Synthesis, crystallographic characterization and magnetic properties of the dinuclear iron(III) complexes [Fe(OMe)(dbm)2]2 (1), [Fe(OMe)(dpm)2]2 (2), [Fe(OEt)(bpm)2]2 (3) and [Fe(OProp)(npm)2]2 (4) are reported. Complexes 1 and 2 have symmetric β-diketonate ligands dbm (dibenzoylmethanate) and dpm (dipivaloylmethanate), respectively, whereas complexes 3 and 4 contain asymmetric β-diketonate ligands bpm (benzoylpivaloylmethanate) and npm (naphthoylpivaloylmethanate), respectively. Complex 1 crystallizes in the triclinic system, space group P1̄ (No. 2), a=9.634(1), b=10.946(2), c=13.079(1) Å, α=79.95(1), β=88.01(1), γ=82.57(1)°, Z=1. Complex 2 crystallizes in the triclinic system, space group P1̄ (No. 2), a=10.980(2), b=14.255(2), c=17.979(1) Å, α=85.70(1), β=89.63(1), γ=71.65(1)°, Z=2. Compound 3 crystallizes in the monoclinic system, space group P21/c (No. 14), a=11.546(2), b=18.539(1), c=13.595(2) Å, β=113.18(1)°, Z=2. Compound 4 crystallizes in the monoclinic system, P21/c (No. 14) space group, a=13.746(2), b=18.933(2), c=14.158(2) Å, β=117.37(1)°, Z=2. Each complex consists of two iron(III) ions that are symmetrically bridged by two alkoxide groups. The antiferromagnetic couplings between the S=5/2 iron centers have been fitted by using the Hamiltonian H=JS1·S2 to give values of J=15.4(1) cm−1 with g=1.96(1) for 1, J=19.0(6) cm−1 with g=1.98(1) for 2, J=14.8(5) cm−1 with g=1.98(1) for 3 and J=18.0(5) with g=2 for 4. The structural and magnetic parameters of 1–4 and other iron(III)–alkoxo clusters synthesized in our laboratory are compared. No simple correlation exists between the isotropic exchange-coupling constant J and the average Fe–O(bridge) bond distance, whereas an approximately linear correlation is found between the J value and the Fe–O–Fe angle. The observed trend and the predictions of Extended Hückel calculations on the model [Fe(OH)H4]2 4− are compared and discussed.
Le Gall, F., Fabrizi De Biani, F., Caneschi, A., Cinelli, P., Cornia, A., Fabretti, A.C., et al. (1997). Synthesis, crystal structures and magnetic characterization of four beta-diketonates-alkoxides Iron(III) dimers. Dependence of the magnetic properties on geometrical and electronic parameters. INORGANICA CHIMICA ACTA, 262(2), 123-132 [10.1016/S0020-1693(97)05482-0].
Synthesis, crystal structures and magnetic characterization of four beta-diketonates-alkoxides Iron(III) dimers. Dependence of the magnetic properties on geometrical and electronic parameters
Fabrizi De Biani, Fabrizia;
1997-01-01
Abstract
Synthesis, crystallographic characterization and magnetic properties of the dinuclear iron(III) complexes [Fe(OMe)(dbm)2]2 (1), [Fe(OMe)(dpm)2]2 (2), [Fe(OEt)(bpm)2]2 (3) and [Fe(OProp)(npm)2]2 (4) are reported. Complexes 1 and 2 have symmetric β-diketonate ligands dbm (dibenzoylmethanate) and dpm (dipivaloylmethanate), respectively, whereas complexes 3 and 4 contain asymmetric β-diketonate ligands bpm (benzoylpivaloylmethanate) and npm (naphthoylpivaloylmethanate), respectively. Complex 1 crystallizes in the triclinic system, space group P1̄ (No. 2), a=9.634(1), b=10.946(2), c=13.079(1) Å, α=79.95(1), β=88.01(1), γ=82.57(1)°, Z=1. Complex 2 crystallizes in the triclinic system, space group P1̄ (No. 2), a=10.980(2), b=14.255(2), c=17.979(1) Å, α=85.70(1), β=89.63(1), γ=71.65(1)°, Z=2. Compound 3 crystallizes in the monoclinic system, space group P21/c (No. 14), a=11.546(2), b=18.539(1), c=13.595(2) Å, β=113.18(1)°, Z=2. Compound 4 crystallizes in the monoclinic system, P21/c (No. 14) space group, a=13.746(2), b=18.933(2), c=14.158(2) Å, β=117.37(1)°, Z=2. Each complex consists of two iron(III) ions that are symmetrically bridged by two alkoxide groups. The antiferromagnetic couplings between the S=5/2 iron centers have been fitted by using the Hamiltonian H=JS1·S2 to give values of J=15.4(1) cm−1 with g=1.96(1) for 1, J=19.0(6) cm−1 with g=1.98(1) for 2, J=14.8(5) cm−1 with g=1.98(1) for 3 and J=18.0(5) with g=2 for 4. The structural and magnetic parameters of 1–4 and other iron(III)–alkoxo clusters synthesized in our laboratory are compared. No simple correlation exists between the isotropic exchange-coupling constant J and the average Fe–O(bridge) bond distance, whereas an approximately linear correlation is found between the J value and the Fe–O–Fe angle. The observed trend and the predictions of Extended Hückel calculations on the model [Fe(OH)H4]2 4− are compared and discussed.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
1-s2.0-S0020169397054820-main.pdf
non disponibili
Tipologia:
Post-print
Licenza:
NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione
566.81 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
566.81 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/11365/23429
Attenzione
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo