Sensitization of Lanthanoid Luminescence by Organic and Inorganic Ligands in Lanthanoid-Organic-Polyoxometalates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reaction of terbium and europium salts with the lacunary polyxometalate (POM) [As(2)W(19)O(67)(H(2)O)](14-) and 2-picolinic acid (picH) affords the ternary lanthanoid-organic-polyoxometalate (Ln-org-POM) complexes [Tb(2)(pic)(H(2)O)(2)(B-β-AsW(8)O(30))(2)(WO(2)(pic))(3)](10-) (1), [Tb(8)(pic)(6)(H(2)O)(22)(B-β-AsW(8)O(30))(4)(WO(2)(pic))(6)](12-) (2), and [Eu(8)(pic)(6)(H(2)O)(22)(B-β-AsW(8)O(30))(4)(WO(2)(pic))(6)](12-) (3). A detailed synthetic investigation has established the conditions required to isolate pure bulk samples of the three complexes as the mixed salts H(0.5)K(8.5)Na[1]·30H(2)O, K(4)Li(4)H(4)[2]·58H(2)O, and Eu(1.66)K(7)[3]·54H(2)O, each of which has been characterized by single crystal X-ray diffraction. Complexes 2 and 3 are isostructural and can be considered to be composed of two molecules of 1 linked through an inversion center with four additional picolinate-chelated lanthanoid centers. When irradiated with a laboratory UV lamp at room temperature, compounds K(4)Li(4)H(4)[2]·58H(2)O and Eu(1.66)K(7)[3]·54H(2)O visibly luminesce green and red, respectively, while compound H(0.5)K(8.5)Na[1]·30H(2)O is not luminescent. A variable temperature photophysical investigation of the three compounds has revealed that both the organic picolinate ligands and the inorganic POM ligands sensitize the lanthanoid(III) luminescence, following excitation with UV light. However, considerably different temperature dependencies are observed for Tb(III) versus Eu(III) through the two distinct sensitization pathways.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".