Tuning the Thermometric Features in 1D Luminescent Eu<sup>III</sup> and Tb<sup>III</sup> Coordination Polymers through Different Bridge Phosphine Oxide Ligands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tb III and Eu III systems have been investigated as ratiometric luminescent temperature probes in luminescent coordination polymers due to Tb III → Eu III energy transfer (ET). To help understand how ion–ion separation, chain conformation as well as excitation channel impact their thermometric properties, herein, [Eu(tfaa) 3 (μ-L)Tb(tfaa) 3 ] n one-dimensional (1D) coordination polymers (tfaa – = trifluoroacetylacetonate, and L = [(diphenylphosphoryl)R](diphenyl)phosphine oxide, R = ethyl – dppeo – or butyl – dppbo) were synthesized. The short μ-dppeo bridge ligand leads to a more linear 1D polymeric chain, while the longer μ-dppbo bridge leads to tighter packed chains. As the temperature rises from 80 K, upon direct Tb III excitation at 488 nm, the Tb III emission intensity decreases, while the Eu III emission intensity increases after 160 and 200 K when L = dppeo or dppbo, respectively. The temperature-dependent emission intensities, due to Tb III → Eu III ET, enable the development of ratiometric luminescent temperature probes featuring maximum relative thermal sensitivity up to 3.8% K –1 (250 K, L = dppbo, excitation at 488 nm). On the other hand, the same system displays maximum thermal sensitivity up to 3.5% K –1 (323 K) upon ligand excitation at 300 nm. Thus, by changing the excitation channel and bridge ligand that leads to modification of the polymer conformations, the maximum relative thermal sensitivity can be tuned.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".