fac-/mer-[RuCl(3)(NO)(P-N)] (P-N = [o-(N,N-dimethylamino)phenyl]diphenylphosphine): Synthesis, characterization and DFT calculations

Complex fac-[RuCl(3)(NO)(P-N)] (1) was synthesized from the reaction of [RuCl(3)(H(2)O)(2)(NO)] and the P-N ligand, o-[(N,N-dimethylamino)phenyl]diphenylphosphine) in refluxing methanol solution, while complex mer,trans-[RuCl(3)(NO)(P-N)] (2) was obtained by photochemical isomerization of (1) in dichloromethane solution. The third possible isomer mer, cis-[RuCl(3)(NO)(P-N)] (3) was never observed in direct synthesis as well as in photo-or thermal-isomerization reactions. When refluxing a methanol solution of complex (2) a thermally induced isomerization occurs and complex (1) is regenerated. The complexes were characterized by NMR ((31)P{(1)H}, (15)N{1H} and 1H), cyclic voltammetry, FTIR, UV-Vis, elemental analysis and X-ray diffraction structure determination. The (31)P{(1)H} NMR revealed the presence of singlet at 35.6 for (1) and 28.3 ppm for (2). The (1)H NMR spectrum for (1) presented two singlets for the methyl hydrogens at 3.81 and 3.13 ppm, while for (2) was observed only one singlet at 3.29 ppm. FTIR Ru-NO stretching in KBr pellets or CH(2)Cl(2) solution presented 1866 and 1872 cm(-1) for (1) and 1841 and 1860 cm(-1) for (2). Electrochemical analysis revealed a irreversible reduction attributed to Ru(II)-NO(+) -> Ru(II)-NO(0) at -0.81 V and -0.62 V, for (1) and (2), respectively; the process Ru(II) -> Ru(III), as expected, is only observed around 2.0 V, for both complexes. Studies were conducted using (15)NO and both complexes were isolated with (15)N-enriched NO. Upon irradiation, the complex fac-[RuCl(3)(NO)(P-N)] (1) does not exchange (14)NO by (15)NO, while complex mer, trans-[RuCl(3)(NO)(P-N)] (2) does. Complex mer, trans-[RuCl(3)((15)NO)(P-N)] (2`) was obtained by direct reaction of mer, trans-[RuCl(3)(NO)(P-N)] (2) with (15)NO and the complex fac-[RuCl(3)((15)NO)(P-N)] (1`) was obtained by thermal-isomerization of mer, trans-[RuCl(3)((15)NO)(P-N)] (2`). DFT calculation on isomer energies, electronic spectra and electronic configuration were done. For complex (1) the HOMO orbital is essentially Ru (46.6%) and Cl (42.5%), for (2) Ru (57.4%) and Cl (39.0%) while LUMO orbital for (1) is based on NO (52.9%) and is less extent on Ru (38.4%), for (2) NO (58.2%) and Ru (31.5%). (C) 2011 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

Absolute configuration reassignment of two chromanes from Peperomia obtusifolia (Piperaceae) using VCD and DFT calculations

Previous analysis of the ECD spectra of two prenylated benzopyrans isolated from Peperomia obtusifolia, by means of the helicity rule for the chromane chromophore, resulted in the incorrect assignment of their absolute configuration, (5) instead of (R) for a deduced P-helicity of the chromane ring for the (+)-enantiomers. This was discovered by the application of DFT calculations and VCD spectroscopy. Experimental and calculated (B3LYP/6-31G(d)) VCD and IR spectra were compared, and a definitive absolute configuration of (+)-1 and (+)-2 is reassigned directly in solution as (R). The assumption of equatorial positioning of bulky groups, shown here to be invalid for the title molecules, is the underlying cause of the previous incorrect assignment of absolute configuration. Moreover, TDDFT (B3LYP/6-311++G(2d,2p)//B3LYP/6-31G(d)) calculations of ECD spectra have shown that both P- and M-helicity of the heterocyclic ring, for a given absolute configuration, lead to the same sign for the (1)L(b) ECD band, thus bringing into question the validity of the empirical ECD helicity rule for chromane molecules. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.