Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A series of ruthenium complexes having the general form [Ru(bpy)(3-n)(CN-Me-bpy)(n)](PF(6))(2) (where bpy = 2,2'-bipyridine, CN-Me-bpy = 4,4'-dicyano-5,5'-dimethyl-2,2'-bipyridine, and n = 1-3 for complexes 1-3, respectively) have been synthesized and characterized using a variety of steady-state and nanosecond time-resolved spectroscopies. Electrochemical measurements indicate that the CN-Me-bpy ligand is significantly easier to reduce than the unsubstituted bipyridine (on the order of ∼500 mV), implying that the lowest energy (3)MLCT (metal-to-ligand charge transfer) state will be associated with the CN-Me-bpy ligand(s) in all three compounds. Comparison of the Huang-Rhys factors derived from spectral fitting analyses of the steady state emission spectra of complexes 1-3 suggests all three compounds are characterized by excited-state geometries that are less distorted relative to their ground states as compared to [Ru(bpy)(3)](PF(6))(2); the effect of the more nested ground- and excited-state potentials is reflected in the unusually high radiative quantum yields (13% (1), 27% (2), and 40% (3)) and long (3)MLCT-state room-temperature lifetimes (1.6 μs, 2.6 μs, and 3.5 μs, respectively) for these compounds. Coupling of the π* system into the CN groups is confirmed by nanosecond step-scan IR spectra which reveal a ∼40 cm(-1) bathochromic shift of the CN stretching frequency, indicative of a weaker CN bond in the (3)MLCT excited state relative to the ground state. The fact that the shift is the same for complexes 1-3 is evidence that, in all three complexes, the long-lived excited state is localized on a single CN-Me-bpy ligand rather than being delocalized over multiple ligands.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McCusker et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: