Three different supramolecular architectures corresponding to [M([9]aneN 3 ) 2 ](TCNQ) 2 , (M=Ni II 1 or Cu II 2, [9]aneN 3 =1,4,7-triazacyclononane, TCNQ=7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane), [Cu([9]aneN 3 ) 2 ](TCNQ) 3 3 and [Cu([9]aneN 3 ) 2 ](TCNQF 4 ) 2 , 4 (TCNQF 4 =2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-7,7,8,8,-tetracyanoquinodimethane), have been prepared and crystallographically characterized: 1, triclinic, P1, a=8.6488(9), b=8.919(3), c=11.316(2) Å, α=82.06(2), β=74.331(10), γ=85.71(2)°, Z=1; 2, triclinic, P1, a=8.6806(11), b=8.915(5), c=11.348(2) Å, α=82.03(3), β=74.109(14), γ=84.95(2)°, Z=1; 3, triclinic, P1, a=8.350(2), b=9.884(4), c=14.369(4) Å, α=74.10(2), β=89.01(2), γ=69.11(2)°, Z=1; 4, triclinic, P1, a=15.476(5), b=16.146(4), c=16.441(4) Å, α=77.15(2), β=78.04(3), γ=85.43(3)°, Z=2. Compounds 1 and 2 are formed by dimeric (TCNQ) 2 2– units and 4 by three different dimeric (TCNQF 4 ) 2 2– units. Compound 3 is formed by isolated [Cu([9]aneN 3 ) 2 ] 2+ groups and trimeric (TCNQ) 3 2– units. The electrical, optical and magnetic properties of the four new compounds have been interpreted on the basis of their supramolecular architectures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Azcondo et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: