5
$\begingroup$

I was provided with the following structure of an inorganic metal complex:

Pt metal complex

And asked to give information on its NMR spectrum shown below

NMR of Pt metal complex

The highfield signal is caused by a singlet with Platinum ($I = \frac{1}{2}$) due to the terminal $\ce{CH3}$ groups.

As $\ce{^{195}Pt}$ has an abuance of $33.8\%$ this meant that in $66.2\%$ of cases, the singlet will not split, whereas in around $33.8\%$ of cases a doublet would be observed due to the satellites, which would have intensities of $\frac{33.8}{2} = 16.9\%$ hence the "Triplet" was in the ratio of around $16:67:16$.

The low-field signal however for me was easy to deduce but more difficult to calculate ratios for. The Methyl's could couple to

  • No $\ce{^{195}Pt}$ resulting in a singlet
  • One $\ce{^{195}Pt}$ resulting in a doublet
  • Two $\ce{^{195}Pt}$ resulting in a singlet

The calculations given in the answer are shown:

  • No $\ce{^{195}Pt}$ resulting in a singlet: intensity $0.66 \times 0.66$
  • One $\ce{^{195}Pt}$ resulting in a doublet: intensity $2 \times 0.66 \times 0.33$
  • Two $\ce{^{195}Pt}$ resulting in a singlet: intensity $0.33 \times 0.33$ This results in a final ratio of 1:8:18:8:1

These calculations confused me. Why would for a singlet, the intensity be $0.66 \times 0.66$ if both $\ce{CH3}$ give the same signal and hence for the doublet would I need to multiply $0.66 \times 0.33$ by $2$?

These calculations also seemed erroneous. The calculation for the intensity of the doublet and singlet give the exact same answer and I could not reach the final ratio.

What is the logic behind these calculations?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Seems to me there is an error in the last line of this list:

  • No $\ce{^{195}Pt}$ resulting in a singlet: intensity $0.66 \times 0.66$
  • One $\ce{^{195}Pt}$ resulting in a doublet: intensity $2 \times 0.66 \times 0.33$
  • Two $\ce{^{195}Pt}$ resulting in a singlet: intensity $0.33 \times 0.33$ This results in a final ratio of 1:8:18:8:1

Simultaneous J-couplings to two $\ce{^{195}Pt}$ should result in a triplet, not a singlet, given that the J-couplings are identical in magnitude.

Therefore the expected relative intensities in the quintet are as follows:

$$\begin{align} &0.34^2\times \frac14 &= 0.029 \tag{1} \\&0.66\cdot0.34\times1 &=0.224 \tag{2} \\& 0.34^2\times \frac24 + 0.66^2 \times 1 &=0.493 \tag{3} \\& 0.66\times0.34\times1 &=0.224 \tag{4} \\& 0.34^2\times \frac14 &=0.029\ \tag{5} \end{align}$$

Note there is an implicit assumption that molecules with two $\ce{^{195}Pt}$ result in a 1:2:1 triplet contributing to peaks (1) (3) and (5) above, and that molecules with one $\ce{^{195}Pt}$ account entirely for peaks (2) and (4).

Normalized so that the central peak (3) has an integral of 18 the expected integrals become

$$\begin{align} & 1.0 \\&8.2 \\& 18.0 \\& 8.2 \\&1.0\end{align}$$

Separately I attempted digitizing and integrating the provided image of the spectrum. I obtained the following integrals:

$$\begin{align} & 0.25 \\&7.0 \\& 18.0 \\& 6.2 \\&0.7\end{align}$$

Given the resolution perhaps the disagreement is acceptable.

|improve this answer|||||
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ My answer of course presumes that the nmr spectrum corresponds to the shown compound, and that its existence is even possible. After searching for a while I have not found anything remotely similar, but I cannot claim much expertise in platinum chemistry. $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn Dec 25 '19 at 21:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.