Structural characterisation, EPR and magnetic properties of f–f and f–d lanthanide(iii) phenolic cryptates

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The Schiff base axial macrobicyclic ligand L1 forms 4f–4f and 4f–3d cryptates with formula [Gd2(L1 − 3H)(NO3)2](NO3)·1.5H2O (1), [Tb2(L1 − 3H)(NO3)2](NO3)·3EtOH·H2O (2), [GdCu(L1 − 3H)(NO3)](NO3)·H2O (3), [LuCu(L1 − 3H)(NO3)](NO3)·H2O (4) and [GdZn(L1 − 3H)(NO3)](NO3)·H2O (5). The macrobicyclic receptor L1 is an azacryptand N[(CH2)2NCH–R–CHN–(CH2)2]3N (R =1,3-(2-OH-5-Me–C6H2)). The crystal structures of the five compounds have been determined by X-ray crystallography. The ligand is helically wrapped around the two metal ions, leading to pseudo-C3 symmetries around the metals. In the solid state, the conformation of the cation in 1 and 2 is Λ(δδλ)5(δδλ)5 or its enantiomeric form Δ(λλδ)5(λλδ)5, while in 3, 4 and 5 it can be described as Λ(δδλ)5(δ′δ′δ′)5 (or Δ(λλδ)5(λ′λ′λ′)5). In 1, only one enantiomer is found in the crystal lattice, whereas in the other four compounds, both enantiomers are co-crystallised. The magnetic behaviour of the homodinuclear (Gd, Gd) and the heterodinuclear (Gd, Cu) cryptates points to a significant magnetic interaction between the two metal ions. This magnetic interaction is antiferromagnetic in the case of the Gd–Gd cryptate 1 (J = −0.194(6) cm−1), but ferromagnetic for the Gd–Cu one (J = 2.2(1) cm−1). The antiferromagnetic coupling observed for 1 is one of the largest ever reported. Although the ferromagnetic coupling observed for 3 is relatively weak, which is attributed to the strong bending of the bridging network, it is considerably stronger than the one reported for [GdCu(L2 − 3H)(DMF)](ClO4)2·MeCN. In spite of the similar coordination environment of the Gd(III) ion in compounds 1, 3 and 5 their EPR spectra are different, thereby confirming the magnetic interactions between the Gd(III) ion and the Cu(II) ion in 3 and the other Gd(III) ion in 1.

This publication has 43 references indexed in Scilit: