4.7 Article

Synthesis, characterization and extraction studies of some metal (II) complexes containing (hydrazoneoxime and bis-acylhydrazone) moieties

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.saa.2012.10.046

关键词

Aroylhydrazoneoxime; Bis-acylhydrazone; Mononuclear; Dinuclear; Extraction; Azomethine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, diacetylmonoximebenzoylhydrazone (L1H2) and 1,4-diacetylbenzene bis(benzoyl hydrazone) (L2H2) were synthesized by the condensation of benzohydrazide with diacetyl monoxime and 1,4-diacetylbenzene, respectively. Complexes of these ligands with Co(II), Ni(II), Cu(II), Zn(II) and Cd(II) inos were prepared with a metal:ligand ratio of 1:2 for L1H2 ligand, and 1:1 for L2H2 ligand. The ligands and their complexes were elucidated on the basis of elemental analyses CHN, AAS, FT-IR, H-1- and C-13 NMR spectra, UV-vis spectra and magnetic susceptibility measurements. Results show the L1H2 ligand act as monoanionic O,N,N-tridentate and coordination takes place in the enol form through the oxime nitrogen, the imine nitrogen and the enolate oxygen atoms with a N4O2 donor environment, while the L2H2 ligand act as a dianionic O,N,N,O-tetradentate and coordination takes place in the enol form through the enolate oxygen and the azomethine nitrogen atoms with a N2O2 donor environment. These results are consistent with the formation of mononuclear metal (II) complexes [M(L1H)(2)], and binuclear polymeric metal (II) complexes [{M-2(L-2)}(n)]. The extraction ability of both ligands were examined in chloroform by the liquid-liquid extraction of selected transition metal [Co2+, Ni2+, Cu2+, Zn2+ and Pb2+] cations. The effects of pH and contact time on the percentage extraction of metal (II) ions were studied under the optimum extraction conditions. The (L1H2) ligand shows strong binding ability toward copper(II) and lead(II) ions, while the (L2H2) ligand shows strong binding ability toward nickel(II) and zinc(II) ions. (C) 2012 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

4.7
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