Search for: All records

Abstract Qualitative differences in the reactivity of trivalent lanthanide and actinide complexes have long been attributed to differences in covalent metal‐ligand bonding, but there are few examples where thermodynamic aspects of this relationship have been quantified, especially with U³⁺and in the absence of competing variables. Here we report a series of dimeric phosphinodiboranate complexes with trivalentf‐metals that show how shorter‐than‐expected U−B distances indicative of increased covalency give rise to measurable differences in solution deoligomerization reactivity when compared to isostructural complexes with similarly sized lanthanides. These results, which are in excellent agreement with supporting DFT and QTAIM calculations, afford rare experimental evidence concerning the measured effect of variations in metal‐ligand covalency on the reactivity of trivalent uranium and lanthanide complexes. 

Addition of [UI 2 (THF) 3 (μ-OMe)] 2 ·THF (2·THF) to THF solutions containing 6 equiv. of K[C 14 H 10 ] generates the heteroleptic dimeric complexes [K(18-crown-6)(THF) 2 ] 2 [U(η 6 -C 14 H 10 )(η 4 -C 14 H 10 )(μ-OMe)] 2 ·4THF (118C6·4THF) and {[K(THF) 3 ][U(η 6 -C 14 H 10 )(η 4 -C 14 H 10 )(μ-OMe)]} 2 (1THF) upon crystallization of the products in THF in the presence or absence of 18-crown-6, respectively. Both 118C6·4THF and 1THF are thermally stable in the solid-state at room temperature; however, after crystallization, they become insoluble in THF or DME solutions and instead gradually decompose upon standing. X-ray diffraction analysis reveals 118C6·4THF and 1THF to be structurally similar, possessing uranium centres sandwiched between bent anthracenide ligands of mixed tetrahapto and hexahapto ligation modes. Yet, the two complexes are distinguished by the close contact potassium-arenide ion pairing that is seen in 1THF but absent in 118C6·4THF, which is observed to have a significant effect on the electronic characteristics of the two complexes. Structural analysis, SQUID magnetometry data, XANES spectral characterization, and computational analyses are generally consistent with U( iv ) formal assignments for the metal centres in both 118C6·4THF and 1THF, though noticeable differences are detected between the two species. For instance, the effective magnetic moment of 1THF (3.74 μ B ) is significantly lower than that of 118C6·4THF (4.40 μ B ) at 300 K. Furthermore, the XANES data shows the U L III -edge absorption energy for 1THF to be 0.9 eV higher than that of 118C6·4THF, suggestive of more oxidized metal centres in the former. Of note, CASSCF calculations on the model complex {[U(η 6 -C 14 H 10 )(η 4 -C 14 H 10 )(μ-OMe)] 2 } 2− (1*) shows highly polarized uranium–arenide interactions defined by π-type bonds where the metal contributions are primarily comprised by the 6d-orbitals (7.3 ± 0.6%) with minor participation from the 5f-orbitals (1.5 ± 0.5%). These unique complexes provide new insights into actinide–arenide bonding interactions and show the sensitivity of the electronic structures of the uranium atoms to coordination sphere effects.