Abstract

AbstractThe reactions of quinoline‐2‐carbaldehyde (pyridine‐2‐carbonyl)hydrazone (HL) and [RuCl2(PPh3)3] in various solvents at different temperatures gave the three geometrical isomers trans(Cl,Cl)‐, cis(Cl,Cl),trans(P,N)‐, and trans(P,P)‐[RuCl2(PPh3)2{HL‐κO(amide),κN(imine)}] (1, 2, and 3, respectively) as well as a linkage isomer trans(P,P)‐[RuCl2(PPh3)2{HL‐κN(imine),κN(quin)}] (4). The molecular and crystal structures of 1–4, together with both E and Z configurational isomers (with respect to the C=N double bond) of the free ligand HL, were determined by X‐ray analysis. The ligand HL adopted a Z form and acted as a κO(amide),κN(imine) bidentate ligand in 1–3, whereas it was an E isomer with a κN(imine),κN(quin) coordination mode in 4. The gradual thermal conversions of 1 to 2 and of 2 to 3 were observed in dichloromethane and ethanol, respectively, but an interconversion between 3 and 4 was not detected. In dichloromethane, all complexes have a reversible RuIII/II redox couple in the range 110–412 mV (vs. Ag/Ag+), and the redox potential was largely dependent on the coordination mode of HL and on the mutual configuration of the two PPh3 ligands. Such a potential shift can be interpreted as a combination of Cl–/amide O π‐donor and PPh3/quinoline N π‐acceptor orbital contributions to the RuII dπ orbitals [highest occupied molecular orbitals (HOMOs)]. Complexes 3 and 4 in acetonitrile showed a gradual spectral change, probably because of the substitution of the Cl– ligand by the acetonitrile solvent. In addition, 2–4 showed solvatochromic behavior even in noncoordinating solvents that resulted from a blueshift of the metal‐to‐ligand charge‐transfer (MLCT) transition band in polar solvents. These electrochemical and spectroscopic properties are also supported by DFT and time‐dependent DFT (TD‐DFT) calculations.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call