Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Herein, a free Cu complex, K2[Cu(maleonitriledithiolate)2], and an inclusion Cu complex, K2{[Cu(maleonitriledithiolate)2]@(β-cyclodextrin)2}, were synthesised and characterised. Single-crystal X-ray diffraction revealed that the inclusion complex consisted of [Cu(maleonitriledithiolate)2]2– as a guest and two β-cyclodextrins as a host. The structure of the guest fragment, [Cu(maleonitriledithiolate)2]2–, was essentially the same in the two complexes. The shortest Cu – Cu distance in the free complex and the inclusion complex was 6.91 and 15.5 Å, respectively. Hyperfine splitting was observed in the electron paramagnetic resonance spectrum of the inclusion complex (g// = 2.090, g⊥ = 2.025, A// = 448 MHz, A⊥ = 108 MHz), whereas the free complex showed no hyperfine splitting (g// = 2.083, g⊥ = 2.025). The difference was attributed to the isolation of the Cu(II) ion included in the β-cyclodextrins from other Cu ions. The association of host–guest in the solution-state and electrochemical behaviour were also investigated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hamaguchi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: