W.-K. Dong et al.
ARTICLE
Figure 8. Hydrogen bonding interactions of complex 2.
II
and to form a monomer structure of {[NiL(EtOH)(μ- cules, these Ni complexes present slightly different structural
OAc)] Ni}·2EtOH units. Furthermore, every monomer mole- features. Complex 1 has two methanol ligands coordinated to
2
II
cule interlinks two other monomers into a 1D infinite chain the terminal Ni atoms, whereas complex 2 has two ethanol
along the b axis via four pairs of intermolecular C1–H1A···O8 ligands. The distortion of the octahedral coordination arrange-
II
and C1–H1B···O6 hydrogen bonds between the methylene – ment around the terminal Ni atoms in complex 2 is stronger
CH groups of the O-alkyl chains and the oxygen atom (O6) of than that of complex 1, suggesting that the steric hindrance of
2
–
the methoxy groups of the L ligands and the oxygen atom the ethanol ligands is larger than that of the methanol ligands.
(
O8) of μ-acetate ions, respectively.[25,26]
Acknowledgement
Solvent Effects
This work was supported by the Foundation of the Education Depart-
ment of Gansu Province (No. 0904–11) and the Foundation of Prepara-
tive Research of Jin-Chuan Corporation (No. 209125–1102,1103),
which are gratefully acknowledged.
For complexes 1 and 2, the ratio of L:Ni is 2:3. Every ter-
minal Ni atom forms two six-membered rings with two sali-
II
cylaldoxime moieties and the acetate ions adopt their familiar
role to reinforce the structures by bridging between adjacent
II
Ni atoms. The influence of solvent effect is clearly revealed
in bond lengths and angles for complexes 1 and 2. In complex References
1
, the distance from O9 atom (coordinated methanol ligand) [1] D. Braga, L. Maini, M. Polito, E. Tagliavini, F. Grepioni, Coord.
Chem. Rev. 2003, 246, 53.
to the plane of N1–N2–O3–O5 is 2.048(2) Å and O9–Ni2 is
[
[
2] S.-M. Aylor, R.-M. Supkowski, R.-L. LaDuca, Inorg. Chim. Acta
008, 361, 317.
3] H.-Y. Han, Y.-L. Song, H.-W. Hou, Y.-T. Fan, Y.-J. Zhu, Dalton
Trans. 2006, 1972.
2.105(1) Å, so we confirm that Ni2 atom is not coplanar with
2
the N1–N2–O3–O5 plane and slightly deviates toward O8
atom from the acetate ion. The dihedral angle between O3–
Ni2–N1 and O5–Ni2–N2 is 5.54(2)°. Complex 2 shows that [4] M.-E. Braun, C.-D. Steffek, J. Kim, P.-G. Rasmussen, O.-M.
Yaghi, Chem. Commun. 2001, 24, 2532.
5] N.-L. Rosi, M. Eddaoudi, J. Kim, M. O’Keeffe, O.-M. Yaghi,
CrystEngComm 2002, 4, 401.
6] M. Eddaoudi, D.-B. Moler, H. Li, B. Chen, T.-M. Reineke, M.
O’Keeffe, O.-M. Yaghi, Acc. Chem. Res. 2001, 34, 319.
7] D. Ülkü, F. Ercan, O. Atakol, F.-N. Dinçer, Acta Crystallogr.,
Sect. C 1997, 53, 1056.
8] J. Kim, B. Chen, T.-M. Reineke, H. Li, M. Eddaoudi, D.-B.
Moler, M. O’Keeffe, O.-M. Yaghi, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123,
8239.
the distance from O9 atom (coordinated ethanol ligand) to the
[
[
[
[
plane of N1–N2–O3–O5 [2.088(2) Å] is shorter than O9–Ni2
2.182(2) Å]. As for complex 1, Ni2 is also not coplanar with
[
the N1–N2–O3–O5 plane but slightly deviates toward O8 atom
from the acetate ion. The dihedral angle between O3–Ni2–N1
and O5–Ni2–N2 is 8.80(3)°. This deviation of Ni2 atom to-
II
ward O8 atom in both Ni complexes may be attributed to the
electrostatic attraction of acetate ion. Further, the dihedral an-
gle of the two planes (O3–Ni2–N1 and O5–Ni2–N2) in com- [9] S. Durmus, B.-M. Ates, O. Atakol, F. Ercan, Z. Kristallogr. 2005,
2
20, 973.
10] J. Reglinski, S. Morris, D.-E. Stevenson, Polyhedron 2002, 21,
167.
11] K. Ueno, A.-E. Martel, J. Phys. Chem. 1956, 60, 1270.
plex 2 [8.80(3)°] is bigger than that in complex 1 [5.54(2)°],
indicating larger steric hindrance of the ethanol ligands than
the methanol ligands. So, it is easily found solvent effect on
[
2
[
complexes 1 and 2 cause to their slight differences in crystal [12] W.-K. Dong, X.-N. He, H.-B. Yan, Z.-W. Lv, X. Chen, C.-Y.
Zhao, X.-L. Tang, Polyhedron 2009, 28, 1419.
13] W.-K. Dong, J.-H. Feng, L. Wang, L. Xu, L. Zhao, X.-Q. Yang,
structures.
[
Transition Met. Chem. 2007, 32, 1101.
Conclusions
[14] S. Akine, T. Taniguchi, T. Nabeshima, Chem. Lett. 2001, 30, 682.
[
[
15] S. Akine, T. Nabeshima, Inorg. Chem. 2005, 44, 1205.
16] S. Akine, T. Matsumoto, S. Sairenji, T. Nabeshima, Supramol.
Chem. 2011, 23, 106.
II
Two trinuclear Ni complexes were synthesized and charac-
terized. Because of the introduction of different solvent mole-
1
376
www.zaac.wiley-vch.de
© 2012 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 2012, 1370–1377