4.6 Article

Discrete and infinite cage-like frameworks with inclusion of anionic and neutral species and with interpenetration phenomena

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 9, 期 19, 页码 4724-4731

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.200305089

关键词

cage compounds; inclusion compounds; interpenetration silver(I) complexes; tripodal ligands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Complex [Ag(tpba)N-3] (1) was obtained by reaction of novel tripodal ligand N,N',N-tris(pyrid-3-yl-methyl)-1,3,5-benzenetricarboxamide (TPBA) with [Ag(NH3)(2)]N-3. While the reactions between 1,3,5-tris(imidazol-1-ylmethyl)-2,4,6-trimethylbenzene (TITMB) and silver(i) salts with different anions and solvent systems give six complexes: [Ag-3(titmb)(2)](N-3)(3)(CH3O)-C-.- H(.)4H(2)O (2), [Ag-3(titmb)(2)](CF3SO3)(2)(OH)(.)5H(2)O (3), [Ag-3(titmb)(2)][Ag(NO3)(3)](NO3H2O)-H-. (4), [Ag-3(titmb)(2)(py)](NO3)(3)(H2O)-H-. (py=pyridine) (5), [Ag-3(titmb)(2)(py)](ClO4)(3) (6), and [Ag-3-(titmb)(2)](ClO4)(3) (CHCl3)-C-. (7). The structures of these complexes were determined by X-ray crystalography. The results of structural analysis of complexes 1 and 2, with the same azide anion but different ligands, revealed that 1 is a twofold interpenetrated 3D framework with interlocked cage-like moieties, while 2 is a M,L, type cage-like complex with a methanol molecule inside the cage. Entirely different structure and topology between 1 and 2 indicates that the nature of organic ligands affected the structures of assemblies greatly. While in the cases of complexes 2-7 with flexible tripodal ligand TITMB, they are all discrete M3L2 type cages. The results indicate that the framework of these complexes is predominated by the nature of the organic ligand and geometric need of the metal ions, but not influenced greatly by the anions and solvents. It is interesting that there is a divalent anion [Ag(NO3)(3)](2-) inside the cage 4 and an anion of ClO4- or NO3- spontaneously encapsulated within the cage of complexes 5, 6 and 7.

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