Universitätsbibliothek

The diborene 1 was synthesized by reduction of a mixture of 1,2-di-9-anthryl-1,2-dibromodiborane(4) (6) and trimethylphosphine with potassium graphite. The X-ray structure of 1 shows the two anthryl rings to be parallel and their π(C\(_{14}\)) systems perpendicular to the diborene π(B=B) system. This twisted conformation allows for intercalation of the relatively high-lying π(B=B) orbital and the low-lying π* orbital of the anthryl moiety with no significant conjugation, resulting in a small HOMO-LUMO gap (HLG) and ultimately an unprecedented anthryl B–B bond hydroarylation. The HLG of 1 was estimated to be 1.57 eV from the onset of the long wavelength band in its UV–vis absorption spectrum (THF, λ\(_{onset}\) = 788 nm). The oxidation of 1 with elemental selenium afforded diboraselenirane 8 in quantitative yield. By oxidative abstraction of one phosphine ligand by another equivalent of elemental selenium, the B–B and C\(^1\)–H bonds of 8 were cleaved to give the cyclic 1,9-diboraanthracene 9.

The lability of B=B, B-P and B-halide bonds is combined in the syntheses of the first diiododiborenes. In a series of reactivity tests, these diiododiborenes demonstrate cleavage of all six of their central bonds in different ways, leading to products of B=B hydrogenation and dihalogenation as well as halide exchange.

In the molecular structure of the title compound, C27H40N3BBr2, the B atom is connected to two bromide substituents and a guanidinate scaffold, forming a four– membered ring. An aryl group is connected to each N atom in the ring that contains two isopropyl groups in positions 2 and 6.

The steric and electronic properties of aryl substituents in monoaryl borohydrides (Li[ArBH\(_3\)]) and dihydroboranes were systematically varied and their reactions with [Ru(PCy\(_3\))\(_2\)HCl(H\(_2\))] (Cy: cyclohexyl) were studied, resulting in bis(σ)‐borane or terminal borylene complexes of ruthenium. These variations allowed for the investigation of the factors involved in the activation of dihydroboranes in the synthesis of terminal borylene complexes. The complexes were studied by multinuclear NMR spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, X‐ray diffraction analysis, and density functional theory (DFT) calculations. The experimental and computational results suggest that the ortho‐substitution of the aryl groups is necessary for the formation of terminal borylene complexes.

The reactivity of a diruthenium tetrahydride complex towards three selected dihydroboranes was investigated. The use of [DurBH\(_{2}\)] (Dur=2,3,5,6‐Me\(_{4}\)C\(_{6}\)H) and [(Me\(_{3}\)Si)\(_{2}\)NBH\(_{2}\)] led to the formation of bridging borylene complexes of the form [(Cp\(^{*}\)RuH)\(_{2}\)BR] (Cp\(^{*}\)=C\(_{5}\)Me\(_{5}\); 1 a: R=Dur; 1 b: R=N(SiMe\(_{3}\))\(_{2}\)) through oxidative addition of the B−H bonds with concomitant hydrogen liberation. Employing the more electron‐deficient dihydroborane [3,5‐(CF\(_{3}\))\(_{2}\)‐C\(_{6}\)H\(_{3}\)BH\(_{2}\)] led to the formation of an anionic complex bearing a tetraarylated chain of four boron atoms, namely Li(THF)\(_{4}\)[(Cp\(^{*}\)Ru)\(_{2}\)B\(_{4}\)H\(_{5}\)(3,5‐(CF\(_{3}\))\(_{2}\)C\(_{6}\)H\(_{3}\))\(_{4}\)] (4), through an unusual, incomplete threefold dehydrocoupling process. A comparative theoretical investigation of the bonding in a simplified model of 4 and the analogous complex nido‐[1,2(Cp\(^{*}\)Ru)\(_{2}\)(μ‐H)B\(_{4}\)H\(_{9}\)] (I) indicates that there appear to be no classical σ‐bonds between the boron atoms in complex I, whereas in the case of 4 the B\(_{4}\) chain better resembles a network of three B−B σ bonds, the central bond being significantly weaker than the other two.