| Literature DB >> 31671705 |
Blenerhassitt E Buitendach1, Jeanet Conradie2, Frederick P Malan3, J W Hans Niemantsverdriet4, Jannie C Swarts5.
Abstract
A series of new ferrocene- andEntities:
Keywords: betadiketone; crystal structure; electrochemistry; electronic spectrum; ferrocene; iridium; phosphorescence; ruthenocene; spectroelectrochemistry; substituent effects
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31671705 PMCID: PMC6864483 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24213923
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Scheme 1Synthesis of 1–6 from the chloro-bridged dimeric iridium(III) complex di-μ-chlorotetrakis[2-(2-pyridinyl-kN)phenyl-kC]diiridium(III). Trans isomers with respect to N-atoms of the ppy-ligands of 1–6 are shown as the single crystal X-ray structure determination, see below, confirms this geometric orientation. Fc = ferrocenyl, Rc = ruthenocenyl and Cp = cyclopentadienyl = C5H5−.
Figure 1Left, A: Molecular structure of [(ppy)2Ir(RcCOCHCOCH3)] (3) showing atom labeling and, B, the ruthenocenyl group from above highlighting the near-eclipse configuration. The thermal ellipsoids represent a 50% probability limit. For clarity, a co-crystallized molecule of CH2Cl2 have been omitted. Right: C shows the crystal packing for 3, with the foreground molecule labelled #1 in blue and viewed perpendicular to the ppy ligand plane of the molecule (red) in the background. The perpendicular π–π spacing between the ppy ligands of adjacent molecules is ca. 3.5 Å. Selected bond distances (angstroms) are: Ir(1)–N(1) 2.046(7), Ir(1)–N(2) 2.045(7), Ir(1)–C(36) 1.987(8), Ir(1)–C(25) 1.992(9), Ir(1)–O(1) 2.112(6), Ir(1)–O(2) 2.158(6), O(1)–C(1) 1.262(10), O(2)–C(3) 1.250(11), C(1)–C(2) 1.402(14), C(2)–C(3) 1.393(14), C(1)–C(5) 1.500(14), C(3)–C(4) 1.528(13); Selected bond angles (degrees): N(1)–Ir(1)–C(25) 80.4(3), N(2)–Ir(1)–C(36) 80.8(3), O(1)–Ir(1)–O(2) 87.8(2), Ir(1)–O(1)–C(1) 126.1(6), Ir(1)–O(2)–C(3) 124.8(6), N(1)–Ir(1)–N(2) 174.3(3), O(1)–Ir(1)–C(25) 172.9(3), O(2)–Ir(1)–C(36) 172.3(3), O(1)–C(1)–C(2) 126.6(9), O(2)–C(3)–C(2) 127.4(8), C(1)–C(2)–C(3) 126.9(9), O(1)–C(1)–C(5) 113.9(9), O(2)–C(3)–C(4) 114.6(9). Other bond lengths and angles are available in the Supporting Information. Symmetry transformations used to generate equivalent atoms: #1 −x, −y, −z.
Crystal Data and Structural Refinement for 3.
| empirical formula | C36.33H29.66Cl0.66IrN2O2Ru | absorption coeff. (mm−1) | 4.893 |
| molecular weight | 843.12 | θ range for data collection (deg) | 2.304–25.349 |
| crystal size (mm3) | 0.348 × 0.334 × 0.058 | index ranges | −17 ≤ h ≤ 17 |
| temperature (K) | 150(2) | −11 ≤ k ≤ 11 | |
| wavelength (Å) | 0.71073 | −26 ≤ l ≤ 26 | |
| crystal system | monoclinic | no. of reflections collected | 65183 |
| space group | P21/n | no. of independent reflections | 5368 |
| unit cell dim. (Å; deg) | completeness to θ = 25.00° | 96.1% | |
| refinement method | full-matrix least-squares on F2 | ||
| data/restraints/parameters | 5368/0/408 | ||
| volume (Å3) | 3084.8(7) | goodness of fit on | 1.168 |
| Z | 4 | final | R1 = 0.0500; wR2 = 0.1189 |
| density (calc.) (g cm−3) | 1.815 | R1 = 0.0554; wR2 = 0.1219 | |
| 1640 | largest diff. peak and hole (e Å−3) | 1.58 and −0.93 |
Figure 2UV–Vis spectra of [(ppy)2Ir(RCOCHCOR′)] complexes 1 (R = Fc, R′ = CH3, blue), 2 (R = R′ = Fc, green), 3 (R = Rc, R′ = CH3, purple), 4 (R = R′ = Rc, red), 5 (R = Fc, R′ = Rc, black) and 6 (R = R′ = CH3, orange) in CH2Cl2. Insert: The linear relationship between absorbance and concentration for complex 5 at λ = 262 nm.
Wavelengths of absorption maxima (λmax) and extinction coefficients in brackets at these wavelengths, ε, for [(ppy)2Ir(RCOCHCORʹ)] complexes 1–6 in CH2Cl2 and Gordy scale group electronegativities, χR, for R and Rʹ groups.
| Complex (χR) | λmax/nm (ε/M−1 cm−1) | Complex (χR) | λmax/nm (ε/M−1 cm−1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1: R = Fc (χFc = 1.87) | 262 (38016); 346 (11374); | 4: R = Rc (χRc = 1.99), | 260 (42334); 350 (14083); |
| 2: R = Fc (χFc = 1.87), | 256 (41428); 350 (11589); | 5: R = Fc (χFc = 1.87), a | 258 (40825); 351 (12518); |
| 3: R = Rc χRc = 1.99), | 262 (37568); 346 (11938); | 6: R = R′ = CH3 | 260 (40897); 339 (9358); |
a (χFc+ = 2.82). b sh = shoulder.
Cyclic voltammetry data of 0.5 mmol·dm−3 solutions of 1–5 in CH2Cl2 containing 0.1 mol·dm−3 [(nBu)4N][B(C6F5)4] as supporting electrolyte at 20 °C. Scan rate = 100 mV·s−1, potentials are vs. FcH/FcH+.
| Wave | Epa/V | ΔEp/V | Eo′/V | ipc/ipa | Wave | Epa/V | ΔEp/V | Eo′/V | ipc/ipa | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||
| Fc* | −0.570 | 0.077 | −0.608 | 1.80 | 1.00 |
| |||||
| IrIII/IV | 0.296 | 0.088 | 0.252 | 5.56 | 0.20 | ||||||
|
| R1 | 0.771 | 0.067 | 0.737 | 5.74 | 0.13 | |||||
| F1 | 0.126 | 0.081 | 0.086 | 6.03 | 1.00 | R2a | 0.984 | 0.181 | 0.893 | 5.56 | 0.30 |
| IrIII/IV | 0.539 | 0.085 | 0.497 | 5.69 | 0.97 | R2b | 1.179 | - | - | 0.37 | - |
|
|
| ||||||||||
| F1 | 0.090 | 0.080 | 0.050 | 5.96 | 0.94 | F1 | 0.114 | 0.082 | 0.073 | 5.80 | 0.55 |
| F2 | 0.277 | 0.083 | 0.235 | 5.58 | 1.00 | IrIII/IV | 0.487 | 0.083 | 0.445 | 5.40 | 0.78 |
| IrIII/IV | 0.721 | 0.082 | 0.681 | 5.77 | 1.00 | R1 | 1.013 | 0.108 | 0.959 | 5.80 | 0.76 |
|
|
| ||||||||||
| IrIII/IV | 0.327 | 0.087 | 0.283 | 5.68 | 0.32 | IrIII/IV | 0.359 | 0.081 | 0.318 | 5.94 | 1.00 |
| R1a | 0.889 | 0.083 | 0.847 | 6.91 | 0.04 | ||||||
| R1b | 0.951 | - | - | 2.76 | - | ||||||
Corresponding cathodic signal could not be assigned.
Figure 3Left, Top: OSW (Osteryoung Square Wave) voltammogram of 0.5 mmol·dm−3 solutions of [(ppy)2Ir(FcCOCHCORc)], 5, in CH2Cl2 (20 oC) at 10 Hz in the presence of Fc* = decamethylferrocene as internal standard. Left, Middle: Cyclic voltammograms at scan rates 0.1 (smallest currents), 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 V·s−1 (largest current). Left, Bottom: LSV (Linear Sweep Voltammogram) at 2 mV·s−1. The ferrocenyl-, iridium- and ruthenocenyl-based redox processes are labelled as F1, Ir and R1 respectively. The small CV reduction peaks labeled “a” and “b” may be associated with either the presence of a RuIV species, or more likely a dimeric RuIII ruthenocenium species [43]. Likewise, the LSV peak R1b counting 1 electron is consistent with RuIV formation on LSV timescale. Right: Cyclic voltammograms of ca. 0.5 mmol·dm−3 solutions of [(ppy)2Ir(RCOCHCORʹ)] complexes 1–6, scanned at 100 mV·s−1 in CH2Cl2 at 20 oC in the presence of 0.1 mol·dm−3 [N(nBu)4][B(C6F5)4] as supporting electrolyte. Decamethylferrocene, Fc*, was used as internal reference, it is identified by the wave at -0.608 V vs. FvH/FcH+. Blue and red inserts: CV scans of 3, 4 and 5 where scan directions are reversed before ruthenocene oxidation commenced.
Scheme 2The sequence of electrochemical events associated with waves F1, Ir and R1 of [(ppy)2Ir(FcCOCHCORc)], 5. Eo′ values are valid for a scan rate of 0.1 V·s–1.
Figure 4Linear relationship between the sum of the group electronegativities, ΣχR, and the iridium-based redox potentials, E°′, for compounds 1–6.
Figure 5B3LYP/6-311G(d,p)/def2-TZVPP(SDD) calculated HOMOs of molecules involved in the IrIII oxidation. Calculations was done using DCM as solvent. A contour of 0.06 eÅ-3 was used for the MO plots. Gas phase calculated HOMOs look similar and are provided in the Supporting Information Figure S2.
Figure 6B3LYP/6-311G(d,p)/def2-TZVPP(SDD) calculated LUMOs of molecules after ferrocenyl oxidation. Calculations was done using DCM as solvent. A contour of 0.06 eÅ–3 was used for the MO plots. Gas phase calculated LUMOs look similar and are provided in the Supporting Information Figure S3.
Figure 7Relationship between the redox potential of the IrIII/IV couple and the HOMO energy (EHOMO) of the species involved. The black data points were obtained by DFT calculations in gas phase, while the blue data points were obtained using DCM as solvent in the DFT calculations. Data in Table S9 of the Supporting Information.
Figure 8Left: Excitation spectrum (black) for observing emission at 518 nm and photoluminescence spectra (green and red) at 20 oC of a CH2Cl2 solution containing 0.050 mmol dm-3 [(ppy)2Ir(acac)], 6, and 0.05 mol dm-3 [N(nBu)4][PF6], before (green) and after (red) bulk electrolysis at 0.8 V vs. Ag wire. After bulk electrolysis, IrIII was converted to IrIV, but the same excitation caused hardly any emission (red spectrum). Right: UV–Vis spectra of 0.05 mmol·dm−3 CH2Cl2 solutions of [(ppy)2Ir(acac)], 6, (top) and [(ppy)2Ir(FcCOCHCOCH3)], 1, (bottom) in CH2Cl2 in the presence of 0.05 mol·dm−3 [N(nBu)4][PF6] at 20 oC after bulk electrolysis (BE) at the indicated potentials (EBE vs. Ag/Ag+). Black spectra are for 1 and 6 in the ground state. The red spectrum was obtained after Fc oxidation in 1 to generate 1; blue spectra are the result of IrIII oxidation generating 1 or 6. The red insert highlights an electronic band associated with the Fc+ moiety of 1.