Synthesis and Photophysical Properties of 3,8‐Disubstituted 1,10‐Phenanthrolines and Their Ruthenium(II) Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The palladium‐catalysed cross‐coupling reaction between 3,8‐dibromo‐1,10‐phenanthroline with phenylacetylene or 3,5‐bis(trifluoromethyl)phenylboronic acid gives good yields of the 3,8‐disubstituted products. These 1,10‐phenanthroline derivatives are used for the formation of novel ruthenium complexes of the type [(tbbpy) 2 Ru(phenR 2 )] 2+ [where tbbpy = 4,4′‐di‐ tert ‐butyl‐2,2′‐bipyridine, phen = 1,10‐phenanthroline, R represents the substituents at the 3,8 positions with bromine, phenylacetylene or 3,5‐bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]. All compounds are completely characterised by NMR and UV/Vis spectroscopy, MS, electrochemical measurements and Raman and resonance Raman spectroscopy. The photophysical properties indicate a strong influence of the substitution of the phenanthroline ligand on the absorption, emission and Raman properties. With resonance Raman spectroscopy the localisation of the singlet metal‐to‐ligand charge‐transfer ( 1 MLCT) excited state is determined. Thesolid‐state structures of 3,8‐dibromo‐1,10‐phenanthroline (phenBr 2 ) and the corresponding ruthenium complex [(tbbpy) 2 Ru(phenBr 2 )] 2+ and a structural motif of [(tbbpy) 2 Ru{phen‐3,8‐bis[3,5‐bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]}] 2+ are also reported. (© Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 69451 Weinheim, Germany, 2009)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".