FULL PAPER
40%) was added to it. The resulting mixture was heated to reflux to identify the degraded products. Generation of hydroxyl radical
for 6 h at 90 °C and was kept for slow evaporation, which gave a
milky white slurry. Treatment of the slurry with a large excess
amount of acetone resulted in a white precipitate, which was fil-
tered and washed by aqueous ethanol and finally hexane (to re-
move unreacted phenol) to obtain the sodium salt of the ligand.
The acid form of the ligand, H3L, was obtained by acidification of
the aqueous solution of NaHL by dilute CH3COOH. Finally the
product was recrystallized from a mixture of ethanol and water
(4:1); yield 82% (0.288 g). C19H28NNaO5: calcd. C 61.11, H 7.56,
N 3.75; found C 61.06, H 7.49, N 3.67.
was determined by means of the benzoic acid hydroxylation
method.[44] In this method, FeIII–salicylic acid complex [tetraaquo-
salicylatoiron(III) complex, λmax = 522 nm] was formed and iden-
tified by means of UV/Vis spectroscopy.
LC–MS Analysis of MB Degradation: The sample was prepared as
follows. The mixture of MB dye solution was irradiated with visible
light. When the solution was completely decolourized, the degrada-
tion products were extracted several times with ethyl acetate. The
ethyl acetate extract was evaporated to dryness with a rotary evapo-
rator. The dry residue obtained was dissolved in methanol and ana-
lyzed by LC–MS analysis.
Synthesis of [Et3NH][Fe(LH)2] (1): Ligand LH3 (0.351 g, 1 mmol)
was dissolved in a mixture of methanol (20 mL) and water (5 mL)
in a beaker. A solution of anhydrous FeCl3 (0.08 g, 0.5 mmol) in
methanol and triethylamine (0.101 g; 1 mmol, 0.14 mL) was added.
The resulting blue-violet solution was stirred for an hour and then
kept for slow evaporation at room temperature. Upon standing for
about a week the solution gave the product, which was washed with
water and then redissolved in acetonitrile, from which red-violet
single crystals suitable for X-ray diffraction were obtained; yield
0.25 g; 58.2%. C44H68FeN3O10 (854.86): calcd. C 61.82, H 8.02, N
4.92; found C 61.76, H 7.92, N 4.86.
Supporting Information (see footnote on the first page of this arti-
cle): Spectra, electrochemical data and tables with important bond
lengths and bond angles.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Department of Science and Technology
(DST), Government of India, New Delhi for use of its NMR spec-
troscopic and single-crystal X-ray facility.
Crystal Structure Determination: Crystal data for 1 was collected
at 100 K with a Bruker Smart CCD APEX diffractometer with
Mo-Kα (λ = 0.71073 Å) radiation using a cold nitrogen stream. The
crystal structure was solved by direct methods and refined with
full-matrix least-squares cycles using SHELX[42] with atomic coor-
dinates and anisotropic thermal parameters for all non-hydrogen
atoms.
[1] V. Kavita, K. Palanivelu, Chemosphere 2004, 55, 1235–1243.
[2] J. Kiwi, C. Pulgarin, P. Peringer, Appl. Catal. B 1994, 3, 335–
350.
[3] R. Chen, J. J. Pignatello, Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 2399–
2406.
[4] V. Nadtochenko, J. Kiwi, J. Photochem. Photobiol. A: Chem.
1996, 99, 145–153.
Crystal Data: Empirical formula C44H68N3O10Fe; Mr = 854.86, T
= 100 K, λ = 0.71073 Å, crystal system: orthorhombic, space
[5] P. Maletzky, R. Bauer, Chemosphere 1998, 37, 899–909.
[6] J. J. Pignatello, Environ. Sci. Technol. 1992, 26, 944–951.
[7] a) V. Nadochenko, J. Kiwi, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 1997,
93, 2373–2378; b) Z. Xiong, L. L. Zhang, J. Ma, X. S. Zhao,
Chem. Commun. 2010, 46, 6099–6101; c) J. M. Monteagudo,
A. Durán, L. S. Martín, M. Aguirre, Appl. Catal. B 2010, 96,
486–95.
[8] a) Y. Xie, F. Chen, J. He, J. Zhao, H. Wang, J. Photochem.
Photobiol. A: Chem. 2000, 136, 235–240; b) S. Q. Liu, L. R.
Feng, N. Xu, Z. G. Chen, X. M. Wang, Chem. Eng. J. 2012,
203, 432–439.
group: P21212;
a = 38.6516(10) Å, b = 10.8735(3) Å, c =
12.8940(3) Å; V = 5419.1(2) Å3, Z = 4, Dcalcd. = 1.048, μ = 0.326,
F(000) = 1836. Final R indices [IϾ2σ(I)]: R = 0.0620, wR2 =
0.2758, Flack parameter: 0.03(2). Important bond lengths and
bond angles are given in the Supporting Information.
CCDC-989307 contains the supplementary crystallographic data
for compound 1. These data can be obtained free of charge from
The Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre via www.ccdc.cam.
ac.uk/data_request/cif.
[9] T. H. Wang, S. F. Kang, Y. H. Lin, J. Environ. Sci. Health Part
A 1999, 34, 1267–1281.
[10] K. Lang, S. Lunak, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2002, 1, 588–
591.
Degradation Experiments: In a 100 mL round-bottomed Pyrex
flask, an aqueous solution (50 mL) that contained dye, iron catalyst
and other required elements was mixed and stirred for 5 min in the
dark. The solution was placed 10 cm away from the visible-light
source, which was a 125 W Hg lamp with a water circulation jacket
to cool the lamp. Another Pyrex jacket that contained the aqueous
NaNO2 solution (10% w/w) as a light filter through which only
visible light (λ Ͼ 400 nm) could pass.[43]
[11] H. Kunkely, A. Vogler, Inorg. Chem. Commun. 2003, 6, 1335–
1337.
[12] a) K. A. Hislop, J. R. Bolton, Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33,
3119–3126; b) J. M. Monteagudo, A. Durán, M. Aguirre, L. S.
MartıЈn, J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 185, 131–139.
[13] X. Tao, W. Ma, T. Zhang, J. Zhao, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2001,
40, 3014–3016; Angew. Chem. 2001, 113, 3103.
[14] M. Cheng, W. Ma, C. Chen, J. Yao, J. Zhao, Appl. Catal. B
2006, 65, 217–226.
The incident light intensity (I0) of the light source is
4.117ϫ1016 EinsteinL–1 s–1. An aqueous solution of the MB dye
(1.87ϫ10–4 m) was subjected to degradation under different condi-
[15] S. Gazi, R. Ananthakrishnan, N. D. P. Singh, J. Hazard. Mater.
2010, 1, 588–591.
tions. Other dyes used for degradation were RhB (1.24ϫ10–4 m), [16] T. Robinson, G. McMullan, R. Marchant, P. Nigam, Bioresour.
CV (1.47ϫ10–4 m) and MG (1.64ϫ10–4 m). The concentration of
the newly prepared iron(III) complex (1) used for degradation was
8.50ϫ10–5 m in water; 3 mm hydrogen peroxide solution was used.
At regular intervals of 30 min, samples (3 mL) were withdrawn
from the reaction mixture solution and the concentration was mea-
sured by means of UV/Vis spectroscopy. The effects of H2O2 and
different salts (0.01 m each) as well as the effect of pH of the me-
dium on the degradation of MB were investigated. After comple-
tion of the degradation reaction, LC–MS analysis was carried out
Technol. 2004, 77, 247–255.
[17] I. M. Banat, P. Nigam, D. Singh, R. Marchent, Bioresour. Tech-
nol. 1996, 58, 217–227.
[18] H. D. Flack, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A 1983, 39, 876–881.
[19] W. Schmitt, M. Murugesu, J. C. Goodwin, J. P. Hill, A. Man-
del, R. Bhalla, C. E. Anson, S. L. Heath, A. K. Powell, Polyhe-
dron 2001, 20, 1687–1697.
[20] W. Schmitt, J. P. Hill, M. P. Juanico, A. Caneschi, F. Costan-
tino, C. E. Anson, A. K. Powell, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2005,
44, 4187–4192; Angew. Chem. 2005, 117, 4259.
Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2014, 5125–5134
5133
© 2014 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim