Inorganic Chemistry
Article
exhibits different photoluminescence properties in comparison
with complexes 1 and 3. In more polar solvents such as
acetonitrile and acetone, the emission of Sm3+ ions exhibits
peaks at about 560, 598, 645, and 705 nm in the visible region,
complex 2 is excited at 334 and 426 nm in DCM or at 355 nm
in toluene, it may generate white-light emission with CIE
coordinates of (0.34, 0.30) (cross 1 in Figure 7d), (0.34, 0.33)
(cross 2 in Figure 7d), and (0.33, 0.35) (cross 3 in Figure 7d),
respectively. The Eu complex 3 generates white-light emission
when it is excited at 343 nm in CHCl3 (0.31, 0.31) (cross 1 in
Figure 7f), at 344 nm in EAC (0.33, 0.31) (cross 2 in Figure
7f), and at 348 nm in THF (0.33, 0.32) (cross 3 in Figure 7f).
It is obvious from Figure 7a,c,e that the corresponding
complexes in the respective solvents exhibit emission both
from the ligands and from the Ln3+ ions, and the proper
mixtures of emissions from Ln3+ ions and the ligands produce
the white light.
4
6
which are assigned to the 4f−4f transitions G5/2 → H5/2
,
,
4
4G5/2
→ , → →
6H7/2 4G5/2 6H9/2, and G5/2 6H11/2
respectively. However, unlike complexes 1 and 3, in methanol,
ethanol, DMF, and DMSO, complex 2 shows not only the
intense emission of Sm3+ ions but also a weak emission of the
L1 ligand at about 430 nm. In less polar solvents such as
dichloromethane, chloroform, THF, and ethyl acetate (EAC),
it exhibits strong and broad emission of the ligands and weak
emission of Sm3+ ions. In toluene, 2 only shows a strong
emission band from the ligand, which is different from the case
for the Eu complexes. These different solvent-dependent
luminescent behaviors of complexes 1 and 3 on the one hand
and complex 2 on the other hand are due to the different
excited energy levels of Eu3+ (5D0) and Sm3+ (4G5/2).
Electrochemistry and UV/Vis/NIR Spectroelectro-
chemistry Studies. The electrochemical properties of the
lanthanide complexes 1−3 were explored by cyclic voltamme-
try (CV) in acetonitrile solution with (n-C4H9)4NPF6 as the
electrolyte (0.1 mol dm−3). Cyclic voltammograms are shown
in Figure S10 in the Supporting Information. Complexes 1−3
display one reversible one-electron oxidation with half-wave
potentials of 0.36, 0.38, and 0.30 V (vs. Fc+/Fc), respectively.
These oxidation waves are attributed to the TPA•+/TPA redox
couples in the ligands L1 and L2, whose radical cations are
stable on the voltammetric time scale due to the high degree of
chemical reversibility. The Eu complexes 1 and 3 show
irreversible reductions of the metal center at about −2.15 and
−2.20 V, respectively. The Sm complex 2 does not show any
redox signal for the metal center. Actually, it has been reported
in the literature that the Epc value of Eu3+/2+ is −1.78 V (vs
Fc+/Fc) for the complex [Eu(BPPA)2]OTf and −1.77 V (vs
Fc+/Fc) for [Eu(BPA)2]OTf, and the value is even more
negative and not observable for the complex [Eu(MPA)2K]
The time-resolved emission of complexes 1−3 was studied
7
by monitoring the samples at 612 nm (5D0 → F2) for the Eu
complexes and at 645 nm (4G5/2 → 6H9/2) for the Sm complex
in different solvents (Figure S8). In all investigated solvents,
single-exponential decays with lifetime on the microsecond
time scale were obtained (Table S7). Complex 1 has the
largest τobs value of 712 μs in DMSO and the smallest τobs
value of 232 μs in MeOH. Complexes 2 and 3 have their
largest τobs values in CH3CN of 104 μs for 2 and 646 μs for 3,
and the smallest τobs values of 16 μs for 2 and 279 μs for 3
occur in MeOH. In CH3CN solution, all of these complexes
exhibit pure emission of Ln3+ (and no ligand emission);
therefore, we take their quantum yields and the lifetime values
obtained in CH3CN to determine the radiative (kr) and
nonradiative (knr) excited-state decay rate constants of these
complexes, and all of the selected data are summarized in
Table 1.
under the same conditions.37 Normally, the E1/2(Sm3+/2+
)
value should be more negative than E1/2(Eu3+/2+) as reported
in the literatures.37,38 That is the reason that complex 2 does
not present any redox event. Such negative reduction potential
for these complexes make the photoinduced electron transfer
from the TPA group to the excited Ln3+ ions impossible
according to the Rehm−Weller equation.39
The luminescence quantum yields for the Eu complexes 1
and 3 are 2.6% and 1.8%, and the corresponding kr values for 1
and 3 are 40.2 and 27.9 s−1 in CH3CN solution, respectively.
From Table 1, we can see that complex 1 shows close kr and knr
values in comparison with complex 3 in CH3CN. The emission
of Sm complex 2 is too weak to allow evaluation of its quantum
yield both in the solid state and in CH3CN solution.
Triphenylamine derivatives have good electrochromic
properties; normally their UV−vis absorption spectra change
upon oxidation.22 To investigate the absorption spectra
variation with applied electrochemical potential, the accessible
redox states of complex 1 were produced in a thin-layer cuvette
with an Ag wire as the reference electrode, a Pt rod as the
counter electrode, and a Pt net as the working electrode. A
deaerated CH3CN solution with 0.25 mol dm−3 (n-
C4H9)4NPF6 as the supporting electrolyte was used. At an
applied potential of 1.2 V vs Ag+/Ag, the spectroelectrochem-
istry was studied. Figure 8 shows the spectral changes of
complex 1. Upon oxidation, the absorption band at about 340
nm decreases, and a new absorption band at 760 nm appears,
which is assigned to the absorption of the radical cation
TPA•+. This is also confirmed by measuring the absorption
spectra of the oxidized 1•+ generated by addition of 1 equiv of
ceric ammonium nitrate (CAN) oxidant (Figure S11).
Luminescence Control and Tuning by Applying an
Electrochemical Potential. To explore luminescence switch-
ing upon application of an external potential for complexes 1
and 2, their emission spectra were measured as a function of
electrochemical potential. Using the same experimental setup
as in the UV/vis/NIR spectroelectrochemistry study, the
emission spectra were detected in a thin-layer cuvette.
White-Light Emission. Single-component white-light
emitters have attracted increasing attention, as they will in
principle simplify the preparation of optical display devices by
avoiding the mixing of two (blue/yellow) or three (red/blue/
green) separate components. According to the 1931 CIE
(International Commission on Illumination) coordinate
diagram, standard white light should have the CIE coordinates
(0.33, 0.33). Recently, some lanthanide complexes were
reported as white-light emitters.36 The white-light emission
of complex 2 in EAC solution under a 365 nm UV lamp
excitation (Figure S9) inspired us to study the application
potential of complexes 1−3 as white-light-emitting materials.
The room-temperature emission spectra of complexes 1−3
in different solvents and the corresponding chromaticity
diagrams in selected solvents are shown in Figure 7, which
reveals that the CIE coordinates of these complexes
favorably in the white-light region. The CIE coordinates of
complex 1 are (0.31, 0.33) (cross 1 in Figure 7b) in ethyl
acetate (EAC) on excitation at 343 nm and (0.31, 0.31) (cross
2 in Figure 7b) in THF on excitation at 348 nm. When
H
Inorg. Chem. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX