4.7 Article

Catalytic Water Oxidation by Mononuclear Ru Complexes with an Anionic Ancillary Ligand

期刊

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY
卷 52, 期 5, 页码 2505-2518

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ic302446h

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council (VR)
  2. Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA)
  3. K&A Wallenberg Foundation
  4. Swedish Energy Agency
  5. China Scholarship Council
  6. National Science Foundation of China [21120102036, 20923006]
  7. National Basic Research Program of China [2009CB220009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mononuclear Ru-based water oxidation catalysts containing anionic ancillary ligands have shown promising catalytic efficiency and intriguing properties. However, their insolubility in water restricts a detailed mechanism investigation. In order to overcome this disadvantage, complexes [Ru-II(bpc)(bpy)OH2](+) (1(+), bpc = 2,2'-bipyridine-6-carboxylate, bpy = 2,2'-bipyridine) and [Ru-II(bpc)(pic)(3)](+) (2(+), pic = 4-picoline) were prepared and fully characterized, which features an anionic tridentate ligand and has enough solubility for spectroscopic study in water. Using Ce-IV as an electron acceptor, both complexes are able to catalyze O-2-evolving reaction with an impressive rate constant. On the basis of the electrochemical and kinetic studies, a water nucleophilic attack pathway was proposed as the dominant catalytic cycle of the catalytic water oxidation by 1(+), within which several intermediates were detected by MS. Meanwhile, an auxiliary pathway that is related to the concentration of Ce-IV was also revealed. The effect of anionic ligand regarding catalytic water oxidation was discussed explicitly in comparison with previously reported mononuclear Ru catalysts carrying neutral tridentate ligands, for example, 2,2':6',2 ''-terpyridine (tpy). When 2(+) was oxidized to the trivalent state, one of its picoline ligands dissociated from the Ru center. The rate constant of picoline dissociation was evaluated from time-resolved UV-vis spectra.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据