Synthesis, Electrochemical and Photophysical Properties of 2, 4, 6‐Tripyridyl‐1, 3, 5‐Triazine‐Bridged Trinuclear Diimine Rhenium(I) Tricarbonyl Complexes. Issue 44 (3rd November 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lee, Mandy M.; Lin, Ju‐Ling; Chang, Che‐Wei; Hung, Chen‐Yen; Chen, Chih‐Wei; Hsu, Chao‐Ping; Sun, Shih‐Sheng
• Other Names: Lo Kenneth Kam‐Wing guestEditor.; Charbonnière Loïc J. guestEditor.
• Is Part Of: European journal of inorganic chemistry. Issue 44(2017)
• Page Start: 5224
• Page End: 5237
• Publication Date: 2017-11-03
• Subjects: Luminescence -- Charge transfer -- Solvent effects -- Rhenium -- UV/Vis spectroscopy; Chemistry, Inorganic -- Periodicals; Organometallic chemistry -- Periodicals; Bioinorganic chemistry -- Periodicals; Solid state chemistry -- Periodicals; 546
• DOI: 10.1002/ejic.201701063
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1434-1948

Abstract

Abstract : Two series of trinuclear diimine Re I tricarbonyl complexes bridged by 2, 4, 6‐tri(pyridin‐4‐yl)‐1, 3, 5‐triazine (L1 ) or 2, 4, 6‐tri(pyridin‐3‐yl)‐1, 3, 5‐triazine (L2 ) have been synthesized and characterized. These two series of trinuclear complexes show distinctly different photophysical and electrochemical properties. TheL2 ‐bridged complexes exhibit strong luminescence and relatively long emission lifetimes in room‐temperature solution, which are typical of decay from 3 MLCT excited states, whereasL1 ‐bridged complexes show only very weak luminescence and short lifetimes under the same experimental conditions. The prominent differences in photophysical behavior between these two groups of trinuclear complexes has been rationalized by energy gap law, which has been supported by detailed analysis of the steady state and time‐resolved luminescence of these complexes. Moreover, computational results indicated that a low‐lying excited state locates below 3 MLCT states in the series ofL1 ‐bridged complexes. Abstract : Trinuclear diimine Re I tricarbonyl complexes bridged by two different triazine isomers have been designed. They show distinctly different photophysical and electrochemical properties. The prominent differences in photophysical behavior between these two groups of complexes have been rationalized by the energy gap law, which is supported by detailed analysis of the luminescence of these complexes.