화학공학소재연구정보센터
Inorganic Chemistry, Vol.39, No.12, 2572-2576, 2000
Synthesis, structure, and magnetic properties of two new ferromagnetic/antiferromagnetic one-dimensional nickel(II) complexes. Magnetostructural correlations
Two new one-dimensional nickel(II) complexes were synthesized and characterized: [Ni(N,N-dimethylethylene-diamine)(N-3)(2)] (1) and [Ni(2-aminoethylpyridine)(N-3)(2)] (2). The crystal structuresof 1 and 2 were solved. Complex 1 crystallizes in the monoclinic system, space group P2(1)/n with a = 10.569(2) Angstrom, b = 7.331(4) Angstrom, c = 12.9072-(8) Angstrom, beta = 111.324(10)degrees, and Z = 4. Complex 2 crystallizes in the monoclinic system, space group P2(1)/c with a 12.299(5) Angstrom, b = 14.307(2) Angstrom, c = 12.603(3), beta = 106.72(2)degrees, and Z = 4. The two complexes are similar and may be described as one-dimensional systems with double-azido-bridged ligands in end-to-end and end-on coordination alternatively. The end-on moiety is almost identical for 1 and 2, but the end-to-end moiety is different in each structure: for 1 this part is almost planar but for 2 is nonplanar. In both cases the Ni atoms are situated in similar distorted octahedral environments. The magnetic properties of the two compounds were studied by susceptibility measurements vs temperature. The chi(M) vs T plots for 1 and 2 show a global antiferromagnetic behavior with a maximum near room temperature for 1 and at very low temperature for 2 J(1) values for 1 and 2 were deduced from the spin Hamiltonian -Sigma(J(1)S(i)S(i+1) + J(2)S(i+1)S(i+2)) The computational method was based on the numerical solution for finite systems of increasing size. J values for 1 were (J1) = -187 cm(-1) and J(2) = +77 cm(-1) and for 2 J(1) = -28 cm(-1) and J(2) = +73 cm(-1). The positive values correspond to end-on azido ligands and the negative values to end-to-end azido ligands. Since the geometries of the [Ni(N-3)](2) moieties involving che end-on azido liands are almost the same in the two structures, the ferromagnetic coupling is nearly identical in the two compounds, while the significantly different antiferrornagnetic couplings reflect the Dear planarity of the endto-end Ni-2(N-3)(2) fragment in 1 and its twisted geometry in 2.