Significant differences between solid state and solution photochemistry and photophysics of mesogenic organometallic gold complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five new gold complexes 4-ROC6H4C≡CAuN≡CC6H4-4-OR′ (R/R′ = CH3/C9H19 (C1N9 ), C15H31/C9H19 (C15N9 ), C6H13/C15H31 (C6N15 ), C9H19/C15H31 (C9N15 ), C12H25/C15H31 (C12N15 )) were synthesized and characterized (1H and 13C NMR, IR, Raman spectroscopy, and high resolution mass spectrometry). Their organized smectic phases were investigated by TGA, DSC, powder XRD, and polarized light optical microscopy, and the solids are found to have crystalline and amorphous domains. No evidence for Au•••Au interactions was observed. The steady state and time-resolved absorption and emission properties at 298 and 77 K were examined, and surprisingly, the excited lifetime of the triplet excited state in the solid state is extremely short-lived (<100 ps) in comparison with the microsecond time scale recorded for the solution and at 77 K. The photosensitization of 1O2 was observed in solution but not in the solid state. The nature of the singlet (ligand-to-ligand charge transfer) and triplet (ethynyl/intraligand ππ*) excited states were assessed using DFT and TD-DFT computations. The thermal and UV-photochemical formation of gold nanoparticles were performed in solution (slow) and in the solid state (faster). The thermally generated nanoparticles are found to be larger (2–20 nm; TEM) and exhibit well-defined shapes, whereas the photochemically generated ones are smaller (1–10 nm) and show ill-defined shapes.
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".