Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We describe conjugated polymers entwined around Cu1 with alternating alpha-quaterthienyl (poly[Cu(T2)2]) or 3',4',3'''',4''''-tetrahexyl-alpha-sexythienyl (poly[Cu(T3)2]) moieties and 1,10-phenanthroline complexing sites. Our strategy is to synthesise the 2,9-bis(oligothienyl)-1,10-phenanthroline precursors, then to assemble these ligands by means of Cu1 templating followed by electropolymerisation. Poly[Cu(T2)2] shows separate electroactivities for Cu redox centres and conjugated backbones, whereas the electroactivities overlap in the case of poly[Cu(T3)2]. An X-ray absorption study on these polymers in their reduced state at the Cu-K edge identifies, in both cases, four nitrogen atoms as the closest copper(I) neighbours. For poly[Cu(T2)2], the Cu1 environment is a distorted tetrahedron similar to a monomer model compound, but with a slightly higher number of steric constraints. The Cu1 environment for poly[Cu(T3)2] is a less distorted tetrahedron with an unusually short Cu1-N average bond length. Cu1 removal in poly[Cu(T2)2] induces an irreversible collapse of the structure, whereas the reversibility of Cu1 binding is almost perfect for poly[Cu(T3)2], as the hexyl chains prevent irreversible gliding of the wires after copper removal. Combined electrochemical and resistance measurements reveal that the Cu centres in poly[Cu(T2)2] play the role of mechanical support for the structure with no significant electronic interactions with the conjugated backbone, whereas in the case of poly[Cu(T3)2] copper centres contribute to the conductivity of the structure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vidal et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: