Intramolecular Down‐ and Up‐Conversion in Dimeric Tetracene Complexes Centered via Platinum(II) and Palladium(II)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two dimeric tetracene complexes, Pt(L tc ) 2 Cl 2 and Pd(L tc ) 2 Cl 2 , have been synthesized by coordination of a pyridyl substituted acene‐ to a Pt(II) and Pd(II) metal center. The photophysical properties of the two dimers are characterized and compared with the free tetracene ligand L tc , as well as the corresponding monomeric complexes ( Pt(L tc )( L ref )Cl 2 and Pd(L tc )(L ref )Cl 2 ) to shed light on the processes of intramolecular up‐ and down‐conversion, namely triplet‐triplet annihilation and singlet fission, respectively. Both the free ligand L tc and Pt(L tc )(L ref )Cl 2 show high fluorescence quantum yields, while emission is heavily reduced in the Pt(L tc ) 2 Cl 2 and Pd(II) complexes. Dimer Pt(L tc ) 2 Cl 2 exhibits efficient singlet fission within 1.6 ns to form a correlated triplet pair (T 1 T 1 ), confirming that coupling is mediated through Pt(II) over remarkably long inter‐chromophore distances. Subsequently, (T 1 T 1 ) dissociates into free triplets (T 1 + T 1 ) with yields of ca. 50%. Moreover, due to the isoenergetic level of the singlet excited state and (T 1 T 1 ) for tetracene dimers, some (T 1 T 1 ) in Pt(L tc ) 2 Cl 2 is observed to undergo intramolecular up‐conversion and return to the singlet excited state, followed by upconverted fluorescence. On the other hand, photoexcitation of Pd(L tc ) 2 Cl 2 gives a kinetic behavior that is similar to the monomer Pd(L tc )(L ref )Cl 2 , namely no singlet fission but fast intersystem crossing within hundreds of picoseconds. It is noted that triplet formation in the Pd(II) monomer and dimer complexes is low, and that non‐radiative decay of the singlet excitons to the ground state dominates in both cases. The singlet excited state of all metal–organic complexes exhibits subtle intrachromophore charge‐transfer characteristics in polar solvents and kinetic schemes that are similar to that observed in apolar solvents.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".