Repozytorium

Ferro- vs. antiferromagnetic exchange between two Ni(II) ions in a series of Schiff base heterometallic complexes: what makes the difference?

Autorzy

Olga Yu. Vassilyeva

Elena A. Buvaylo

Vladimir N. Kokozay

Brian W. Skelton

Alexandre N. Sobolev

Alina Bieńko

Andrew Ozarowski

Rok wydania

2021

Czasopismo

Dalton Transactions

Numer woluminu

50

Strony

2841-2853

DOI

10.1039/d0dt03957h

Kolekcja

Naukowa

Język

Angielski

Typ publikacji

Artykuł

Streszczenie

Three new NiII/ZnII heterometallics, [NiZnL′2(OMe)Cl]2 (1), [NiZnL′′(Dea)Cl]2·2DMF (2) and [Ni2(H3L′′′)2(o-Van)(MeOH)2]Cl·[ZnCl2(H4L′′′)(MeOH)]·2MeOH (3), containing three-dentate Schiff bases as well as methanol or diethanolamine (H2Dea) or o-vanillin (o-VanH), all deprotonated, as bridging ligands were synthesized and structurally characterized. The Schiff base ligands were produced in situ from o-VanH and CH3NH2 (HL′), or NH2OH (HL”), or 2-amino-2-hydroxymethyl-propane-1,3-diol (H4L′′′); a zerovalent metal (Ni and Zn in 1, Zn only in 2 and 3) was employed as a source of metal ions. The first two complexes are dimers with a Ni2Zn2O6 central core, while the third compound is a novel heterometallic cocrystal salt solvate built of a neutral zwitterionic ZnII Schiff base complex and of ionic salt containing dinuclear NiII complex cations. The crystal structures contain either centrosymmetric (1 and 2) or non-symmetric di-nickel fragment (3) with Ni⋯Ni distances in the range 3.146–3.33 Å. The exchange coupling is antiferromagnetic for 1J = 7.7 cm−1, and ferromagnetic for 2J = −6.5 cm−1 (using the exchange Hamiltonian in a form Ĥ = JŜ1Ŝ2). The exchange interactions in 1 and 2 are comparable to the zero-field splitting (ZFS). High-field EPR revealed moderate magnetic anisotropy of opposite signs: D = 2.27 cm−1E = 0.243 cm−1 (1) and D = −4.491 cm−1E = −0.684 cm−1 (2). Compound 3 stands alone with very weak ferromagnetism (J = −0.6 cm−1) and much stronger magnetic anisotropy with D = −11.398 cm−1 and E = −1.151 cm−1. Attempts to calculate theoretically the exchange coupling (using the DFT “broken symmetry” method) and ZFS parameters (with the ab initio CASSCF method) were successful in predicting the trends of J and D among the three complexes, while the quantitative results were less good for 1 and 3.

Adres publiczny

http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/d0dt03957h

Strona internetowa wydawcy

https://www.rsc.org/