Wire‐Type Ruthenium(<scp>II</scp>) Complexes with Terpyridine‐Containing [2]Rotaxanes as Ligands: Synthesis, Characterization, and Photophysical Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[2]Rotaxanes based on the 1,2-bis(pyridinium)ethane subset[24]crown-8 ether motif were prepared that contain a terminal terpyridine group for coordination to a transition-metal ion. These rotaxane ligands were utilized in the preparation of a series of heteroleptic [Ru(terpy)(terpy-rotaxane)]2+ complexes. The compounds were characterized by 1D and 2D 1H NMR spectroscopy, X-ray crystallography, and high-resolution electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. The effect of using a rotaxane as a ligand was probed by UV/Vis/NIR absorption and emission spectroscopy of the Ru(II) complexes. In contrast with the parent [Ru(terpy)(2)]2+ complex, at room temperature the examined complexes exhibit a luminescence band in the near infrared region and a relatively long lived triplet metal-to-ligand charge-transfer (3MLCT) excited state, owing to the presence of strong-electron-acceptor pyridinium substituents on one of the two terpy ligands. Visible-light excitation of the Ru-based chromophore in acetonitrile at room temperature causes an electron transfer to the covalently linked 4,4'-bipyridinium unit and the quenching of the MLCT luminescence. The 3MLCT excited state, however, is not quenched at all in rigid matrix at 77 K. The rotaxane structure was found to affect the absorption and luminescence properties of the complexes. In particular, when a crown ether surrounds the cationic axle, the photoinduced electron-transfer process is slowed down by a factor from 2 to 3. Such features, together with the synthetic and structural advantages offered by [Ru(terpy)2]2+-type complexes compared to, for example, [Ru(bpy)3]2+-type compounds, render these rotaxane-metal complexes promising candidates for the construction of photochemical molecular devices with a wire-type structure.
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".