4.2 Article

Catechol oxidase activity of dinuclear copper(II) complexes of Robson type macrocyclic ligands: Syntheses, X-ray crystal structure, spectroscopic characterization of the adducts and kinetic studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR CATALYSIS A-CHEMICAL
卷 310, 期 1-2, 页码 34-41

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.molcata.2009.05.016

关键词

Catecholase activity; Copper(II); Macrocyclic complexes; Schiff-bases; Template synthesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Five dinuclear copper(II) complexes, [Cu2L1(N-3)(2)center dot 2H(2)O] (1), [Cu2L2(N-3)(2)center dot 2H(2)O] (2), [Cu2L3(N-3)(2)center dot 2H(2)O] (3), [Cu2L4(N-3)(2)center dot 2H(2)O] (4) and [Cu2L5(N-3)(2)center dot 2H(2)O] (5) of Robson type macrocyclic Schiff-base ligands derived from [2+2] condensation of 4-methyl-2,6-diformylphenol with 1,3-diaminopropane (H2L1), 1,2-diaminoethane (H2L2), 1,2-diaminopropane (H2L3), 1,2-diamino-2-methylpropane (H2L4) and 1.2-diaminocyclohexane (H2L5), respectively have been synthesized and characterized. Catecholase activity of those complexes using 3,5-di-tert-butylcatechol as substrate has been investigated in two solvents, methanol and acetonitrile. The role of the solvent and of the steric properties of the macrocyclic ligand of these complexes on their catecholase activity has been examined thoroughly. Acetonitrile is observed to be a better solvent than methanol as far as their catalytic activity is concerned. However, methanol reveals to be a better choice to identify the enzyme-substrate adduct. The investigation also prompted that chelate ring size does affect on the catalytic efficiency: 6-membered ring (as in H2L1) exhibits better activity than its 5-membered counterpart (as in H2L2). The activity of the 5-membered counter parts also depend upon the steric factor. Moreover, the catalytic activity of the complexes is enhanced to a significant extent by increasing the bulkiness of the substituents on the backbone of macrocyclic H2L2 ligands. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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