1988
DOI: 10.1039/dt9880000393
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A model for the interpretation of the absorption and circular dichroism spectra of tris(di-imine) complexes of iron(II) and ruthenium(II)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
9
0

Year Published

1988
1988
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
2
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The interpretation of these CD signals is controversial, however. In particular, the CD band at the longest wavelength, which is missing in the spectra of the corresponding Ru­(II) and Os­(II) complexes, has been interpreted to be due to a 3d–3d transition mixed with charge-transfer ones. , The second and third CD bands are due to two d−π* MLCT transitions, although recent TDDFT calculations have reversed the assignments of the first and third bands. , These latter reports, however, clearly demonstrate that TDDFT methods have an inherent difficulty in treating transitions involving strong participation from 3d electrons. In all cases, following these calculations, one can rule out the hypothesis that the origin of the visible CD bands of [Fe­(phen) 3 ] 2+ and [Fe­(bipy) 3 ] 2+ is due to exciton coupling of d−π* transitions, as they lack the proper symmetry and/or dipole strength requirements for ECCD. , …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The interpretation of these CD signals is controversial, however. In particular, the CD band at the longest wavelength, which is missing in the spectra of the corresponding Ru­(II) and Os­(II) complexes, has been interpreted to be due to a 3d–3d transition mixed with charge-transfer ones. , The second and third CD bands are due to two d−π* MLCT transitions, although recent TDDFT calculations have reversed the assignments of the first and third bands. , These latter reports, however, clearly demonstrate that TDDFT methods have an inherent difficulty in treating transitions involving strong participation from 3d electrons. In all cases, following these calculations, one can rule out the hypothesis that the origin of the visible CD bands of [Fe­(phen) 3 ] 2+ and [Fe­(bipy) 3 ] 2+ is due to exciton coupling of d−π* transitions, as they lack the proper symmetry and/or dipole strength requirements for ECCD. , …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For octahedral D 3 -symmetric tris -bidentate metal complexes with transition dipoles oriented parallel to the edges spanned by the ligands, exciton theory predicts the Δ configuration is associated with a negative exciton couplet, and vice-versa . 47–49 A CD couplet is defined negative if the first or long-wavelength Cotton effect is negative. The similarity with the present Fe(II) complexes suggests the same correlation holds.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The transfer term should be the origin of the intensity of the MLCT transitions between the d and π* orbitals with a large resonance integral, and therefore, the transition dipole moment is oriented along the CT direction. The intense MLCT absorption in tris(2,2‘-bipyridine) complexes of Fe(II), Ru(II), and Os(II) with a D 3 point group is ascribed to the transfer term in e → e transitions. Recent theoretical investigation of the phosphorescence in [ fac -Ir(ppy) 3 ] and [Ru(bpy) 3 ] 2+ has revealed that the lowest triplet state borrows the transfer term of the 1 dπ* (b 1 → b 1 ) transition in the pseudo- C 2 v point group…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This mixing results in an additional bonding (backbonding), since it stabilizes the HOMO e(dn;, rr~') and destabilizes the corresponding LUMO. The significance of this effect has already been stressed by Orgel [134] and later, for example, by Ceulemans and Vanquickenborne [135], Daul et al [138,139], and Ferguson and Herren [153]. It is assumed that the energy separation between the e and the al MOs (A in Fig.…”
Section: [Ru(bpy)~] ~+mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…11) is largely determined by this type of interaction. From [135,138,139,153,154], the corresponding value A is estimated to be of the order of 103 cm-L Obviously, the larger this backbonding or orbital mixture is, the more covalent is the complex, and consequently, less net charge transfer occurs upon excitation. In this context we want to mention the early conclusion given by Orgel [134], where he related already at that time the depression of the e orbital below the a~ orbital with an extensive delocalization of metal electrons into the ligands.…”
Section: [Ru(bpy)~] ~+mentioning
confidence: 99%