M–M Bond-Stretching Energy Landscapes for M_2(dimen)_(4)^(2+) (M = Rh, Ir; dimen = 1,8-Diisocyanomenthane) Complexes

Abstract

Isomers of Ir_2(dimen)_(4)^(2+) (dimen = 1,8-diisocyanomenthane) exhibit different Ir–Ir bond distances in a 2:1 MTHF/EtCN solution (MTHF = 2-methyltetrahydrofuran). Variable-temperature absorption data suggest that the isomer with the shorter Ir–Ir distance is favored at room temperature [K = ~8; ΔH° = −0.8 kcal/mol; ΔS° = 1.44 cal mol^(–1) K^(–1)]. We report calculations that shed light on M_2(dimen)_(4)^(2+) (M = Rh, Ir) structural differences: (1) metal–metal interaction favors short distances; (2) ligand deformational-strain energy favors long distances; (3) out-of-plane (A_(2u)) distortion promotes twisting of the ligand backbone at short metal–metal separations. Calculated potential-energy surfaces reveal a double minimum for Ir_2(dimen)_(4)^(2+) (4.1 Å Ir–Ir with 0° twist angle and ~3.6 Å Ir–Ir with ±12° twist angle) but not for the rhodium analogue (4.5 Å Rh–Rh with no twisting). Because both the ligand strain and A_(2u) distortional energy are virtually identical for the two complexes, the strength of the metal–metal interaction is the determining factor. On the basis of the magnitude of this interaction, we obtain the following results: (1) a single-minimum (along the Ir–Ir coordinate), harmonic potential-energy surface for the triplet electronic excited state of Ir_2(dimen)_(4)^(2+) (R_(e,Ir–Ir) = 2.87 Å; F_(Ir–Ir) = 0.99 mdyn Å^(–1)); (2) a single-minimum, anharmonic surface for the ground state of Rh_2(dimen)_(4)^(2+) (R_(e,Rh–Rh) = 3.23 Å; F_(Rh–Rh) = 0.09 mdyn Å^(–1)); (3) a double-minimum (along the Ir–Ir coordinate) surface for the ground state of Ir_2(dimen)_(4)^(2+) (R_(e,Ir–Ir) = 3.23 Å; F_(Ir–Ir) = 0.16 mdyn Å^(–1)).

Files

Additional details