Thangamuthu Rajendran, Seenivasan Rajagopal, Chockalingam Srinivasan and Perumal Ramamurthy
Although the emission spectra and excited-state lifetime of Ru(bpy)32+ (bpy=2,2′-bipyridine), Ru(dmbpy)32+ (dmbpy=4,4′- dimethyl-2,2′-bipyridine) and Ru(phen)32+ (phen=1,10-phenanthroline) are little affected by the addition of the cationic surfactant cetyltrimethylammonium chloride (CTAC), an appreciable shift in λmaxem, emission intensity and emission lifetime are observed for Ru(dtbpy)32+ (dtbpy=4,4′-di-tert-butyl-2,2′-bipyri dine) and Ru(dpphen)32+ (dpphen=4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline). These results point out the importance of hydrophobic interactions over the coulombic repulsion thereby bringing the ruthenium(II) complexes close to the cationic micelles. The rate of luminescence quenching of five *Ru(NN)32+ complexes, with alkyl-substituted phenolate ions in the presence of CTAC, follows different trends depending on the nature of the ligand in Ru(NN)32+ as well as the quencher. The micellar inhibition is explained by considering ArO- being strongly associated with CTAC leaving Ru(NN)32+ in the aqueous phase. The micellar catalysis at high [CTAC] with Ru(dtbpy)32+ and Ru(dpphen)32+ may be due to the operation of predominant hydrophobic interaction over the electrostatic repulsion.