The copper(II) complexes [Cu(4)(1,3-tpbd)(2)(H(2)O)(4)(NO(3))(4)](n)(NO(3))(4n)·13nH(2)O (1), [Cu(4)(1,3-tpbd)(2)(AsO(4))(ClO(4))(3)(H(2)O)](ClO(4))(2)·2H(2)O·0.5CH(3)OH (2), [Cu(4)(1,3-tpbd)(2)(PO(4))(ClO(4))(3)(H(2)O)](ClO(4))(2)·2H(2)O·0.5CH(3)OH (3), [Cu(2)(1,3-tpbd){(PhO)(2)PO(2)}(2)](2)(ClO(4))(4) (4), and [Cu(2)(1,3-tpbd){(PhO)PO(3)}(2)(H(2)O)(0.69)(CH(3)CN)(0.31)](2)(BPh(4))(4)·Et(2)O·CH(3)CN (5) [1,3-tpbd = N,N,N',N'-tetrakis(2-pyridylmethyl)-1,3-benzenediamine, BPh(4)(-) = tetraphenylborate] were prepared and structurally characterized. Analyses of the magnetic data of 2, 3, 4, and [Cu(2)(2,6-tpcd)(H(2)O)Cl](ClO(4))(2) (6) [2,6-tpcd = 2,6-bis[bis(2-pyridylmethyl)amino]-p-cresolate] show the occurrence of weak antiferromagnetic interactions between the copper(II) ions, the bis-terdentate 1,3-tpbd/2,6-tpcd, μ(4)-XO(4) (X = As and P) μ(1,2)-OPO and μ-O(phenolate) appearing as poor mediators of exchange interactions in this series of compounds. Simple orbital symmetry considerations based on the structural knowledge account for the small magnitude of the magnetic couplings found in these copper(II) compounds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Turba et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: