2023
DOI: 10.1039/d3ra01280h
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fractional dependence of the free energy of activation on the driving force of charge transfer in the quenching of the excited states of substituted phenanthroline homoleptic ruthenium(ii) complexes in aqueous medium

Abstract: The photophysical characteristics of some homoleptic ruthenium(ii) phenanthroline derivatives are investigated in aqueous medium.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
3
1

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 93 publications
1
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast to our previous studies with ionic sensitizers, such as Ru(II) complexes, 42 , 44 , 56 where the rate constant of back dissociation of the encounter complexes k –d was taken as 3 × k d × M, (where M is the unit mole per liter) or 2 × k d × M in the case of Ir(III) and Re(I) complexes, the agreement between the calculated and experimental data presented in Table 3 is obtained when considering the rate constant of back dissociation of the encounter complexes, k –d = k d × M, which is similar to that used in the case of aromatic hydrocarbons in nonaqueous media. 22 25 , 105 107 Figure 11 shows the dependence of log( k D ) on p CT .…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 85%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…In contrast to our previous studies with ionic sensitizers, such as Ru(II) complexes, 42 , 44 , 56 where the rate constant of back dissociation of the encounter complexes k –d was taken as 3 × k d × M, (where M is the unit mole per liter) or 2 × k d × M in the case of Ir(III) and Re(I) complexes, the agreement between the calculated and experimental data presented in Table 3 is obtained when considering the rate constant of back dissociation of the encounter complexes, k –d = k d × M, which is similar to that used in the case of aromatic hydrocarbons in nonaqueous media. 22 25 , 105 107 Figure 11 shows the dependence of log( k D ) on p CT .…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 85%
“…In contrast to our previous studies with ionic sensitizers, such as Ru­(II) complexes, ,, where the rate constant of back dissociation of the encounter complexes k –d was taken as 3 × k d × M, (where M is the unit mole per liter) or 2 × k d × M in the case of Ir­(III) and Re­(I) complexes, the agreement between the calculated and experimental data presented in Table is obtained when considering the rate constant of back dissociation of the encounter complexes, k –d = k d × M, which is similar to that used in the case of aromatic hydrocarbons in nonaqueous media. , Figure shows the dependence of log­( k D ) on p CT . The nonlinear increase of log­( k D ) with p CT is best described by the rearrangement of eq ( k D = Σ k Δ E P /(1 – p CT )) with Σ k Δ E P = 1.65 × 10 7 s –1 , which is much lower than observed for Ru­(II) complexes for which Σ k Δ E P = 2.4 × 10 9 s –1 .…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 72%
See 3 more Smart Citations