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.
Read full abstract