Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The two complexes [(bpy)2Ru(bpy-cyclamH2)]4+ (Ru-cy; bpy = 2,2′-bipyridine; bpy-cyclam = 1-(2,2′-bipyridin-5-yl-methyl)-1,4,8,11-tetraazacyclotetradecane) and [Ru(bpy)(CN)4]2− (Ru-CN) associate in MeCN solution via a hydrogen-bonding interaction between the externally-directed lone pairs of the cyanide ligands on the Ru-CN unit, and the protonated amine sites of the cyclam macrocycle which is pendant from the [Ru(bpy)3]2+ core of the Ru-cy unit. Due to the sensitivity of the Ru-CN chromophore to interactions of the cyanide lone pairs, this association results in characteristic changes in its absorption and emission properties; viz. the 1MLCT absorption is blue-shifted, from 535 to 480 nm, and the 3MLCT emission is also blue-shifted, from 790 nm to 680 nm. In addition, the association between the components results in quenching of the characteristic 3MLCT luminescence of the Ru-cy unit. Analysis of the absorption and emission properties of mixtures of the two components in varying proportions indicates that a 2 ∶ 1 associate Ru-cy:Ru-CN:Ru-cy forms, in which two of the cyanide ligands of Ru-CN interact with each of the Ru-cy units. The overall association constant for formation of this is Kass = 2.6 × 1011 M−2; under the dilute conditions necessary for luminescence experiments the association is not complete however and some free Ru-CN and Ru-cy are also present in the equilibrium mixture. Within the hydrogen-bonded associate, quenching of the 3MLCT luminescence of the Ru-cy unit occurs, most likely by a Förster energy transfer mechanism, with ca. 88% efficiency and a rate constant of kq = 3.8 × 107 s−1, corresponding to an inter-chromophore separation of ca. 11.5 Å.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simpson et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: