Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The complexes [[Ru(ttp)(bpy)](2)(micro-adpc)][PF(6)](2) and [[Ru(ttp)(bpy)](2)(micro-dicyd)][PF(6)](2), where ttp is 4-toluene-2,2':6',2' '-terpyridine, bpy is 2,2'-bipyridine, adpc(2)(-) is azodi(phenylcyanamide), and dicyd(2)(-) is 1,4-dicyanamidebenzene, were prepared and characterized by IR and NIR, vis spectroelectrochemistry, and cyclic voltammetry. The crystal structure of the complex, [[Ru(ttp)(bpy)](2)(micro-adpc)][PF(6)](2).6DMF, revealed a planar bridging adpc(2)(-) ligand with the cyanamide groups adopting an anti configuration. IR and comproportionation data are consistent with delocalized mixed-valence complexes, and a spectroscopic analysis assuming C(2)(h) microsymmetry leads to a prediction of multiple MMCT transitions with the lowest energy transition equal to the resonance exchange integral for the mixing of ruthenium donor and acceptor orbitals with a bridging ligand orbital (the preferred superexchange pathway). The solvent dependence of the MMCT band energy that is seen for [[Ru(ttp)(bpy)](2)(micro-adpc)](3+) is due to a ground state weakening of metal-metal coupling because of solvent donor interactions with the acceptor azo group of the bridging ligand.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Al‐Noaimi et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: