Cu(i) and Ag(i) complexes of 7-azaindolyl and 2,2′-dipyridylamino substituted 1,3,5-triazine and benzene: the central core impact on structure, solution dynamics and fluorescence of the complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interactions of Cu(i) and Ag(i) ions with four star-shaped ligands, 2,4,6-tris(N-7-azaindolyl)-1,3,5-triazine (tat), 1,3,5-tris(N-7-azaindolyl)benzene (tab), 2,4,6-tris(2,2'-dipyridylamino)-1,3,5-triazine (tdat) and 1,3,5-tris(2,2'-dipyridylamino)benzene (tdab) have been investigated by X-ray diffraction, NMR and fluorescent spectroscopic analyses. Eight new complexes [Cu(PPh(3))(tat)][BF(4)] (), [Cu(PPh(3))(tab)][BF(4)] (), [Cu(PPh(3))(tdab)][BF(4)] (), {[Cu(PPh(3))(2)](2)(tdat)]}[BF(4)](2) (), (AgNO(3))(1.5)(tab) (), (AgNO(3))(2)(tat) (), (AgNO(3))(4)(tdab) (), and (AgNO(3))(3)(tdat)(H(2)O)(2) () have been isolated from the reactions of [Cu(PPh(3))(2)(CH(3)CN)(2)][BF(4)] and AgNO(3) with the corresponding ligands. The structures of compounds have been established by single-crystal X-ray diffraction analyses, which show that the central core in the chelate ligand results in distinct structures for both Cu(i) and Ag(i) complexes. All Cu(i) complexes are discrete molecules while all Ag(i) complexes are polymeric with helical, sandwich, or chair-like structures. A variable temperature (1)H NMR study established that the Cu(i) complexes display dynamic exchange in solution. Fluorescent titration experiments showed that the four ligands have distinct responses toward Cu(i) and Ag(i) ions, which may be correlated to the distinct structures of the complexes and the electronic property differences of the ligands.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".