4.5 Article

Thiodiacetato-copper(II) chelates with or without N-heterocyclic donor ligands:: molecular and/or crystal structures of [Cu(tda)]n, [Cu(tda)(Him)2(H2O)] and [Cu(tda)(5Mphen)] • 2H2O (Him = imidazole, 5Mphen=5-methyl-1,10-phenanthroline)

期刊

INORGANICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 358, 期 6, 页码 1918-1926

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.ica.2004.12.056

关键词

thiodiacetic acid; thiodiglycolic acid; copper(II) complex; imidazole; 5-methyl-phenanthroline; crystal structure; ligand conformation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three new thiodiacetato-Cu(II) chelates have been synthesized and studied by X-ray crystallography and by thermal, spectral and magnetic methods. [Cu(tda)](n) (1) is a 3D-polymer with a pentadentate tda, which acts with afac-O-2 + S(apical)-tridentate chelating conformation and as a twofold anti, syn-mu-eta(1):eta(1) carboxylate bridge. In its square pyramidal Cu(II) coordination (type 4 + 1) four O(carboxylate) donors define a close regular square base, but the Cu S(apical) bond deviates 27.4 degrees from the perpendicular to the mean basal plane. Each anti,syn-bridging carboxylate group exhibits two C-O (average 1.26(1) angstrom) and two Cu-O bonds (average 1.958(7) angstrom), which are very similar in length to each other. In contrast, the mixed-ligand complexes of [Cu(tda) (Him)(2)(H2O)] (compound 2, distorted octahedral, type 4 + 1 + 1) and [Cu(tda)(5Mphen)] center dot 2H(2)O (compound 3, distorted square pyramidal, type 4 + 1) have molecular structures and the tda ligand displays only a fac-O-2, + S(apical)-tridentate conformation. The Cu-S(apical) bond lengths (2.570(1), 2.623(1) or 2.573(1) angstrom for 1, 2 or 3, respectively) are shorter than those previously reported for closely related Cu(II)-tda derivatives. The different tda ligand roles in their Cu(II) derivatives are rationalized on the basis of crystal packing forces driving in the absence or presence of auxiliary ligands (with two or three N-donor atoms). (c) 2005 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

4.5
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