| Literature DB >> 31458193 |
Manasi Roy1, Amit Adhikary1, Amit Kumar Mondal2, Raju Mondal1.
Abstract
This contribution deals with the synthesis and utilization of a newEntities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 31458193 PMCID: PMC6644332 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.8b02212
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Scheme 1
Figure 1(a) Right-hand side single-strand helix of compound 1; (b) packing diagram of compound 1 and coordination geometry around the Co(II) ion (inset). (c) Right-handed isomer (λ-isomer) and left-handed isomer (Δ-isomer); (d) π–π stacked double-stranded helix resulting from interweaving two single-strand helixes.
Figure 2(a) Molecular form of compounds 2 and 3. (b) Coordination geometry around the central metal (Co, Mn) ion. (c) Interplanar spacing diagram of alternative planes.
Figure 3Solid-state CD spectrum of compound 1.
Figure 4(a) Photograph of time-dependent noticeable photodegradation of methylene blue dye solution by compound 1 in the presence of H2O2 (within 60 min) and (b) in the absence of H2O2 (within 48 h). (c) Comparative picture showing selective methylene blue dye degradation in comparison to that of Congo red, methyl orange, and rhodamine B.
Figure 5Time-dependent UV–vis spectral study of dye degradation by compound 1 in the (A) presence and (B) absence of H2O2. Photodegradation efficiency in the (C) presence and (D) absence of H2O2. Plot of ln(C/C0) vs T in the (E) presence and (F) absence of H2O2.
Rate Constant and Degradation Efficiency of Compound 1 in Different Conditions
| reaction condition | degradation efficiency (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| in the presence of H2O2 | 8.00 × 10–2 | 98 |
| in the absence of H2O2 | 9.9 × 10–3 | 82 |
Figure 6(a) PL spectra of compound 1 in the presence and (b) absence of H2O2; notice a clear red shift in the emission spectrum.
Figure 7(a) Comparison of the simulated PXRD pattern and the PXRD patterns before and after dye interaction with compound 1; comparison of PXRD patterns of compound 1 with and without H2O2.
Figure 8Temperature-dependent dc magnetic susceptibility of compounds 1–3. The red lines are the best fit.
Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical χMT (cm3 mol–1 K) Values of Compounds 1 and 2
| compound | theoretical spin only, χM | theoretical (spin + orbital), χM | experimental |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.75 | 6.705 | 6.27 | |
| 1.875 | 3.352 | 2.76 |
Figure 9(a) M/Nβ vs H plot and (b) M/Nβ vs H/T plot for compound 1. The red lines are the best fit.
Figure 10Temperature dependence of the in-phase (χ′) (a) and out-of-phase (χ″) (b) ac susceptibility for compound 1 under a field of 0.5 T.
Figure 11Plot of ln(ω) vs 1/T for complex 1. The solid line indicates fitting of the plot using the Arrhenius equation.