MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745126049 · doi:10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b00771

Facile One-Pot Synthesis of Ruthenium(II) Quaterpyridine-Based Photosensitizers for Photocatalyzed Hydrogen Production

2017· article· en· W2745126049 on OpenAlexafffund
Élodie Rousset, Ilaria Ciofini, Valérie Marvaud, Garry S. Hanan

Bibliographic record

VenueInorganic Chemistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMetal complexes synthesis and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité Pierre et Marie CurieCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsChemistryRutheniumExcited statePhotochemistryBipyridineCatalysisQuantum yieldHydrogen productionVisible spectrumCrystallographyFluorescenceOrganic chemistryAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present here the efficient microwave-assisted synthesis and photophysical study of a family of ruthenium(II) complexes of the general formula [Ru(bpy) x (qpy) 3- x ] 2+ (where bpy = 2,2′-bipyridine, qpy = 4,4′:2′,2″:4″,4‴-quaterpyridine, and x = 0, 1, 2 giving compounds 1 = [Ru(bpy) 2 (qpy) 1 ] 2+, 2 = [Ru(bpy) 1 (qpy) 2 ] 2+, and 3 = [Ru(qpy) 3 ] 2+ ). Compared to the standard reference, [Ru(bpy) 3 ] 2+ (τ = 870 ns, Φ = 9.5%), the complexes display longer-lived excited state lifetimes at room temperature (τ: 1 = 1440 ns, 2 = 1640 ns, 3 = 1780 ns) and improved quantum yields (Φ: 1 = 14%, 2 = 19%, 3 = 23%). Theoretical calculations were performed to support the interpretation of these photophysical properties. These complexes are excellent photosensitizers as they absorb light throughout the visible spectrum, have excellent excited state lifetimes at room temperature, and have high quantum yields. In combination with a cobalt dimethylglyoxime catalyst, they exhibit remarkable hydrogen evolution with blue light, and they are far more efficient than the reference in the field, [Ru(bpy) 3 ] 2+ .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInorganic ChemistrySame topicMetal complexes synthesis and propertiesFrench-language works237,207