J.
Hilbert
,
C.
Näther
and
W.
Bensch
*
Institute of Inorganic Chemistry, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Max-Eyth-Str. 2, 24118 Kiel, Germany. E-mail: wbensch@ac.uni-kiel.de; Fax: +49 431 880–1520; Tel: +49 431 880–2419
First published on 26th May 2015
Utilization of mixtures of differently coordinating aromatic N-donor ligands leads to the formation of the two new compounds {[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6}·4,4′-bipy·½H2O I and {[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6}·2,2′-bipy II that could be prepared under solvothermal conditions (4,4′-bipy = 4,4′-bipyridine, C10H8N2; phen = 1,10-phenanthroline, C12H8N2; 2,2′-bipy = 2,2′-bipyridine, C10H8N2). In the structures of both compounds Ni–S bond formation is observed which is highly unusual when only bidentate N-donor ligands are applied in the reaction mixture. The detailed analysis of the crystal structure indicates that the presence of 4,4′-bipy and 2,2′-bipy molecules are essential for the stabilization of the arrangement of the constituents. The main structural motif {[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6} is arranged generating off center parallel stacking of the phen ligands. The empty spaces between the {[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6} moieties are occupied by either 2,2′-bipy (I) or 4,4′-bipy (II) molecules which are oriented towards the phen ligands to form intermolecular π–π interactions.
Another class of compounds is characterized by M–S bonds between the thiostannate ion and transition metal cations which are further surrounded by N donor atoms from amine ligands. In such compounds the [Sn2S6]4− and [SnS4]4− anion, respectively, acts as bidentate ligand like in {[Mn(1,2-dach)2(H2O)]2[Sn2S6]},19 {[Mn(en)2]2[Sn2S6]}n,20 {[Mn(1,2-dap)2]2[Sn2S6]}n,21 {[M(tepa)]2[Sn2S6]} (M = Mn, Fe, Co, Ni; tepa = tetraethylenepentamine),22,23 {[Mn(trien)]2[SnS4]}n·4nH2O (trien = triethylenetetramine),24 {[M(tren)]2[Sn2S6]}12,25 (M = Mn, Co; tren = tris(2-aminoethyl-)amine), {[Co(cyclam)]2[Sn2S6]}n·2nH2O26 (cyclam = 1,4,8,11-tetraaza-cyclotetradecane), o-{[Ni(tepa)]2[Sn2S6]}, {[Mn(trien)]2[SnS4]}n16 or in a tetradentate fashion as observed for e.g. {[Mn(phen)2]2[Sn2S6]},27 {[TM(phen)2]2[Sn2S6]}28 (M = Fe, Co) or {[Mn(phen)]2[SnS4]}n·nH2O.29
Finally metal cations may be integrated into the thiostannate unit as observed for (1,4-dabH)2MnSnS430 (1,4-dab = 1,4-diaminobutane), (DBUH)CuSnS3 (DBU = 1,8-diaza-bicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene) and (1,4-dabH2)Cu2SnS4,31 (1,4-dabH2)Ag2SnS4,32 (enH)3Cu7Sn4S12,33 (DBNH)2Cu6Sn2S8
34 (DBN = 1,5-diazabicyclo[4.3.0]non-5-ene), (dienH2)Cu2Sn2S6,35 (NH4)2Ag6Sn3S10,36 (enH2)Ag2SnS4,37 (enH2)HgSnS4,38 (enH2)2Cu8Sn3S12
39 and [Mn(dien)2]MnSnS4.21
Many of the above-mentioned compounds were obtained under solvothermal conditions and state-of-art of the chemistry of thiostannates and other thiometallates was reviewed in several articles highlighting the synthetic approaches, the structural variability and flexibility of the anions.40 Analyzing the structures of thiometallate compounds with transition metal cations having bonds to S atoms of the anions, the Mn2+ ion can be easily integrated in the anions independent from the amine applied, whereas Fe2+, Co2+, Ni2+, or Zn2+ prefer bond formation to the N atoms of the amine molecules and M–S bond formation must be forced by applying multidentate amine molecules (tetra- or pentadentate) in the synthesis mixture which do not satisfy the coordination requirements of the cations. Mn2+ seems to have a comparable affinity to both S and N atoms as can be seen from the thiostannate examples presented above but a similar observation was also made for e.g. thioantimonates.41
During a systematic study of the Mn/phen/Sn/S system we prepared {[Mn(phen)2]2(μ2-Sn2S6)}·phen and {[Mn(phen)2]2(μ2-Sn2S6)}·phen·H2O containing co-crystallized phen molecules which are arranged with respect to phen ligands of the Mn2+ centered complexes to achieve attractive so-called π–π interactions.27 The energy involved in these interactions is between ca. 10 and 13 kcal mol−1.42–45 While the interaction energy between stacked phen molecules is low compared to that of covalent or ionic bonds, it seems to be large enough to stabilize frequently observed arrangements of aromatic molecules with respect to each other, like e.g. face-to-face, off-center, slipped or edge-to-face. Modifying the synthesis conditions originally applied for the preparation of {[Mn(phen)2]2(μ2-Sn2S6)}·phen and {[Mn(phen)2]2(μ2-Sn2S6)}·phen·H2O and using Co, Fe instead of Mn we were able to crystallize {[TM(phen)2]2Sn2S6}·phen·H2O (TM = Co, Fe) with similar arrangements of the phen molecules found for the analogous Mn compound.28 This was a surprising result because Co2+/Fe2+ have a strong preference for N donor atoms yielding normally isolated [TM(L)n]2+ (L = bidentate or tridentate ligands) complexes and thiometallate anions.13,16,46–49 All thiometallate compounds displaying a Co–S/Fe–S bond were obtained in the presence of a tetradentate or pentadentate ligand like tren,12,48–50 tepa23 and cyclam,26 with one exception where 1,2-dach (1,2-dach = 1,2 diaminocyclohexane) was used as amine.51
In our ongoing synthetic work all attempts to synthesize the analogous Ni2+ containing compounds failed despite varying the reaction conditions reported in.27–29 One possible reason is the high stability of the [Ni(phen)3]2+ complex, which is in situ formed under the solvothermal reaction conditions. Hence, we developed a new synthetic strategy applying mixtures of aromatic N-donor ligands which are either strong (phen), medium (2,2′-bipyridine), weak/monodentate coordinating (4,4′-bipyridine) which should lead to the solely coordination of Ni2+ by phen and the other molecule-donor ligands might act as structural stabilizers via intermolecular π–π-interactions.
During the experiments we were able to prepare and characterize the two new compounds {[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6}·4,4′-bipy·½H2O (I) and {[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6}·2,2′-bipy (II). Here we report the syntheses, crystal structures and spectroscopic data of these compounds.
In our previous investigations of the TM/Sn/S/phen systems (TM = Mn, Fe, Co, Ni) we demonstrated that Mn2+ easily forms bonds to thiostannate anions and five compounds with compositions {[Mn(phen)2]2Sn2S6}, {[Mn(phen)2]2Sn2S6}·phen, {[Mn(phen)2]2Sn2S6}·phen·H2O and {[Mn(phen)2]2[SnS4]2[Mn(phen)]2}·H2O could be prepared of which four were accessible even under stirring conditions.27 The syntheses with Fe and Co yielded only two compounds ({[M(phen)2]2Sn2S6} and {[M(phen)2]2Sn2S6}·phen·H2O, M = Fe, Co) and only under static conditions.28 Applying the synthesis conditions used for TM = Mn, Fe, and Co no compounds were accessible with Ni and the reaction products only contained the crystallized [Ni(phen)3]2+ complex (counter ion: Cl−) and X-ray amorphous sulfides. One reason may be the differing stabilities of the [TM(phen)3]2+ complexes with log β (TM): Mn: 10.5, Fe: 21.2, Co: 19.9, Ni: 24.3.52 To force bond formation between Ni2+ and the thiostannate anion syntheses were performed with mixtures of aromatic bidentate N-donor ligands which have different coordination abilities. The bidentate amine phen is a strong coordinating ligand,52 while 2,2′-bipy has a weak/medium coordination tendency52 and 4,4′-bipy can only act as a monodentate ligand to one Ni2+ center. Both 4,4′-bipy and 2,2′-bipy may act as stabilizing molecules via π–π interactions and both are not strong competitors for phen. During the explorative synthetic work we observed that the ratio phen
:
bipy is an important parameter. Compound I containing co-crystallized 4,4′-bipy was only obtained when the amount of 4,4′-bipy was between 20–65% of the total amount of amine. The highest yield was observed for a Ni
:
phen
:
4,4′-bipy molar ratio of 1
:
1
:
1. Applying mixtures of phen and 2,2′-bipy compound II crystallized only applying 20–50% 2,2′-bipy of the total amount of amine. For compound II the highest yield was obtained at a molar ratio of 1
:
2
:
1 for Ni
:
phen
:
2.2′-bipy. When the syntheses were carried out using the analogue cobalt and iron salts (CoCl2·6H2O or FeCl2·4H2O) under the conditions mentioned above, the known compounds {[Co(phen)2]2Sn2S6}28 and {[Fe(phen)2]2Sn2S6},28 were obtained.
Both structures feature the [Sn2S6]4− anion and charge compensating Ni2+ centered complexes. The Ni2+ cations of the [Ni(phen)2]2+ complexes have two Ni–S bonds leading to the formation of discrete molecules (Fig. 1).
![]() | ||
Fig. 1 Structure of the {[Ni[phen)2]2Sn2S6} moieties in I as a representative. Labelling of the atoms for II are given in parentheses. The hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity. |
The Ni–S bond lengths (2.4960 Å–2.5047 Å) as well as the Ni–N bonds (2.083 Å–2.124 Å) are within the range reported in literature.12–14,16,23 (Table 1).
I | II | ||
---|---|---|---|
a Symmetry transformations used to generate equivalent atoms: a: −x + 1, y, −z + 1/2; b: −x + 1, −y + 1, −z. | |||
Sn1–S1 | 2.3366(10) | Sn–S3 | 2.3296(9) |
Sn1–S1a | 2.3382(10) | Sn–S2 | 2.3475(9) |
Sn1–S2 | 2.4532(9) | Sn–S1b | 2.4488(9) |
Sn1–S2a | 2.4630(9) | Sn–S1 | 2.4524(9) |
S1–Sn–S1a | 100.59(5) | S2–Sn–S3 | 100.43(3) |
S2–Sn–S2a | 92.78(4) | S1–Sn–S1b | 92.46(3) |
S1–Sn–S2a | 117.27(4) | S1–Sn–S3 | 120.84(3) |
S1a–Sn–S2a | 115.02(3) | S1–Sn–S2 | 113.00(3) |
S2–Sn–S3 | 117.28(4) | S2–Sn–S1b | 118.10(3) |
S2a–Sn–S3 | 114.57(3) | S3–Sn–S1b | 113.30(3) |
Sn1–S1–Sn2 | 87.46(3) | Sn–S1–Snb | 87.54(3) |
Ni1–N1 | 2.103(3) | Ni1–N1 | 2.120(3) |
Ni1–N2 | 2.122(3) | Ni1–N2 | 2.161(3) |
Ni1–N21 | 2.083(3) | Ni1–N21 | 2.106(3) |
Ni1–N22 | 2.124(3) | Ni1–N22 | 2.112(3) |
Ni1–S1 | 2.4960(11) | Ni1–S2 | 2.4946(10) |
Ni1–S3 | 2.5047(11) | Ni1–S3 | 2.4984(10) |
The angles around Ni2+ scatter between 78.64(13)° and 175.86(9)° (I) and between 77.38(11)° and 172.28(9)° (II), respectively, indicative for a severe distortion of the octahedra, but still in the range of literature data.16 The distortion is caused by the fixed position of the N-atoms in the phen-molecule leading to acute angles around the Ni2+ cations (I: N1–Ni1–N2: 78.64(13), N21–Ni1–N22: 79.03(13); II: N1–Ni1–N2: 77.38(11), N21–Ni1–N22: 78.25(12)) (Table S1†). The values of the dihedral angles between the phen ligands are around 90° ± 10° (Table S2†) and they are comparable with literature data.27,28 The [Sn2S6]4− ion which is generated by edge-sharing of two SnS4 tetrahedra exhibits the typical Sn–S bonding pattern of short Sn–St (t = terminal) and longer Sn–Sb (b = bridging) bonds. Comparing the geometric parameters of the thiostannate ion of the title compounds with those of the discrete anion [Sn2S6]4−(ref. 1,12–16,46) the Sn–S bond lengths do not differ significantly (Table 1). Different, however, are the bond angles which cover a wide range from 87.46 to 117.27° in I and they are between 87.54° and 120.84° in II evidencing a strong deviation from ideal tetrahedral geometry, a phenomenon also observed previously.12,23,26–28,53
Besides the {[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6} moiety, the structure of I contains an additional 4,4′-bipy and a water molecule, which is disordered over two half occupied positions. The {[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6} units are arranged as rods in all three crystallographic directions (Fig. 2). The 4,4′-bipy molecules are assembled in a chain-like fashion along [100] and [001] (Fig. 2). The water molecule is located between adjacent 4,4′-bipy molecules and the N⋯O separation of 2.922 Å indicates hydrogen bonding interaction.
![]() | ||
Fig. 2 Parallel arrangement of the molecules in I within the ab-plane (top) and bc-plane (bottom), respectively. Hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity. |
The arrangement of the constituents for optimal intermolecular interactions in I becomes clear viewing along [10−1]: The {[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6} moieties are interlaced along [101] and the 4,4′-bipy molecules are located in the thus generated voids (Fig. 3).
![]() | ||
Fig. 3 Arrangement of the molecules in I viewed along [10−1]. The 4,4′-bipy molecules are located in the free spaces between the {[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6} moieties. Hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity. |
The phen ligands of neighbored complexes exhibit a short intermolecular distance of 3.489 Å and two even shorter separations are observed between phen and co-crystallized 4,4′-bipy molecules at 3.343–3.455 Å. Such short distances between off-centered parallel stacked aromatic molecules indicate π–π interactions (Fig. 4 and 5).42–45,54,55
![]() | ||
Fig. 4 Off-center parallel orientation of the phen ligands in I within the ab-plane. The purple dashed lines indicate the shortest intermolecular distances. Hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity. |
In the structure of II the {[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6} moieties are lined-up along a and c, respectively (Fig. 6). The 2,2′-bipy molecules are located between two adjacent {[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6} units yielding a sequence AAB along [100] where A stands for the phen Ligand and B for the 2,2′-bipy molecule.
Like in compound I the aromatic components adopt orientations which allow attractive intermolecular interactions. Along [010] all molecules are arranged in rows, while along [101] the phen ligands are staggered. The 2,2′-bipy molecules can now be aligned parallel to the upper and the lower phen ligand of adjacent rows (Fig. 7, top) leading either to a parallel arrangement or a staggered arrangement (Fig. 7, bottom). The intermolecular distances for these orientations between the 2,2′-bipy molecule and the phen ligands are almost identical with 3.279–3.826 Å for the parallel and 3.335–3.921 Å and 3.396–4.059 Å for the staggered orientations. As discussed above and in agreement with literature data such distances can be regarded as π–π interactions.54,55
[Sn2S6]4− | NiS2 | I | II |
---|---|---|---|
391 | 394 | 399 | |
341 | 336 | 340 | |
301 | 298 | 298 | |
281 | 283 | 273 | 276 |
222 | 219 | 212 | |
190 | 181 | 180 |
The resonance of the symmetric Sn–St stretching mode is found around 390 cm−1 in the discrete anion. In the title compounds the [Sn2S6]4− unit has bonds to Ni2+ resulting in slightly shorter Sn–S bonds leading to a shift of the signal to higher wave numbers. The Sn–S–Sn vibrations are located at lower wave numbers at about 340 cm−1. The mode at 280 cm−1 could be caused by a Sn2S2 ring vibration, the energetic differences between the resonances of I and II and those reported for Na4Sn2S6·14H2O could be generated by slightly differing bond lengths and angles. But since the Ni–S vibrations are located in this region as well, a detailed assignment is not possible.
In the IR spectra, the absorptions can be assigned to phen59–61, the Ni–N stretching vibration at ≈ 420 cm−1 (ref. 27 and 28) and to one of the bipy molecules62–65 (Table 3). The absorptions of the 4,4′-bipy molecule are mostly overlapping with the absorptions of phen, but for example at ca. 800 cm−1 only 4,4′-bipy causes a signal, which therefore can only be observed in compound I. For 2,2′-bipy (II) this absorption is shifted to slightly higher wavenumbers (818/819 cm−1) due the different position of the N-atoms in the aromatic ring.
1,10-phen | 4,4′-bipy | 2,2′-bipy | I | II | Assignment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3035 | 3023 | — | 3042 | 3035w | ν(C–H) |
— | — | 2982 | — | 2979w | ν(C–H) |
— | — | 2916 | — | 2922w | ν(C–H) |
1616 | 1604 | — | 1624 | 1620 |
ν(C![]() |
— | — | 1595 | — | 1598 | ν(C–C) + ν(C–N) |
1586 | 1585 | — | 1587 | — |
ν(C![]() |
— | — | 1579 | — | 1578 |
ν(C![]() |
1560 | — | 1555 | — | 1557 |
ν(C![]() |
1516 | — | 1517 | 1510 | 1510 |
ν(C![]() |
1494 | 1491 | — | 1494 | 1491 |
ν(C![]() |
— | — | 1458 | — | 1456 |
δ(C![]() |
1421 | 1416 | — | 1419 | 1416 | Combination band |
1344 | — | — | 1342 | 1344 |
ν(C![]() |
— | — | 1253 | — | 1255 |
ν(C![]() |
1216 | 1218 | — | 1218 | 1222 |
ν(C![]() |
— | — | 1210 | — | 1206 |
δ(C![]() |
1137 | 1133 | 1238 | 1136 | 1134 |
δ(C![]() |
1092 | — | — | 1096 | 1096 |
ν (C![]() |
— | 1068 | — | 1065 | — | Ring breathing |
1035 | — | 1038 | — | 1036 | ν(C–N) |
996 | 992 | — | 991 | — |
δ(C![]() |
987 | — | — | — | 985 |
δ(C![]() |
869 | — | — | 866 | — | ν(ring) |
853 | — | — | — | 858 |
δ(C![]() ![]() |
848 | — | — | 844 | 846 |
δ(C![]() ![]() |
— | — | 818 | — | 819 |
δ(C![]() |
— | 800 | — | 802 | — |
δ(C![]() |
779 | — | — | 780 | 779 | δ(C–H) |
— | — | 758 | — | 753 |
δ(C![]() |
721 | 724 | — | 724 | 722 | δ(C–H) |
643 | — | — | 640 | 637 | ν(ring) |
625 | — | 616 | — | 620 | δ(C–H) |
606 | 607 | — | 609 | — |
δ(C![]() ![]() |
478 | — | — | 476 | — | ν(ring) |
— | — | — | 422 | 422 | ν(Ni–N) |
In the UV/vis spectra of both compounds three bands are observed (see Fig. S4 and S5†). The first two absorptions (I: ∼2.48 eV and ∼3.32 eV; II: ∼2.55 eV and ∼3.16 eV) can be assigned to the Ni2+ d–d transition 3A2g → 3T(3F) and 3A2g → 3T(3P).66 The third band (I: 4.63 eV; II: 4.59 eV) might probably be traced back to the π → π* transition of the aromatic amines.59
The thermal properties of both compounds were investigated by simultaneously differential thermoanalysis and thermogravimetry. On heating compound I at 4 °C min−1 one mass step of 40.8% is observed in the TG curve that is accompanied with an endothermic peak in the DTA curve at about 340 °C (Fig. S6†). On further heating a second much smaller mass step is observed and in the following the samples mass decreases continuously. The experimental mass loss observed in each step are not in agreement with those calculated for a stepwise removal of the organic ligands. Therefore, this reaction seems to be more complex. For compound II several poorly resolved mass steps are observed, all of them accompanied with endothermic events in the DTA curve, indicating that the organic ligands are stepwise removed.
Both compounds exhibit paramagnetic behaviour (see Fig. S8 and S9†). The value for the Weiss constant is near zero demonstrating that the Ni2+ cations are magnetically isolated. The effective magnetic moment for Ni2+ amounts to 2.88 μB which is near the spin only value.
Selected refinement results are summarized in Table 4. Structural data have been deposited in the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre as publication no. CCDC 1054460 (I), CCDC 1054461 (II).
{[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6}·4,4′-bipy·½H2O | {[Ni(phen)2]2Sn2S6}·2,2′-bipy | |
---|---|---|
Crystal system | Monoclinic | Monoclinic |
Space group | C2/c | P21/n |
M (g mol−1) | 1442.18 | 1424.16 |
a (Å) | 18.3431(6) | 10.5715(2) |
b (Å) | 19.4475(6) | 9.9086(2) |
c (Å) | 15.0835(5) | 24.9960(4) |
α (°) | 90 | 90 |
β (°) | 95.556(2) | 92.8000(10) |
γ (°) | 90 | 90 |
V (Å3) | 5355.4(3) | 2615.17(8) |
Temperature (K) | 200(2) | 200(2) |
Z | 4 | 2 |
D calculated (g cm−3) | 1.789 | 1.809 |
μ (mm−1) | 1.9.03 | 1.946 |
Scan range (°) | 1.53 ≤ θ ≤ 28.00 | 1.63 ≤ θ ≤ 27.93 |
Reflections collected | 31![]() |
44![]() |
Independent reflections | 6419 | 6238 |
Observed reflections | 5042 | 5617 |
Goodness-of-fit on F2 | 1.084 | 1.059 |
R values (I > 2σ(I)) | R 1 = 0.0466 | R 1 = 0.0480 |
wR2 = 0.1038 | wR2 = 0.1274 | |
R values (all data) | R 1 = 0.0641 | R 1 = 0.0520 |
wR2 = 0.1113 | wR2 = 0.1307 | |
Res. elec. dens. (e Å−3) | 0.706 and −0.801 | 1.024 and −0.770 |
Footnote |
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: PXRD pattern, selected angles of the octahedral Ni2+ enivironment, IR- and Raman spectra. CCDC 1054460 and 1054461. For ESI and crystallographic data in CIF or other electronic format see DOI: 10.1039/c5dt01145k |
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 |