μ·β products were experimentally derived by EFISH for several Fe(II) and Fe(III) σ-aryl acetylides of formula [(η 2 -dppe)(η 5 -C 5 Me 5 )Fe(C⋮C−Ar)] n +, n (PF 6 ) - (dppe = 1,2-bis(diphenylphosphino)ethane; n = 0, 1), where Ar = p -Py, m -Py, o -Py ( 1a − c / 1a + ); Ar = p -C 5 H 4 -N(CH 3 ) +, o -C 5 H 4 -N(CH 3 ) + ( 2a, b + ); Ar = p -C 6 H 4 X with X = NO 2, CN, CF 3, H, OMe, NH 2 ( 3a − f / 3a − f + ). For comparison purposes, EFISH data were also gathered on the Ru(II) analogues ( 4a, b ) of 3a, b . Significant figures for μ·β were determined, with the Fe(II) complexes 2a + and 3a, b possessing the most electron-deficient aryl rings opposed to the metal center, indicating good second-order molecular polarizabilities. For most representatives among 3a − f / 3a − f + and 4a, b, β and β 0 values could be derived using DFT-computed dipole moments. The substituent influence on β and β 0 is especially marked in the neutral complexes and follows the electron-accepting properties of X: NO 2 > CN > H > OMe ≈ NH 2 . The comparison between 4a, b and 3a, b indicates that the Fe(II) center is more efficient than Ru(II) as an organometallic donor group when opposed to strong acceptors. In addition, we also show with ( 3a − f / 3a − f + ) that the NLO response can be fine-tuned by variation of the X substituent in each redox state. Thus, given the facile and reversible oxidation to the corresponding Fe(III) parents, Fe(II) acetylides might conveniently be used for switching purposes in molecular devices for NLO.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paul et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: