Ruthenium(II) Complexes with Improved Photophysical Properties Based on Planar 4‘-(2-Pyrimidinyl)-2,2‘:6‘,2‘ ‘-terpyridine Ligands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of new tridentate polypyridine ligands, made of terpyridine chelating subunits connected to various substituted 2-pyrimidinyl groups, and their homoleptic and heteroleptic Ru(II) complexes have been prepared and characterized. The new metal complexes have general formulas [(R-pm-tpy)Ru(tpy)]2+ and [Ru(tpy-pm-R)2]2+ (tpy = 2,2':6',2' '-terpyridine; R-pm-tpy = 4'-(2-pyrimidinyl)-2,2':6',2' '-terpyridine with R = H, methyl, phenyl, perfluorophenyl, chloride, and cyanide). Two of the new metal complexes have also been characterized by X-ray analysis. In all the R-pm-tpy ligands, the pyrimidinyl and terpyridyl groups are coplanar, allowing an extended delocalization of acceptor orbital of the metal-to-ligand charge-transfer (MLCT) excited state. The absorption spectra, redox behavior, and luminescence properties of the new Ru(II) complexes have been investigated. In particular, the photophysical properties of these species are significantly better compared to those of [Ru(tpy)2]2+ and well comparable with those of the best emitters of Ru(II) polypyridine family containing tridentate ligands. Reasons for the improved photophysical properties lie at the same time in an enhanced MLCT-MC (MC = metal centered) energy gap and in a reduced difference between the minima of the excited and ground states potential energy surfaces. The enhanced MLCT-MC energy gap leads to diminished efficiency of the thermally activated pathway for the radiationless process, whereas the similarity in ground and excited-state geometries causes reduced Franck Condon factors for the direct radiationless decay from the MLCT state to the ground state of the new complexes in comparison with [Ru(tpy)2]2+ and similar species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".