2000
DOI: 10.1002/1099-0682(200011)2000:11<2401::aid-ejic2401>3.0.co;2-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Racemic Compound FormationversusConglomerate Formation with [M(bpy)3](PF6)2 (M = Ni, Zn, Ru); Molecular and Crystal Structures

Abstract: Minor modifications in molecular size and shape induced by variation of the central atom drastically alter the crystallization behaviour of the hexafluorophosphate salts of [M(bpy)3]2+. With M = Ru, racemic solutions crystallize as true racemates in the β‐type [P3¯c1, a = 10.6453(5), c = 16.2987(9) Å, Z = 2], while for M = Zn the racemic structure cannot be obtained, as spontaneous resolution {γ‐type [P31, a = 10.3873(5), c = 26.1309(16) Å, Z = 3]} is the only crystallization path observed. For [Ni(bpy)3](PF6)… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
14
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
4
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the other hand, q36k represents a higher quality structure and will be discussed here. As expected, the average chelate angle (N-Ru-N) and corresponding average Ru-N distance for complex 5 (data from q36k) are larger than in the case of the famous [Ru(bpy) 3 ] 2+ (82.9(3) • vs. 78.9(2) • ; 2.117(13) Å vs. 2.063(6) Å) [38][39][40]. Gratifyingly, these values align with structural data previously available for [Ru(daf) 3 ] 2+ , confirming that use of daf or Me 2 daf to form homoleptic Ru(II) complexes results in wider chelate angles and longer Ru-N distances in both cases [41].…”
Section: Electronic Absorption Ir and X-ray Diffraction Studiessupporting
confidence: 87%
“…On the other hand, q36k represents a higher quality structure and will be discussed here. As expected, the average chelate angle (N-Ru-N) and corresponding average Ru-N distance for complex 5 (data from q36k) are larger than in the case of the famous [Ru(bpy) 3 ] 2+ (82.9(3) • vs. 78.9(2) • ; 2.117(13) Å vs. 2.063(6) Å) [38][39][40]. Gratifyingly, these values align with structural data previously available for [Ru(daf) 3 ] 2+ , confirming that use of daf or Me 2 daf to form homoleptic Ru(II) complexes results in wider chelate angles and longer Ru-N distances in both cases [41].…”
Section: Electronic Absorption Ir and X-ray Diffraction Studiessupporting
confidence: 87%
“…For the three ruthenium complexes ( 1 – 3 ), students were provided with a set of experimental data retrieved from the literature, including X-ray structures, absorption and emission spectra, emission quantum yield and lifetimes, and photostability data. , …”
Section: The Problem To Tacklementioning
confidence: 99%
“…[ 3 ] Nevertheless, these strategies still suffer from defects including complex manipulation, low photoconversion efficiency, and high background ECL signal. More importantly, the notorious aggregation‐caused quenching (ACQ) resulted from strong π‐π interactions between adjacent Ru‐bpy molecules is often overlooked upon aggregation or crystallization, [ 4 ] greatly impairing its ECL efficiency to a certain extent, thus restricting further applications in all‐solid‐state ECL sensing and imaging as well as light‐emitting devices.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%