Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Three new cyclopentadienyliron dicarbonyl compounds, 1-[eta(5)-CpFe(CO)(2)]-1,12-C(2)B(10)H(11), 1-[[eta(5)-CpFe(CO)(2)]-1,12-C(2)B(10)H(10)-12-yl](2)Hg, and 1,12-[eta(5)-CpFe(CO)(2)](2)-1,12-C(2)B(10)H(10), composed of 1,12-dicarba-closo-dodecaborane as a ligand precursor were synthesized and found to be luminescent. The uncoordinated 1,12-C(2)B(10)H(12) bridging ligand precursor is luminescent with a band maximum at 25180 cm(-1), while the iron complexes luminesce at lower energies in the range 13120-14210 cm(-1). The lowest energy excited electronic state in the iron complexes is assigned to a ligand field transition of the iron chromophore. Cyclic voltammetry of 1,12-[eta(5)-CpFe(CO)(2)](2)-1,12-C(2)B(10)H(10) displays two discrete one-electron oxidations, and the luminescence maximum is red shifted from that observed in 1-[eta(5)-CpFe(CO)(2)]-1,12-C(2)B(10)H(11). Both of these observations suggest that the iron-centered chromophores are weakly coupled. In contrast, the 1-[[eta(5)-CpFe(CO)(2)]-1,12-C(2)B(10)H(10)-12-yl](2)Hg complex is uncoupled as is evident from the single oxidation process observed with cyclic voltammetry. The extinction coefficient of 1,12-[eta(5)-CpFe(CO)(2)](2)-1,12-C(2)B(10)H(10) is six times that of 1-[eta(5)-CpFe(CO)(2)]-1,12-C(2)B(10)H(11), while the extinction coefficient of 1-[[eta(5)-CpFe(CO)(2)]-1,12-C(2)B(10)H(10)-12-yl](2)Hg is only twice that of 1-[eta(5)-CpFe(CO)(2)]-1,12-C(2)B(10)H(11). These spectroscopic properties are explained in terms of two coupled antiparallel transition dipole moments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bitner et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: