Dinuclear 2,4-di(pyridin-2-yl)-pyrimidine based ruthenium photosensitizers for hydrogen photo-evolution under red light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we report two dinuclear Ru(II) complexes C1 and C2 and compare them to their mononuclear analogues Ref1 and Ref2. The dinuclear species exhibit a much stronger absorption, longer excited-state lifetimes and higher luminescence quantum yields than the mononuclear complexes. In addition, C1 and C2 are easier to reduce. An estimation of the driving forces for the electron transfer processes relevant to photocatalytic hydrogen evolution suggests that C1 and Ref2 possess similar activity as photosensitizer (PS). Yet, the improved photophysical properties of C1 make it a more promising candidate for hydrogen evolution. In hydrogen evolution experiments, C1 indeed exhibits increased activity as PS, however, the catalytic system loses its activity after only a few hours. C2 is less active than the mononuclear complexes despite its superior photophysical properties. This observation is attributed to a lack of driving force for the electron transfer towards the catalyst. Further studies of the dinuclear complex C1 show that it is indeed the PS, which decomposes under the catalytic conditions, presumably due to the electron transfer towards the catalyst being the rate-limiting step.
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 | 0.001 | 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".