyridine (bipy) furnishing [NiL^Ph₂(bipy)]. The Ni^III–Ni^II reduction potential of [NiL^R₃]^- in acetonitrile is ≈ 0.1 V vs. saturated calomel electrode. The trivalent complex [NiL^R₃] was quantitatively isolated via constant-potential electrolysis at 0.3 V. The Ni^IV–Ni^III couple of the tris chelate was observed near 0.9 V, but the nickel(IV) complex could not be isolated in the solid state. The relatively low metal reduction potential allowing facile preparation of the stable [NiL^R₃] system is attributed to the strong-field nature of the oximato-N atom. In going from [NiL^Ph₃]^- to [NiL^Ph₂(bipy)] the Ni^III–Ni^II reduction potential increases by ≈ 0.3 V showing that (L^Ph)^- is a much better stabiliser of Ni^III than is bipy. The crystal structures of [NEt₄][NiL^Ph₃] and [NiL^Ph₂(bipy)] have been determined. The geometry of [NiL^R₃] (S = ½) was studied with the help of its EPR spectrum (d_z² ground state) in the [CoL^R₃] lattice. Both [NiL^R₃]^- and [NiL^R₃] have exclusive meridional geometry consistent with steric and angular-overlap considerations. In [NiL^Ph₂(bipy)] the two anionic oximato functions are placed in mutually trans positions. The oximato-N ligand displays substantial trans influence. Thus in [NiL^Ph₃]^- the Ni–N (azo) bond lying trans to Ni–N (oxime) is ≈ 0.05 Å longer than the other two mutually trans Ni–N (azo) bonds. The average Ni–N (azo) distance in [NiL^Ph₂(bipy)] is ≈ 0.04 Å shorter than that in [NiL^Ph₃]^- because none of the Ni–N (azo) bonds in the former complex is subject to the trans influence of Ni–N (oxime). In both complexes the Ni–N (oxime) lengths are significantly shorter than the Ni–N (azo) lengths, consistent with stronger Ni–N (oxime) σ bonding which is also a reason behind the strong-field nature of the oximate ligand.

References

1. (a) K. Nag and A. Chakravorty, Coord. Chem. Rev., 1980, 33, 87; (b) R. I. Haines and A. McAuley, Coord. Chem. Rev., 1981, 39, 77; (c) A. Chakravorty, Isr. J. Chem., 1985, 25, 99; (d) A. G. Lappin and A. McAuley, Adv. Inorg. Chem., 1988, 32, 241.
2. (a) E. I. Baucom and R. S. Drago, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1971, 93, 6469; (b) R. S. Drago and E. I. Baucom, Inorg. Chem., 1972, 11, 2064; (c) G. Sproul and G. D. Stucky, Inorg. Chem., 1973, 12, 2898; (d) H.-J. Krüger and R. H. Holm, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1990, 112, 2955; (e) H.-J. Krüger, G. Peng and R. H. Holm, Inorg. Chem., 1991, 30, 734; (f) V. V. Pavlishchuk, A. W. Addison, R. J. Butcher and R. P. F. Kanters, Inorg. Chem., 1994, 33, 397.
3. (a) J. G. Mohanty and A. Chakravorty, Inorg. Chem., 1976, 15, 2912; (b) A. N. Singh and A. Chakravorty, Inorg. Chem., 1980, 19, 969; (c) S. B. Choudhury, D. Ray and A. Chakravorty, Inorg. Chem., 1991, 30, 4354.
4. (a) R. K. Panda, S. Acharya, G. Neogi and D. Ramaswamy, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1983, 1225; (b) S. Acharya, G. Neogi and R. K. Panda, Inorg. Chem., 1984, 23, 4393.
5. D. Ray and A. Chakravorty, Inorg. Chem., 1988, 27, 3292.
6. (a) P. Bandyopadhyay, P. K. Mascharak and A. Chakravorty, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1981, 623; (b) D. Bandyopadhyay, P. Bandyopadhyay, A. Chakravorty, F. A. Cotton and L. R. Falvello, Inorg. Chem., 1983, 22, 1315; (c) D. Bandyopadhyay, P. Bandyopadhyay, A. Chakravorty, F. A. Cotton and L. R. Falvello, Inorg. Chem., 1984, 23, 1785; (d) C. K. Pal, S. Chattopadhyay, C. Sinha and A. Chakravorty, Inorg. Chem., 1994, 33, 6140; (e) C. K. Pal, S. Chattopadhyay, C. Sinha and A. Chakravorty, Inorg. Chem., 1996, 35, 2442.
7. L. Malatesta and R. Pizzotti, Gazz. Chim. Ital., 1946, 76, 141.
8. C. K. Johnson, ORTEP, Report ORNL-5138, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 1976.
9. (a) M. H. Dickman and R. J. Doedens, Inorg. Chem., 1980, 19, 3112; (b) A. R. Chakravarty, A. Chakravorty, F. A. Cotton, L. R. Falvello, B. K. Ghosh and M. Tomas, Inorg. Chem., 1983, 22, 1892; (c) S. Pal, T. Melton, R. N. Mukherjee, A. R. Chakravarty, M. Tomas, L. R. Falvello and A. Chakravorty, Inorg. Chem., 1985, 24, 1250; (d) S. Pal, R. N. Mukherjee, M. Tomas, L. R. Falvello and A. Chakravorty, Inorg. Chem., 1986, 25, 200; (e) S. Chattopadhyay, P. Basu, S. Pal and A. Chakravorty, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1990, 3829; (f) P. Basu, S. Pal and A. Chakravorty, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1991, 3217; (g) V. Manivannan, S. Chattopadhyay, P. Basu and A. Chakravorty, Polyhedron, 1993, 12, 2725; (h) V. Manivannan, S. Dutta, P. Basu and A. Chakravorty, Inorg. Chem., 1993, 32, 4807; (i) V. Manivannan, Ph.D. Thesis, Jadavpur University, 1996.
10. B. J. Henne and D. E. Bartak, Inorg. Chem., 1984, 23, 369.
11. A. B. P. Lever, Inorganic Electronic Spectroscopy, Elsevier, New York, 2nd edn., 1984, p. 750.
12. K. C. Kalia and A. Chakravorty, Inorg. Chem., 1968, 7, 2016.
13. A. G. Lappin, C. K. Murray and D. W. Margerum, Inorg. Chem., 1978, 17, 1630.
14. J. K. Burdett, Adv. Inorg. Chem. Radiochem., 1978, 21, 113; Inorg. Chem., 1975, 14, 375, 931; 1976, 15, 212.
15. B. E. Bursten, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1982, 104, 1299; B. E. Bursten and M. R. Green, Prog. Inorg. Chem., 1988, 36, 393 and refs. therein.
16. P. Basu, S. B. Choudhury, S. Pal and A. Chakravorty, Inorg. Chem., 1989, 28, 2680; P. Basu and A. Chakravorty, Inorg. Chem., 1992, 31, 4980.
17. R. D. Shannon and C. T. Prewitt, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B, 1969, 25, 925; R. D. Shannon, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A, 1976, 32, 751.
18. A. I. Vogel, A Text-Book of Practical Organic Chemistry, ELBS and Longman Group, London, 3rd edn., 1971, p. 169.
19. G. K. Lahiri, S. Bhattacharya, M. Mukherjee, A. K. Mukherjee and A. Chakravorty, Inorg. Chem., 1987, 26, 3359.
20. K. C. Kalia and A. Chakravorty, J. Org. Chem., 1970, 35, 2231.
21. G. M. Sheldrick, SHELXTL PLUS 88, Structure Determination Software Programs, Nicolet Instrument Corp., Madison, WI, 1988.