Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Two new nickel(II) end-to-end azido-bridged compounds, cis-catena-[NiL(2)(-N(3))](n)()(ClO(4))(n)().nH(2)O (1) and [Ni(2)L(4)(-N(3))(2)](PF(6))(2) (2), were synthesized and characterized; L is 2-(aminoethyl)pyridine. The crystal structures of 1 and 2 were solved. Complex 1: monoclinic system, space group P2(1)/a, a = 8.637(2) Å, b = 18.9995(7) Å, c = 12.3093(7) Å, beta = 105.92(2) degrees, Z = 4. Complex 2: triclinic system, space group P, a = 9.139(7) Å, b = 10.124(3) Å, c = 12.024(2) Å, alpha = 70.407(14) degrees, beta = 84.19(2) degrees, gamma = 67.67(4) degrees, Z = 1. In the two complexes the nickel atom is situated in a similarly distorted octahedral environment. The two complexes are different; 1 is a one-dimensional helicoidal complex with the two L ligands and the two end-to-end azido bridges in a cis arrangement while complex 2 is a dinuclear system with two end-to-end azido bridges, indicating the extreme importance of the counteranion present (ClO(4)(-) for 1 and PF(6)(-) for 2). The magnetic properties of the two compounds were studied by susceptibility measurements vs temperature. The chi(M) vs T plot for 1 shows the shape for a weakly antiferromagnetically coupled nickel(II) one-dimensional complex without a maximum until 4 K. In contrast, for complex 2 the shape of the chi(M) vs T curve shows a maximum near 40 K, indicating medium antiferromagnetic coupling. From the spin Hamiltonian -J(ij)()S(i)()S(j)(), J values for 1 and 2 were less than -1 and -29.1 cm(-)(1), respectively. The magnetic behavior for 1 and 2 may be explained in terms of the overlap between magnetic orbitals, taking into account the torsion of the Ni(II) atoms and azido-bridging ligands in the two structures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ribas et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: