The synthesis of two mononuclear precursor copper complexes, [(HL 2) 2Cu], 1, and [(HL 3) 2Cu]·H 2O, 2, and three dinuclear Cu–Ln complexes, [(HL 1) 2Cu(CH 3CN) 2Gd(NO 3) 3], 3, [(HL 3) 2CuGd(NO 3) 3]·2(H 2O), 4, and [(HL 3) 2CuTb(NO 3) 3]·2(H 2O), 5, based on the ligands H 2L 1 (4-bromo-2-[1-(5-bromo-2-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzyl)-1 H-benzimidazol-2-yl]-6-methoxyphenol), H 2L 2 (2-(1 H-benzimidazol-2-yl)-4-bromo-6-methoxyphenol) and H 2L 3 (2-(1 H-benzimidazol-2-yl)-6-methoxyphenol) are described in this contribution. The X-ray crystal structures of H 2L 2, 1, 3, 4, and 5 have been solved. The novel ligand H 2L 2 crystallizes with two independent molecules in the asymmetric unit; several intermolecular hydrogen contacts connect alternate independent H 2L 2 molecules into chains developing along c. In complex 1, two (HL 2) − ligands chelate the copper ion through their imidazolyl nitrogen and phenoxo oxygen atoms, in a relative head to tail arrangement. The molecular structure of 3 is similar to those of the previously reported Cu–Ln complexes of H 2L 1. In the isostructural complexes 4 and 5, two HL 3 ligands sandwich one Cu 2+ ion through their N,O sites and one Ln 3+ ion through their O 2 site, implying a relative head to head arrangement, at variance with the relative head to tail arrangement of HL 2 in the mononuclear copper precursor 1. The magnetic properties of 1, 3, 4, and 5 have been investigated. Extended intermolecular antiferromagnetic interactions operate in complex 1 (( J Chain = −0.8(1) cm −1). Ferromagnetic interactions between Gd ( S = 7/2) and Cu ( S = 1/2) centers operate in complexes 3 and 4, leading to an S = 4 ground state ( J CuGd = 7.2(2) cm −1 for 3 and J CuGd = 6.5(2) cm −1 for 4). Depopulation of the Tb Stark levels, preclude obtaining reliable information on the presence and sign of the Cu–Tb interaction in 5. These new complexes are complementary to those previously reported: the Cu–O 2–Gd core is planar while deformations are borne by the ligands at variance with previous examples where the constraints were located at the Cu–O 2–Gd core. The presence of two independent ligands in the Cu,Gd coordination spheres confers a degree of freedom greater than that allowed by a unique tetradentate ligand. As a result, the strength of the magnetic interaction is not solely related to the dihedral angle between the CuOO and GdOO planes in the central core.
Read full abstract