Emma Folkertsma1, Joost van der Lit2, Francesca Di Cicco2, Martin Lutz3, Robertus J M Klein Gebbink1, Ingmar Swart2, Marc-Etienne Moret1. 1. Organic Chemistry & Catalysis, Debye Institute for Nanomaterials Science, Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 99, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Condensed Matter and Interfaces, Debye Institute for Nanomaterials Science, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80000, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Crystal and Structural Chemistry, Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Here, we report the bulk synthesis of [FeII(BMBIK)Cl2] bearing the redox noninnocent bis(methylbenzimidazolyl)ketone (BMBIK) ligand and the synthesis of the similar complex [FeI(BMBIK)]+ on a Au(111) surface using lateral manipulation at the atomic level. Cyclic voltammetry and scanning tunneling spectroscopy are shown to be useful techniques to compare the coordination compound in solution with the one on the surface. The total charge, as well as the oxidation and spin state of [FeI(BMBIK)]+, are investigated by comparison of the shape of the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO), visualized by tunneling through the LUMO, with theoretical models. The similar reduction potentials found for the solution and surface compounds indicate that the major effect of lowering the LUMO upon coordination of BMBIK to the iron center is conserved on the surface. The synthesis and analysis of [FeI(BMBIK)]+ using scanning tunneling microscopy, scanning tunneling spectroscopy, and atomic force microscopy are the first steps toward mechanistic studies of homogeneous catalysts with redox noninnocent ligands at the single molecule level.
Here, we report the bulk synthesis of [FeII(BMBIK)Cl2] bearing the redox noninnocent bis(methylbenzimidazolyl)ketone (BMBIK) ligand and the synthesis of the similar complex [FeI(BMBIK)]+ on a Au(111) surface using lateral manipulation at the atomic level. Cyclic voltammetry and scanning tunneling spectroscopy are shown to be useful techniques to compare the coordination compound in solution with the one on the surface. The total charge, as well as the oxidation and spin state of [FeI(BMBIK)]+, are investigated by comparison of the shape of the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO), visualized by tunneling through the LUMO, with theoretical models. The similar reduction potentials found for the solution and surface compounds indicate that the major effect of lowering the LUMO upon coordination of BMBIK to the iron center is conserved on the surface. The synthesis and analysis of [FeI(BMBIK)]+ using scanning tunneling microscopy, scanning tunneling spectroscopy, and atomic force microscopy are the first steps toward mechanistic studies of homogeneous catalysts with redox noninnocent ligands at the single molecule level.
The use of redox noninnocent
ligands (NILs) in homogeneous catalysis
has been studied extensively in the past few decades.[1−6] The key feature of redox active NILs is their ability to store and
release electrons during catalysis, facilitating two-electron elementary
steps on first-row transition metal complexes.[3,7−9] This expands the scope of reactions that can be catalyzed
using affordable and nontoxic first-row transition metals.[10−13] Some examples of NILs with great potential are bis(imino)pyridines,[8,14] bis(amidophenolates),[15] bis(amido-phenyl)amides,[16,17] formazanates,[18] and catecholates.[19] Analytical and theoretical studies by Chirik
et al. have allowed the assignment of the oxidation and spin state
of the metal centers in complexes bearing a bis(imino)pyridine ligand
and have led to a proposed mechanism for catalytic olefinhydrogenation
using such Fe complexes as catalysts.[8,20] They proposed
a low-coordinate iron(II) complex with a doubly reduced bis(imino)pyridine
diradical to be the catalytically active species. Oxidative addition
of H2 and reductive elimination of the product are essential
steps in the catalytic cycle, and both involve the mobilization of
ligand-centered electrons. Meanwhile, the iron(II) oxidation state
is preserved. One of the major questions in mechanistic studies on
complexes bearing NILs concerns the oxidation state of the metal center,
which is generally not trivial to determine for this type of complex.
Moreover, the detection of reactive intermediates involved in the
catalytic cycle is often highly challenging, limiting insight into
the catalytic mechanism.One way these challenges might be overcome
is by using scanning
probe microscopy (SPM) techniques to study single molecules. SPM at
low temperatures (T = 5 K) allows isolated molecules
to be studied. Furthermore, lateral manipulation of molecules or single
atoms provides control over step-by-step reactions. Additionally,
using scanning tunneling spectroscopy (STS), the energy, as well as
the spatial extent of the frontier molecular orbitals can be measured.[21,22] These quantities can be compared to those from density functional
theory (DFT) calculations. This provides detailed information on the
electronic structure of the studied molecules.Lateral manipulation
of molecules in scanning tunneling microscopy
(STM) has been used for the on-surface step-by-step synthesis of coordination
compounds.[23−29] However, the study of the same molecules in the bulk phase and the
comparison of their bulk properties to their properties on the surface
are more rare.[30−32] For example, Wang et al. studied titanyl phthalocyanine
on a highly oriented pyrolytic graphite surface and in dichlorobenzene
solution to investigate the influence of gasses on the electronic
structure. They used cyclic voltammetry (CV) and STS to compare the
solution and surface compounds, and found good consistency between
the STS and the CV data.STM has also been used to study catalysts.
In those cases, typically
but not exclusively well-defined single crystals are used as a model
for the catalyst.[33−40] Additionally, catalytically active coordination compounds have been
investigated in action. For example, STM experiments on Mn–porphyrin
epoxidation catalysts provided insight into the mechanism of the reaction
and, amongst other things, showed the distribution of the oxygen atoms
of O2 over two adjacent catalyst molecules at the surface.[26,41]In this study, the formation and electronic structure of a
catalyst
model compound are investigated by combining the bulk synthesis of
a coordination compound, single molecule scanning probe microscopy
at 4.5 K, and theoretical studies. The Fe–BMBIK complex (BMBIK:
bis(methylbenzimidazolyl)ketone) is selected as a model
for catalysts because previous studies on the related compound bis(1-methyl-4,5-diphenylimidazolyl)ketone
(BMdiPhIK) have shown its ability to store electrons, making
its Fe complexes good models for catalysts supported by redox NILs.[42] Additionally, the conjugated π-system
of the BMBIK ligand is both flat and rigid, which are useful properties
for surface studies (Figure ). The study of coordination compounds on the surface might
allow the detection of (low-coordinate) reactive catalytic intermediates
that cannot be detected in solution.[43]
Figure 1
Compounds
and reactions under study, in solution (left) and on
the surface (right).
Compounds
and reactions under study, in solution (left) and on
the surface (right).Similar to Wang et al., CV data acquired in solution are
compared
to that of STS data. Using these two techniques, the changes in the
electronic structure of the BMBIK ligand upon coordination to the
metal center were studied. By comparing the measured and calculated
shape of the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of the complex,
the oxidation state of Fe in [Fe(BMBIK)] on the surface could be assigned.
Finally, reactive low-coordinate iron species, relevant to proposed
catalytic intermediates, are studied on the single molecule level.
Results
Complex
Synthesis
The BMBIK ligand was synthesized
starting from commercially available benzimidazole, according to a
literature procedure.[44] The iron complex
[Fe(BMBIK)Cl2] was obtained as a green precipitate from
the reaction of BMBIK with FeCl2·1.5THF in tetrahydrofuran
(THF) at room temperature. The formation of this complex was confirmed
with 1HNMR, IR, UV–vis spectroscopy, high-resolution
electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESIMS), CV, and elemental
analysis. The 1HNMR spectrum shows five paramagnetically
shifted signals ranging from −40 to 40.4 ppm indicating the
formation of a symmetrical high-spin complex. The structure of [Fe(BMBIK)Cl2] was determined by X-ray crystallography; the molecular structure
and selected bond lengths and angles are included in Figure and Table . Two independent complex molecules are present
in the asymmetric unit; both have a slightly distorted tetrahedral
geometry around the iron center. The Fe–N bond lengths of 2.0657(12)–2.0779(12)
Å are typical for tetrahedral high-spinFeII-complexes.[45,46] From the top view in Figure it can be clearly seen that the BMBIK ligand stays flat upon
coordination to the iron center, which makes this complex a good candidate
for surface studies.
Figure 2
Side and top view of the molecular structure of [Fe(BMBIK)Cl2]. Hydrogen atoms and a second independent complex molecule
have been omitted for clarity and displacement ellipsoids are drawn
at the 50% probability level.
Table 1
Selected Bond Lengths and Angles for
Both Independent Molecules of [Fe(BMBIK)Cl2]
bond length
(Å) n = 1, m = 2
bond length
(Å) n = 3, m = 4
Fe–Cl1n
2.2454(4)
2.2513(4)
Fe–Cl2n
2.2335(4)
2.2310(4)
Fe–N1n
2.0751(11)
2.0657(12)
Fe–N1m
2.0738(11)
2.0779(12)
N1n–C2n
1.3353(17)
1.3382(17)
N1m–C2m
1.3360(16)
1.3379(17)
C(n)–O(n)
1.2177(16)
1.2199(17)
Side and top view of the molecular structure of [Fe(BMBIK)Cl2]. Hydrogen atoms and a second independent complex molecule
have been omitted for clarity and displacement ellipsoids are drawn
at the 50% probability level.
Investigation of BMBIK
and Its Iron Complex on a Au(111) Surface
The synthesis of
the target complex [Fe(BMBIK)] on a surface was
achieved by co-evaporation of iron atoms and the BMBIK ligand using
an electron-beam evaporator onto a Au(111) single crystal held at
4.5 K. The Au(111) surface, with its characteristic herringbone reconstruction,
was chosen because of its weak interactions with molecules, which
is a useful property for lateral manipulation experiments and electronic
characterization.[2,47]An STM overview image shows
the adsorption of both BMBIK molecules (butterfly shapes), as well
as iron atoms (spherical protrusions), on the Au(111) surface (Figure A). The butterfly-shaped
protrusions resemble the expected shape and size of the BMBIK ligand
(zoomed in image in Figure B). The smaller spherical protrusions are individual Fe atoms.
To eliminate any ambiguity in the identification of the molecules,
an atomically resolved atomic force microscopy (AFM) image was acquired
using a CO terminated tip (Figure C), from which characteristic parts of BMBIK, like
the benzimidazole rings and the methyl substituents, can clearly be
recognized.[48] The apparent bond between
the methyl group and the carbonyl oxygen, as well as the deformed
bond lengths, are ascribed to an imaging artifact.[49−51] Using lateral
manipulation, the [Fe(BMBIK)] complex was formed by moving BMBIK toward
an iron atom (Figure D, details about the manipulation can be found in the Experimental Section). At the bias used in Figure E, the shape of the complex
still resembles the shape of a BMBIK molecule, and it is not easily
distinguished from the free ligands.
Figure 3
A) STM overview of BMBIK and Fe atoms
adsorbed on Au(111) (0.1
V, 20 pA, scale bar: 5 nm). (B) STM image of BMBIK with superimposed
theoretical model (0.1 V, 10 pA, scale bar: 1 nm). (C) Constant height
AFM image of BMBIK on Au(111) acquired with a CO terminated tip (Δz = −0.75 Å w.r.t. STM set-point 0.1 V and 10
pA, scale bar: 0.5 nm). (D, E) STM manipulation steps. (D) The red
arrow indicates the manipulation trajectory of the ligand toward the
Fe atom (0.1 V, 20 pA, scale bar: 2 nm). (E) STM image showing the
complex formed by manipulation on the left. Manipulation parameters:
Δz = −2.5 Å, bias = 0 V. (0.1 V,
20 pA, scale bar: 2 nm).
A) STM overview of BMBIK and Fe atoms
adsorbed on Au(111) (0.1
V, 20 pA, scale bar: 5 nm). (B) STM image of BMBIK with superimposed
theoretical model (0.1 V, 10 pA, scale bar: 1 nm). (C) Constant height
AFM image of BMBIK on Au(111) acquired with a CO terminated tip (Δz = −0.75 Å w.r.t. STM set-point 0.1 V and 10
pA, scale bar: 0.5 nm). (D, E) STM manipulation steps. (D) The red
arrow indicates the manipulation trajectory of the ligand toward the
Fe atom (0.1 V, 20 pA, scale bar: 2 nm). (E) STM image showing the
complex formed by manipulation on the left. Manipulation parameters:
Δz = −2.5 Å, bias = 0 V. (0.1 V,
20 pA, scale bar: 2 nm).
Surface and Solution Electrochemical Properties
To
discriminate the complex from the free ligand on the surface, STS
spectra were recorded on both the complex and on a free ligand (Figure ). The large changes
in the STS spectra conclusively show that the manipulation resulted
in formation of an [Fe(BMBIK)] complex. Electronic characterization
using both STS and CV allows for a comparison of the molecular properties
in solution (bulk) and on the surface (locally) for both the free
ligand and the iron complex.[52] It should
be kept in mind that the iron-centered tetrahedral complex in solution
is in its +2 oxidation state and has two coordinating chloride-ligands,
whereas the planar complex on the surface consists only of a BMBIK
molecule and an iron center (no chloride) of which the oxidation state
is not clear a priori.
Figure 4
Top: voltammograms of BMBIK (blue) and [Fe(BMBIK)Cl2] (green), measured in 0.1 M Bu4NPF6 in MeCN,
referenced vs vacuum measured reductively at a scan rate of 100 mV/s.
The voltammograms are normalized to the most intense signal. Bottom:
differential conductance spectra of BMBIK (blue) and [Fe(BMBIK)] (green).
Both spectra were acquired at center positions.
Top: voltammograms of BMBIK (blue) and [Fe(BMBIK)Cl2] (green), measured in 0.1 M Bu4NPF6 in MeCN,
referenced vs vacuum measured reductively at a scan rate of 100 mV/s.
The voltammograms are normalized to the most intense signal. Bottom:
differential conductance spectra of BMBIK (blue) and [Fe(BMBIK)] (green).
Both spectra were acquired at center positions.The results of the electronic characterization of both CV
(top)
and STS (bottom) on the free ligand (blue) and the iron complex (green)
are shown in Figure . To compare the energies of the STS and CV data, both are referenced
to vacuum rather than to the more commonly used “zeros”
of ferrocene and the surface EF for CV and STS, respectively.
For clarity, these scales are also included in Figure .In CV, both BMBIK and the iron complex
show one major redox process
in the reductive region. The ligand shows a quasireversible reduction
wave with a reduction potential (Epc)
of −3.3 V versus vacuum (Epc =
−1.8 V, half-wave potential E1/2 = −1.7 V vs ferrocene). For the iron complex, a rather irreversible
reduction wave is found at Epc = −4.0
V versus vacuum (−1.1 V vs ferrocene) (Figure , top). Similar paramagnetic 1HNMR shifts observed for [FeII(BMBIK)Cl2]
in both the weakly coordinating solvent dichloromethane and in acetonitrile
(see Figure S2) suggest that the main species
in solution does not incorporate additional solvent molecules under
the CV conditions. The reduction of the iron complex is proposed to
be ligand-centered based on its similarities to the closely related
[FeII(BMdiPhIK)Cl2] and [ZnII(BMdiPhIK)Cl2] complexes.[42] Coordination of the ligand to a Lewis acidic metal center
makes the reduction more accessible with a shift in the potential
of ΔECV = 0.7 V.In the STS
spectra of the free ligand and the complex, peaks are
observed at distinctively different voltages: −3.2 and −4.2
V versus vacuum (2.2 and 1.2 V vs EF Au(111)) for the ligand
and complex, respectively (Figure , bottom). No states were found in the experimentally
accessible part of the oxidative region. Both spectra could be fitted
with a single Gaussian, hence it is likely that a single state is
responsible for the observed resonance, or two states that should
be very close in energy (ΔE < 100 meV).
The difference in the measured potential between the ligand and the
complex (ΔESTS = 1.0 V) clearly
shows a shift in energy of the LUMO upon coordination of the ligand
to a Lewis acidic metal atom.[25,42,53] The shift in the energy of the ligand-centered LUMO upon coordination
to the iron center on the surface is of the same order of magnitude
as the shift observed in solution (Figure ). Peak shifts due to the potential distribution
in the tunnel barrier are on the order of 10 mV.[54]The similarities between the CV and STS data, both
in reduction
potentials and in the observed shift in potential upon coordination
of the BMBIK ligand to the iron center, indicate that the complex
on the Au(111) surface can be compared with the complex in solution.
The combination of CV and STS provides the opportunity to compare
surface and solution redox processes and illustrates the potential
of STM studies as a promising tool to study low-coordinate or reactive
coordination compounds on the single molecule level.
Variable Bias
Measurements
Constant current STM images
were recorded at various voltages to investigate the spatial extent
of the resonances discussed in Figure . Figure A,B shows STM images featuring two ligand molecules when the dominant
tunneling pathways are nonresonant and via the LUMO level, respectively.
At 2.0 V (resonant tunneling) the apparent height of the ligands is
much larger than that at 0.1 V (nonresonant tunneling). The shape
of the free ligand in this image now resembles the LUMO responsible
for the resonance at 2.07 V.[22]
Figure 5
Top: bias-dependent
STM images of the free ligand and complex,
resonantly tunneling through the LUMO of the ligand or complex. I = 20 pA, V = 1.25 V, scale bar: 2 nm.
Bottom: line profiles corresponding to the red arrows shown in the
top images. The blue lines correspond to the images recorded at 0.1
V, and the green lines correspond to the images recorded at 2.0 and
1.25 V for the ligand and the complex, respectively. On the x axis, the approximate position of the carbonyl (red and
black spheres for O and C, respectively) and if applicable the iron
center (yellow sphere) are indicated.
Top: bias-dependent
STM images of the free ligand and complex,
resonantly tunneling through the LUMO of the ligand or complex. I = 20 pA, V = 1.25 V, scale bar: 2 nm.
Bottom: line profiles corresponding to the red arrows shown in the
top images. The blue lines correspond to the images recorded at 0.1
V, and the green lines correspond to the images recorded at 2.0 and
1.25 V for the ligand and the complex, respectively. On the x axis, the approximate position of the carbonyl (red and
black spheres for O and C, respectively) and if applicable the iron
center (yellow sphere) are indicated.Figure C,D
shows
the iron complex, two ligand molecules, and some free iron atoms.
The LUMO of the complex, responsible for the resonance at 1.15 V,
was imaged by scanning at a bias of 1.25 V (Figure D). At this voltage, the apparent height
of the center of the complex is much larger than that of the free
ligands (2.0 vs 1.25 Å). At this bias, the complex can easily
be distinguished from the ligand molecules, as these are not affected
because they have no available orbitals at this potential (compare
the appearance of the complex and free ligands in Figure D). The shape of the LUMO can
now be compared to that from theoretical models, as discussed in the
next section.Additionally, four line profiles are provided
in Figure E,F. The
profiles correspond
to the red lines as indicated in Figure A,C and go through the carbonyl and the iron
center. The blue lines correspond to the images recorded at 0.1 V,
and the green lines correspond to the images recorded at 2.0 and 1.25
V for the ligand and the complex, respectively. The positions of Fe,
C, and O are indicated with spheres; the distances between the Fe,
C, and O are based on DFT calculations (+1 charge, high spin); however,
the absolute positions along the line profile are only approximate.
The profiles in Figure E over the free ligand show an increase of approximately 1 Å
when tunneling resonantly through the LUMO. No clear submolecular
features could be observed. The line profiles over the complex do
show some submolecular features when in resonance with the LUMO. The
bimodal line profile indicates resonance enhancement on both the CO
and the Fe side.
Computational Studies
To obtain
further insight into
the electronic structure of the [Fe(BMBIK)] complex on the surface
and the oxidation state of the iron center, DFT calculations were
performed. The charge state of the complex on the Au(111) surface
is determined by the energetic alignment of the frontier molecular
orbitals of the complex with the Fermi level of the substrate and
is not a priori known. The calculations were carried out on an isolated
molecule, that is, the Au(111) surface was not included. The plausible
total charges of the complex, 0, +1, and +2, were investigated in
silico. All possible spin states, accessible by distributing the available
d-electrons (depending on the total charge of the complex) over five
nondegenerate d orbitals and the LUMO of the ligand, were considered.
For all charge states, the high-spin state yielded the lowest energy;
they were found to be 3.8, 18.1, and 19.5 kcal/mol lower in energy
than those of the intermediate spin states, for the 0, +1, and +2
charge states, respectively. The intermediate spin states were again
lower in energy than the low-spin states. This is similar to what
has been found for the bulk complex [Fe(BMBIK)Cl2] and
what can be expected for such a low-coordinate iron complex.[55,56] The resulting spin densities and probability density of the LUMO
of the high-spin states are shown in Table . A natural bond orbital (NBO) analysis was
used to compute the atomic charges and spin densities. The latter
provide a basis for describing the electronic structure of the complex
in terms of metal oxidation state and ligand noninnocence.
Table 2
DFT Results of the High-Spin [Fe(BMBIK)]
Complexes at Three Charge Statesa,b
The spin density
and charges on
iron were determined by NBO analysis.
Only the β-LUMOs are shown,
as they are significantly lower in energy compared to that of the
α-LUMOs. Calculations were done on the OPBZ/cc-pVTZ level of
theory.[58−60]
The spin density
and charges oniron were determined by NBO analysis.Only the β-LUMOs are shown,
as they are significantly lower in energy compared to that of the
α-LUMOs. Calculations were done on the OPBZ/cc-pVTZ level of
theory.[58−60]For the
neutral complex, the quintet ground state was found to
be in close proximity to the first triplet state (3.8 kcal/mol), and
both states were well separated from the singlet (27.3 kcal/mol).
This situation is typical of redox noninnocence, in which one electron
is transferred from the metal center to the ligand;[20,57] weak ferromagnetic coupling between a high-spinFe(I) center (S = 3/2) and a ligand-centered radical generates an S = 2 ground state with a low lying S =
1 excited state. The NBO spin density of 3.1 at the iron center and
the spin density plot shown in Table further validate the idea of a ligand-centered radical.
The NBO charge on iron of 0.9 supports the idea that it is in the
+1 oxidation state.The complex with a total charge of +1 shows
most of the spin density
on the iron center (NBO spin density: 3.1) and only very little radical
character on the ligand (NBO spin density on C=O: 0.13). This
indicates a rather innocent behavior of the ligand in this charge
state and an oxidation state of +1 of the iron center, as additionally
supported by the NBO charge of 1.0.Lastly, for the complex
with a total charge of +2, both the NBO
charge and the spin density on iron do not yield an integer number
(1.4 and 3.5, respectively). This suggests that the ground state is
best described as a delocalized state in which the oxidation state
of iron is intermediate between +1 and +2, with partial oxidation
of the ligand. Accordingly, the LUMO of the complex is a linear combination
of a d orbital and a ligand π orbital that is occupied in the
unbound ligand (see Figure S7).Besides
the NBO spin densities and charges, Table also shows the probability density of the
LUMOs of the three charge states. Other unoccupied states are >300
meV higher in energy than the LUMO, showing that they are well separated.
For the neutral complex, the LUMO is delocalized over the entire complex,
with the largest amplitude above the Fe atom. The LUMO of the +1 complex
is the same as that of the neutral species. However, the amplitude
at the Fe atom is significantly reduced. In contrast, for the +2 state
the LUMO is a different orbital. Note that this state has no π*
(C=O) character.
Discussion
By comparing the probability
densities of the LUMOs of different
charge states with the experimental shape observed in the images acquired
at a bias of 1.25 V, the charge state and oxidation state of the iron
center can be tentatively assigned. Upon comparing these probability
densities of the LUMOs of the complexes with various charge states
(Table ) with the
STM image recorded at 1.25 V and the plotted line profiles (Figure D,F), the charge
state of +1 seems most plausible. The line profile shows the highest
point close to the CO and a shoulder close to the iron center. The
high intensity on CO makes the +2 charge state very unlikely, as the
corresponding LUMO has no density on the CO unit. The LUMO calculated
for the 0 charge has a stronger Fe character (see Table ), whereas the LUMO of the +1
charged complex is evenly distributed over the molecule, in closer
agreement with the experimental profile. In addition, the strong shift
of the STS signal toward lower energies upon coordination supports
the idea that a positively charged complex is formed. Hence, we favor
the assignment of a +1 charge state, corresponding to a +1 oxidation
state of the iron center. The observation of a charged molecule on
a Au(111) surface has been reported before.[61]Overall, comparing the results obtained in solution and on
a surface
provides unique insights into the effect of metal coordination on
the unoccupied electronic levels of the ligand, which both STS and
CV probe. First, the energy of the LUMO of the free ligand appears
to be rather insensitive to the microenvironment, as the reduction
potentials on the surface and in solution are very similar (Figure , blue curves). This
may appear surprising in view of the difference in microenvironment
(Au(111) and vacuum versus glassy carbon and MeCN) between the STS
and CV experiments. The latter can be understood from the fact that
the interaction between molecules and the Au(111) surface is typically
very weak[22,47] and is hence not expected to strongly impact
the measurement. In the CV experiment, environmental effects are largely
canceled out by referencing to the ferrocene/ferrocenium couple under
the same conditions. Furthermore, differential solvation effects are
typically small for large organic molecules with diffuse charge density,[62] and their electrochemical reduction potentials
have been shown to correlate well with resonant tunneling bands.[30] Maybe more surprising is the fact that different
species behave so similarly: the coordination to a charged FeI ion on the surface imposes only a slightly larger shift (ΔESTS = 1.0 V) than that from coordination to
a neutral FeIICl2 fragment in solution (ΔECV = 0.7 V). This suggests that the energy shift
of the ligand π orbitals upon binding mostly stems from the
ensuing orbital interactions (Lewis acid/base complex formation) and
is only moderately sensitive to the oxidation state of the metal or
to the surrounding ligand. From the slightly larger shift observed
by STS, it appears that the overall charge of the complex has a stronger
influence on the ligand π orbitals than the formal oxidation
state of the metal.
Conclusions
To conclude, the BMBIK
ligand has been successfully coordinated
to an iron center both in solution and on a Au(111) surface. [FeII(BMBIK)Cl2] synthesized in the bulk phase has
been structurally characterized using X-ray crystal structure determination,
which shows that the ligand stays flat upon coordination to the iron
center. [FeI(BMBIK)]+ was synthesized on the
single molecule level using lateral manipulation in STM. Even though
the molecular shape of [FeI(BMBIK)]+ is similar
to free BMBIK, they could be distinguished using STS, as the energy
of the LUMO shifts downward (Δ 1.0 V) upon coordination to the
iron center. By comparing the STS results at the single molecule level
to the CV measurements on the bulk phase it was found that the shift
in LUMO energy is similar in both systems. On the basis of DFT studies,
it is tentatively proposed that on the Au(111) surface, the iron center
in [Fe(BMBIK)]+ is in the +1 oxidation state and adopts
the high-spin state with only minor spin density on the ligand.The synthesis of [FeI(BMBIK)]+ via lateral
manipulation provides a first step in the single molecule study of
catalytic cycles that involve NIL metal complexes. Such studies will
of course need to take into account the marked difference between
the conditions found in the SPM/STM conditions (UHV, cryogenic temperatures)
and those of a “real life” catalytic transformation
(condensed phase, higher temperatures). In this respect, the correlation
between CV and STS data demonstrate a reassuring similarity between
the solution and surface compounds. In addition, the UHV/cryogenic
environment provides the opportunity to synthesize and study species
that would be too short-lived to be characterized in the condensed
phase, such as the low-coordinate iron complex [FeI(BMBIK)]+ that is similar to proposed reactive intermediates in catalytic
cycles.[8,20] In the future, X-ray photo-electron spectroscopy
experiments could allow us to experimentally determine the oxidation
state of the iron center.[26,27,29] This opens up new routes toward the study of catalytic cycles using
redox active NIL metal complexes.
Experimental Section
All air-sensitive organic reactions, as well as the handling and
synthesis of iron complexes, were carried out under an inert atmosphere
of dry and oxygen-free N2 using standard Schlenk techniques,
or were handled in an MBraun labmaster dp glovebox workstation. Dry
MeCN and toluene were obtained from an MBraun MB SPS-800 solvent purification
system. THF was distilled over sodium/benzophenone under N2 before use. All dry solvents were degassed by bubbling N2 through the liquid for ca. 30 min or by freeze–pump–thaw
cycles prior to use and stored over 3 or 4 Å molecular sieves.
CD2Cl2 was degassed by freeze–pump–thaw
cycles prior to use and stored over 4 Å molecular sieves. The 1HNMR spectra were recorded at 298 K on a Varian VNMRS400
or an Oxford NMR AS400 spectrometer at 400 MHz. Chemical shifts (δ)
are reported in ppm and referenced against residual solvent signal.
Attenuated total reflection (ATR) infrared spectra were recorded on
a Perkin-Elmer Spectrum One FT-IR spectrometer. The UV–vis
spectra were recorded on an Agilent Cary 50 UV–vis spectrometer;
wavelengths are reported in nanometers. The ESIMS spectra were recorded
on a Waters LCT Premier XE KE317 Micromass Technologies spectrometer.
CV measurements were performed on a Princeton 263A potentiostat/galvanostat,
using a Pt counter electrode, a glassy carbon working electrode, and
a Ag/AgNO3 reference electrode. All data are referenced
to ferrocene. Analyte concentrations were typically between 0.5 and
5 mM in a 0.1 M NBu4PF6 in MeCN electrolyte.
Elemental microanalysis was carried out by the Mikroanalytischen Laboratorium
Kolbe, Mulheim a.d. Ruhr, Germany. BMBIK was synthesized in accordance
with the literature procedure.[44] All other
chemicals were commercially obtained and used as received. The clean
Au(111) surface was prepared using several Argon sputter/anneal cycles.
All STM/AFM experiments were performed on an LT-STM/AFM (Scienta Omicron
GmbH) kept at 4.5 K in a vacuum chamber with a base pressure <1
× 10–9 mbar. Molecules were evaporated directly
onto the cold surface from a stainless steel crucible in an EFM3 e-beam
evaporator (Focus GmbH). Fe atoms were obtained on the surface from
the same e-beam evaporator using an Fe-rod (99.999%, Mateck GmbH)
as a source. The manipulation of the BMBIK molecule was achieved by
lowering the tip-sample distance approximately 5 Å after disconnecting
the feedback loop and setting the bias to 0 V. A stroke at constant
height over the molecule resulted in the relocation of the molecule
in the direction of movement. STS spectra were recorded using a lockin
amplifier (fmod = 273 Hz, Vmod = 10 mV (rms)).
[Fe(BMBIK)Cl2]
To a solution
of FeCl2·1.5THF (35 mg, 0.15 mmol) in THF (2.5 mL)
was added
a suspension of BMBIK (44 mg, 0.15 mmol) in THF (1.5 mL) resulting
in a color change from white to green. The solution was left stirring
overnight, after which it was filtered, and the residue was collected
and dried in vacuo. The product was obtained as a green solid (51
mg, 82%). Crystals suitable for X-ray crystal structure determination
were obtained from a concentrated MeCN solution by slow evaporation
of MeCN into toluene in the surrounding vial. Anal. for C17H14Cl2FeN4O (417.07), calc. C, 48.96;
H, 3.38; N, 13.43; found C, 49.04; H, 3.24; N, 13.33. 1HNMR (400 MHz, CD2Cl2, 25 °C): δ
= −40 (br, 2H, HBim), −11.26
(2H, HBim), 5.42 (2H, HBim), 16.64 (2H, HBim), 40.40
(6H, NCH3) ppm. IR (ATR): ν = 3088.6,
3057.3, 3023.4, 2960.9, 1657.0, 1589.4, 1497.4, 1477.2, 1454.5, 1432.9,
1394.8, 1342.3, 1289.7, 1218.6, 1127.7, 1104.1, 970.68, 914.57, 833.96,
748.6, 590.7, 554.18, 528.9 cm–1. ESIMS (CH2Cl2): m/z = 291.0970
{[BMBIK + H+], calc. 291.1246}, 381.0139 {[Fe(BMBIK)Cl]+, calc. 381.0206}, 422.0439 {[Fe(BMBIK)Cl + MeCN]+, calc. 422.0472}, 439.0534 {[Fe(BMBIK)Cl2 + Na]+, calc. 438.9793}, 671.1212 {[Fe(BMBIK)2Cl]+, calc. 671.1374}. UV–vis (MeCN): λmax =
575 nm.
X-ray Crystal Structure Determination
C17H14Cl2FeN4O, fw = 417.07, brownneedle, 0.77 × 0.21 × 0.08 mm3, triclinic, P (no. 2), a = 9.1214(3), b = 11.7012(4), c = 16.1591(5) Å,
α = 83.738(2), β = 89.466(1), γ = 87.936(2)°, V = 1713.27(10) Å3, Z =
4, D = 1.617 g/cm3, μ = 1.21 mm–1. A total of 29 927
reflections were measured on a Bruker Kappa ApexII diffractometer
with a sealed tube and Triumph monochromator (λ = 0.71073 Å)
at a temperature of 150(2) K up to a resolution of (sin θ/λ)max = 0.65 Å–1. The Eval15 software[63] was used for the integration of the intensities.
A numerical absorption correction and scaling was performed with SADABS[64] (correction range 0.56–0.92). A total
of 7857 reflections were unique (Rint =
0.016), of which 7154 were observed [I > 2σ(I)]. The structure was solved with Patterson superposition
methods using SHELXT.[65] Least-squares refinement
was performed with SHELXL-2014[66] against F2 for all reflections. Nonhydrogen atoms were
refined freely with anisotropic displacement parameters. All hydrogen
atoms were located in difference Fourier maps and refined with a riding
model. A total of 455 parameters were refined with no restraints. R1/wR2 [I > 2σ(I)]: 0.0219/0.0556. R1/wR2 [all refl.]: 0.0252/0.0572. S = 1.030. Residual
electron density was between −0.24 and 0.34 e/Å3. Geometry calculations and checking for higher symmetry were performed
with the PLATON program.[67]
Computational
Details
DFT results were obtained using
the Gaussian 09 software package,[68] using
the OPBZ functional and the cc-pVTZ basis set. This level of theory
was chosen as it has been shown that it leads to a correct prediction
of the correct spin ground state of Fe complexes.[58−60] Frequency analyses
were performed on all calculations. DFT calculation-derived pictures
were generated using the GaussView 5.0.8. software, the NBO6 program
up to the NLMO basis set was used.[69]
Authors: Jascha Repp; Gerhard Meyer; Sladjana M Stojković; André Gourdon; Christian Joachim Journal: Phys Rev Lett Date: 2005-01-19 Impact factor: 9.161
Authors: Daniel Skomski; Christopher D Tempas; Brian J Cook; Alexander V Polezhaev; Kevin A Smith; Kenneth G Caulton; Steven L Tait Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Bas Hulsken; Richard Van Hameren; Jan W Gerritsen; Tony Khoury; Pall Thordarson; Maxwell J Crossley; Alan E Rowan; Roeland J M Nolte; Johannes A A W Elemans; Sylvia Speller Journal: Nat Nanotechnol Date: 2007-04-22 Impact factor: 39.213
Authors: Joost van der Lit; Mark P Boneschanscher; Daniël Vanmaekelbergh; Mari Ijäs; Andreas Uppstu; Mikko Ervasti; Ari Harju; Peter Liljeroth; Ingmar Swart Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2013 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Martin Setvin; Ulrich Aschauer; Jan Hulva; Thomas Simschitz; Benjamin Daniel; Michael Schmid; Annabella Selloni; Ulrike Diebold Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 15.419