4.7 Article

Toward the Formation of N-Heterocyclic-Carbene-Protected Gold Clusters of Various Nuclearities. A Comparison with Their Phosphine-Protected Analogues from Density Functional Theory Calculations

期刊

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY
卷 59, 期 20, 页码 15240-15249

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.0c02219

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chilean-French ECOS-CONYCYT program [C18E04]
  2. French-Chilean International Associated Laboratory for Multifunctional Molecules and Materials (LIA-CNRS) [1027]
  3. Grand Equipment National de Calcul Intensif [a0010807367]
  4. China Scholarship Council
  5. Fondecyt [1180683]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The structure and bonding of a series of selected phosphine-protected gold clusters (Au-n-P) of nuclearity varying from n = 6 to 13 were investigated by density functional theory (DFT) calculations and compared to those of the hypothetical homologues in which phosphines were replaced by N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) analogues (Au-n-C). Both the Au-n-P and Au-n-C series exhibit similar stabilities and structural features, except for n = 6, where some differences are noted. The NHC ligands are found to be even slightly more strongly bonded to the gold core (by a few kilocalories per mole per ligand) than phosphines. Investigation of the optical properties of both series using time-dependent DFT calculations indicates similarities in the nature and energies of the UV-vis optical transitions and, consequently, relatively similar shapes of the simulated spectra, with a general blue-shift tendency when going from Au-n-P to Au-n-C. The fluorescence behavior observed experimentally for some of the Au-n-P species is expected to occur also for their Au-n-C analogues, which can be extended to other carbene-ligand-protected nanoclusters. Our results show that it should be possible to stabilize gold clusters with NHC ligands, in relation to the seminal Au-n-ligand-protected core, offering novel building blocks for the design of nanostructured materials with various properties.

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