| Literature DB >> 30357474 |
A Zając1, L Dymińska2, J Lorenc2, S M Kaczmarek3, G Leniec3, M Ptak4, J Hanuza4.
Abstract
The copperEntities:
Keywords: Copper phytates; DFT quantum chemical calculations; Electron absorption spectroscopy; Electron paramagnetic resonance; Infrared and FT-Raman spectroscopy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30357474 PMCID: PMC6394811 DOI: 10.1007/s00775-018-1622-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biol Inorg Chem ISSN: 0949-8257 Impact factor: 3.358
Fig. 1The chemical structure of the IP6 (a), IP6Cu (b), IP6Cu2 (c) and IP6Cu3 (d)
Comparison of the experimental structural data (bond lengths and angles) with calculated by us geometrical parameters
| Structural parameters | Experimental data [ | Calculated parameters |
|---|---|---|
| Bond lengths (Å) | ||
| C–C | 1.494–1.575 | 1.532–1.550 |
| C–OP | 1.400–1.470 | 1.430–1.458 |
| Op–P | 1.616–1.647 | 1.664–1.770 |
| P=O | 1.492–1.506 | 1.597–1.704 |
| P–OH | 1.506–1.527 | 1.577–1.618 |
| Na–O or (Cu–O) | 2.191–2.899 | 1.807–1.987 |
| Angles (°) | ||
| O–Cu–O | – | 166.8 |
| P–O–Cu | – | 101.6–113.6 |
| O–P–O | 99.0–115.0 | 99.6–118.3 |
| P–O–C | 116.9–121.8 | 116.0–132.2 |
| C–C–C | 104.1–112.6 | 110.0–114.6 |
| Hydrogen bonds D·····A (Å) | ||
| Intramolecular O–H·····O | 2.611–2.777 | 2.27–2.72 |
| Intermolecular O–H·····O | 2.813–3.052 | – |
| O–H·····O angle (°) | 150–176 | 139.3–167.4 |
Fig. 2The view of the IP6 (left) and IP6Cu (right) molecules obtained from the geometry optimization in DFT calculations: (gray)—carbon, (red)—oxygen, (orange)—phosphorus, (light gray)—hydrogen atoms and (pink)—copper atom. In both structures the O–H···O hydrogen bonds are shown
Fig. 3FT-MIR (a), FT-FIR (b), Raman (c) and electron absorption (d) spectra of the studied IP6 and its copper IP6Cu, IP6Cu2 and IP6Cu3 complexes
Singlet excited states for IP6 and IP6Cu complex
| State number | IP6 | IP6Cu | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy (nm) | Oscillator strength | Energy (nm) | Oscillator strength | |
| 1 | 177.15 | 0.0016 | 896.14 | 0.0005 |
| 2 | 175.25 | 0.0043 | 524.57 | 0.0020 |
| 3 | 171.21 | 0.0017 | 444.14 | 0.0061 |
| 4 | 170.39 | 0.0044 | 364.83 | 0.0121 |
| 5 | 165.44 | 0.0129 | 347.69 | 0.0090 |
| 6 | 164.80 | 0.0132 | 336.23 | 0.0140 |
| 7 | 164.23 | 0.0025 | 295.88 | 0.0046 |
| 8 | 163.67 | 0.0061 | 262.69 | 0.0028 |
| 9 | 162.83 | 0.0054 | 252.14 | 0.0027 |
| 10 | 161.47 | 0.0021 | 249.40 | 0.0023 |
Fig. 4EPR spectra of the IP6Cu (upper panel), IP6Cu2 (middle panel), IP6Cu3 (bottom panel) complexes for several temperatures
Fig. 5Experimental EPR spectra measured at ~ 60 K and a fitting curve obtained from SIMPOW6 program for Cu complexes (left panel). Spectroscopic g factor (right panel) vs. temperature for the same complexes
Spin Hamiltonian parameters at a temperature of T ~ 60 K for copper complexes
| Complexes | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| IP6Cu | IP6Cu2 | IP6Cu3 | |
|
| 2.23 (2) | 2.37 (2) | 2.24 (2) |
|
| 2.21 (1) | 2.18 (1) | 2.20 (1) |
|
| 2.06 (2) | 2.07 (2) | 2.17 (2) |
The g values are given in the standard notation applied for powder compounds—g > g > g, where x, y, z laboratory axis system
Fig. 6Temperature dependences of EPR integrated intensity calculated for a IP6Cu complex (left panel), b IP6Cu2 complex (middle panel) and c IP6Cu3 complex (right panel). Solid line is the best fit of the modified Bleaney–Bowers and Curie–Weiss equations to the experimental curve