4.7 Article

Solution NMR studies of iron(II) spin-crossover complexes

期刊

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY
卷 46, 期 16, 页码 6794-6803

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ic062349e

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The H-1 NMR spectra of a series of mono- and dinuclear pyridine complexes [FeL1(R-1/R-2)(py)(2)] and [Fe(2)L2(R-1/R-2)(py)(4)] have been investigated in a mixed toluene-d(8)/pyridine-d(5) solution. The equatorial tetradentade Schiff base like ligands L1(R-1/R-2) and L2(R-1/R-2) with a N2O22- coordination sphere for each metal center have been obtained by condensation of a substituted malonodialdehyde (R-1/R-2 are Me/COOEt, Me/COMe, or OEt/COOEt) with o-phenylenediamine (L1(R-1/R-2)) or 1,2,4,5-tetraaminobenzene (L2(R-1/R-2)). The H-1 NMR resonances were assigned by comparison of differently substituted complexes in combination with a line-width comparison. The H-1 NMR shifts from 188 to 358 K show a strong influence of the spin state of the iron center. The behavior of the pure high-spin iron(II) complexes is close to ideal Curie behavior. Analysis of the resonance shifts of the spin-transition complexes can be used for determining the high-spin mole fraction of the complex in solution at different temperatures. Magnetic susceptibility measurements in solution using the Evans method were made for all six complexes. Significant differences between the spin-transition behavior of the complexes in solution of those in the solid state were found. However, the plots of mu(eff) as a function of temperature obtained using the Evans method and those obtained by interpretation of the NMR shifts were virtually identical. The isotropic shifts of protons in the complexes proved to be suitable tools for following a spin transition in solution. Comparison of the mu(eff) plots of the mono- and dinuclear complexes in solution reveals slight differences between the steepness of the curves that may be attributable to cooperative interactions between the metal centers in the case of the dinuclear complexes.

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