4.6 Article

Coinage Metal Bis(amidinate) Complexes as Building Blocks for Self-Assembled One-Dimensional Coordination Polymers

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 29, 期 25, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.202300289

关键词

amidinate; coinage metals; coordination polymer; metalloligand; self-assembly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of bis-amidinate complexes were synthesized using the pyridyl functionalized amidinate ligand, which exhibited fully supported metallophilic interactions. These metalloligands were then used as building blocks for the self-assembly of one-dimensional heterobimetallic coordination polymers. Interestingly, the resulting coordination polymers showed a zig zag shape in the solid state. Linear coordination geometry was achieved by investigating other connectors such as M'(acac) (M'=Ni, Co) (acac=acetylacetonate). The obtained compounds were found to be linear heterobimetallic coordination polymers with a metalloligand backbone featuring fully supported metallophilic interactions.
The pyridyl functionalized amidinate [{PyC equivalent to CC(NDipp)(2)}Li(thf)(2)](n) was used to synthesize a series of bis-amidinate complexes [{PyC equivalent to CC(NDipp)(2)}(2)M-2] (M=Cu, Ag, Au) with fully supported metallophilic interactions. These metalloligands were then used as building blocks for the synthesis of one-dimensional heterobimetallic coordination polymers using Zn(hfac)(2) (hfac=hexaflouroacetylacetonate) for self-assembly. Interestingly, the three coordination polymers [{PyC equivalent to CC(NDipp)(2)}(2)M-2][Zn(hfac)(2)] (M=Cu, Ag, Au), exhibit a zig zag shape in the solid state. To achieve linear coordination geometry other connectors such as M'(acac) (M'=Ni, Co) (acac=acetylacetonate) were investigated. The thus obtained compounds [{PyC equivalent to CC(NDipp)(2)}(2)Cu-2][M'(acac)(2)] (M'=Ni, Co) are indeed linear heterobimetallic coordination polymers featuring a metalloligand backbone with fully supported metallophilic interactions.

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

4.6
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