4.7 Article

Polynuclear lanthanide complexes of a series of bridging ligands containing two tridentate N,N ',O-donor units: structures and luminescence properties

期刊

DALTON TRANSACTIONS
卷 -, 期 10, 页码 1006-1022

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b618258e

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A set of three potentially bridging ligands containing two tridentate chelating N, N',O-donor (pyrazole-pyridine-amide) donors separated by an o, m, or p-phenylene spacer has been prepared and their coordination chemistry with lanthanide(III) ions investigated. Ligand L(1) (p-phenylene spacer) forms complexes with a 2 : 3 M : L ratio according to the proportions used in the reaction mixture; the Ln(2)(L(1))(3) complexes contain two 9-coordinate Ln( III) centres with all three bridging ligands spanning both metal ions, and have a cylindrical (non-helical) 'mesocate' architecture. The 1 : 1 complexes display a range of structural types depending on the conditions used, including a cyclic Ln(4)(L(1))(4) tetranuclear helicate, a Ln(2)(L(1))(2) dinuclear mesocate, and an infinite one-dimensional coordination polymer in which metal ions and bridging ligands alternate along the sequence. ESMS studies indicate that the 1 : 1 complexes form a mixture of oligonuclear species {Ln(L(1))}(n) in solution ( n up to 5) which are likely to be cyclic helicates. In contrast, ligands L(2) and L(3) ( with o- and m-phenylene spacers, respectively) generally form dinuclear Ln(2)L(2) Ln( III) complexes in which the two ligands may be arranged in a helical or non-helical architecture about the two metal ions. These complexes also contain an additional exogenous bidentate bridging ligand, either acetate or formate, which has arisen from hydrolysis of solvent molecules promoted by the Lewis-acidity of the Ln( III) ions. Luminescence studies on some of the Nd(III) complexes showed that excitation into ligand-centred pi-pi* transitions result in the characteristic near-infrared luminescence from Nd( III) at 1060 nm.

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