A new class of deep-blue emitting Cu(I) compounds – effects of counter ions on the emission behavior

Abstract

Three deep blue emitting Cu(I) compounds, [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]PF₆, [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]BF₄, and [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]BPh₄ (tpym = tris(2-pyridyl)methane, PPh₃ = triphenylphosphine) featuring the tripodally coordinating tpym and the monodentate PPh₃ ligands were studied with regard to their structural and photophysical properties. The compounds only differ in their respective counter ions which have a strong impact on the emission properties of the powder samples. For example, the emission quantum yield can be significantly increased for the neat material from less than 10% to more than 40% by exchanging BPh₄⁻ with PF₆⁻. These effects can be linked to different molecular packings which depend on the counter ion. In agreement with these results, it was found that the emission properties also strongly depend on the surrounding matrix environment which was elucidated by investigating photophysical properties of the compounds as powders, doped into a polymer matrix, and dissolved in a fluid solution, respectively. The observed differences in the emission behavior can be explained by different and pronounced distortions that occur in the excited state. These distortions are also displayed by density functional theory (DFT) calculations.

---

Introduction

In the last few decades, significant research attention has been devoted to the development of new emitter materials for organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) and light-emitting electrochemical cells (LEECs).^1–14 A breakthrough in this field was achieved when the potential of 3^rd row transition metal complexes was recognized for these applications. Such compounds can display strong spin–orbit coupling (SOC) which can result in high phosphorescence emission quantum yields and short emission decay times of only a few microseconds.^9,15–18 Most importantly, the involvement of the triplet state in the emission process and the fast intersystem crossing (ISC) from the lowest excited singlet to the lowest triplet state allow the use of all injected excitons, singlets and triplets, for the generation of light in electroluminescent devices through the triplet harvesting effect.^19–21 As a consequence, the efficiency increases by a factor of four compared to conventional purely organic, fluorescent emitters which can only utilize singlet excitons. However, efficient triplet emitters are based on expensive and rare noble metals such as iridium and platinum.^{1,4,5,7–9,11,13,16,21–29} Furthermore, developing efficient and long-term stable blue light emitters with this class of compounds remains challenging due to energetically relatively low-lying metal centered dd* states that provide a path for non-radiative decay to the ground state or even molecular decomposition.³⁰

In recent years, compounds based on low-cost and more abundant 1^st row transition metal copper have come into the focus of research.^{9,10,14,31–38} At first sight, emitters based on Cu(I) seem rather unsuitable for application in electroluminescent devices due to the significantly smaller SOC constant of copper compared to platinum or iridium,³⁹ for example. Thus, Cu(I) complexes frequently exhibit triplet decay times of several 100 microseconds or more.^{9,14,22,31–33,35,40–49} This would lead to pronounced saturation effects, if these materials are applied as emitters in electroluminescent devices.⁵⁰ However, the long triplet decay time is not effective if the compounds exhibit only a small energy separation ΔE(S₁–T₁) between the first excited singlet S₁ and the triplet state T₁. Then, an efficient thermal population (up-ISC) of the S₁ state from the energetically lower lying T₁ state can occur at ambient temperature. As the spin-allowed S₁ → S₀ transition shows a significantly higher oscillator strength than the spin-forbidden T₁ → S₀ transition, the overall decay time decreases distinctly by this process and decay times of only a few μs can be reached.^{9,14,22,31–35,40–45,51,52} This emission mechanism corresponds to a thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF).⁵³ In an electroluminescent device, this mechanism allows utilizing all injected excitons for the generation of light. Accordingly, the excitation is harvested and emitted essentially via the singlet S₁ state. Thus, this mechanism is called the singlet harvesting effect.^{9,14,22,31–33,35,40,54–56} Additionally, in Cu(I) complexes the d-shell of the copper ion is fully occupied (d¹⁰ electron configuration) and therefore, low-lying dd* states that could quench the emission and would be a source of molecular decomposition do not occur. This renders Cu(I) complexes promising candidates for the realization of efficient and long-term stable blue light emitters for OLEDs and LEECs.

Compared to emitters based on Pt(II) and Ir(III), which preferably exhibit square-planar or octahedral coordination geometries, respectively, Cu(I) compounds show a richer structural diversity.^{14,31–36,38,40,43,45,54,56–80} However, so far photophysical investigations have been mainly focused on mononuclear complexes with two bidentate ligands,^{32,33,37,40,70–72,77–83} mononuclear complexes with one mono and one bidentate ligand,^{34,38,43,63–65} and on dinuclear complexes in which the two copper centers are bridged by halides.^{14,35,36,56,59–62} To our knowledge, only very few Cu(I) complexes with tripodal ligands have been studied with regard to their photophysical properties.^54,57,58

Herein, we report the new cationic tripodally coordinated deep-blue emitting Cu(I) complex [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]⁺ (PPh₃ = triphenylphosphine, tpym = tris(2-pyridyl)methane). Interestingly, the emission properties distinctly depend on the counter ion. Therefore, we discuss properties of the three powder materials [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]PF₆ (1), [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]BF₄ (2), and [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]BPh₄ (3) and compare the results with those for the compounds doped into polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). All compounds were characterized chemically by NMR spectroscopy, IR spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, elemental analysis, and X-ray analysis. In addition, density functional theory (DFT) and time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) calculations were performed for the cationic part [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]⁺ to gain further insight into the electronic structure of this complex.

Results and discussion

Synthesis

The copper(I) compounds [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]PF₆ (1), [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]BF₄ (2), and [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]BPh₄ (3) were prepared in a two-step synthesis. In the first step, the tripodal ligand tris(2-pyridyl)methane (tpym) was prepared according to a literature method (Scheme 1).⁸⁴ In the second step, compounds 1 and 2 were synthesized by reaction of the corresponding copper(I) salts [Cu(MeCN)₄]PF₆ and [Cu(MeCN)₄]BF₄, respectively, with PPh₃ and tpym. The yields for both compounds are quantitative. Compound 3 was prepared with an overall yield of 35% in three in situ steps (Scheme 2). In the first step, the complex [Cu(Cl)tpym] was formed by reaction of CuCl with tpym. Then, by adding NaBPh₄ an anion exchange between the chloride and the tetraphenylborate anion is accomplished. Finally, by adding PPh₃ compound 3 was obtained.

Scheme 1 Synthesis of the methane derivative tris(2-pyridyl)methane (tpym) according to ref. 84.

Scheme 2 Synthesis of the copper(I) compounds.

X-ray crystal structures

Single crystals suitable for X-ray structure determination could be obtained for all three investigated compounds (1, 2, and 3) from a saturated chloroform solution by layering with n-pentane at ambient temperature. The crystallographic data and structure refinement details are summarized in Table 1; selected bond distances and angles are listed in Table 2. The molecular structures of 1–3 are shown in Fig. 1. The three compounds crystallize in different crystal systems, compound 1 in the monoclinic, compound 2 in the trigonal, and compound 3 in the orthorhombic crystal system.

Fig. 1 Molecular structures of 1–3 (thermal ellipsoids with 50% probability) resulting from X-ray analyses. Hydrogen atoms (except for H16) and solvent molecules are omitted for clarity.

Table 1 Crystallographic data for compounds 1–3

	1	2	3
	[Cu(PPh3)tpym]PF6·CHCl3	[Cu(PPh3)tpym]BF4·0.5 CHCl3	[Cu(PPh3)tpym]BPh4·2 CHCl3
Habitus	Plate	Needle	Plate
Color	Colorless	Colorless	Colorless
Formula	C35H29Cl3CuF6N3P2	C34.50H28.50BCl1.50CuF4N3P	C60H50BCl6CuN3P
fw [g mol^−1]	837.44	719.60	1131.05
Crystal size [mm^3]	0.220 × 0.180 × 0.090	0.291 × 0.043 × 0.041	0.319 × 0.267 × 0.064
Crystal system	Monoclinic	Trigonal	Orthorhombic
Space group	P21	R3̄c	Pna21
a [Å]	8.5970(3)	12.8635(6)	19.4837(7)
b [Å]	18.9423(8)	12.8635	11.1499(4)
c [Å]	11.5950(5)	67.361(3)	24.6713(9)
α [°]	90	90	90
β [°]	107.2000(10)	90	90
γ [°]	90	120	90
Cell volume [Å^3]	1803.77(13)	9652.9(10)	5359.6(3)
Z	2	12	4
D calc [Mg m^−3]	1.542	1.485	1.402
Abs. coeff. [mm^−1]	0.978	0.907	0.780
F(000)	848	4404	2328
T [K]	100(2)	100(2)	100(2)
λ [Å]	0.71069	0.71069	0.71069
Reflns collected	26 555	28 280	54 250
Indep. reflns	7884	2458	11 572
Obs. reflns [II > 2(I)]	7265	1742	9836
Reflns used for refin.	7884	2458	11 572
Abs. correction	Multi-scan	Multi-scan	Multi-scan
GOF	1.030	1.037	1.069
wR2	0.0643	0.0958	0.0662
R 1 [I > 2σ(I)]	0.0290	0.0383	0.0294

---

Table 2 Selected bond distances [Å] and angles [°] for compounds 1–3

	1	2	3
a Since compound 2 crystallizes in the space group R3̄c, the pyridine and phenyl groups are crystallographically imposed symmetry equivalent with respect to each other. Nevertheless, for better comparability we use the same atom labeling scheme for compound 2 as for 1 and 3.
Cu1–N1	2.047(3)	2.073(2)	2.056(3)
Cu1–N2	2.080(3)	2.073(2)	2.048(3)
Cu1–N3	2.075(3)	2.073(2)	2.098(3)
Cu1–P1	2.160(1)	2.158(1)	2.152(1)
C16–C1	1.527(4)	1.522(3)	1.520(4)
C16–C6	1.524(4)	1.522(3)	1.526(4)
C16–C11	1.520(4)	1.522(3)	1.518(4)
P1–Cu1–N1	124.9(1)	125.3(1)	132.1(1)
P1–Cu1–N2	123.4(1)	125.3(1)	120.3(1)
P1–Cu1–N3	127.5(1)	125.3(1)	121.3(1)
N1–Cu1–N2	89.6(1)	90.0(1)	90.4(1)
N1–Cu1–N3	91.1(1)	90.0(1)	89.2(1)
N2–Cu1–N3	89.1(1)	90.0(1)	92.3(1)
P1–Cu1–C16	177.6(0)	180.0(0)	172.6(1)

---

The copper(I) centers are coordinated by the phosphine ligand PPh₃ and the three N atoms of tpym in a distorted tetrahedral configuration. The bending of the PPh₃ ligand from the C16–Cu1 axis (compare Fig. 1) is different for the three compounds. For compound 2, there is no bending of the PPh₃ ligand (P1–Cu1–C16 = 180.0(0)°). For compound 1, with an angle of P1–Cu1–C16 = 177.6 (0)°, the PPh₃ bending is small, but for compound 3, with an angle of P1–Cu1–C16 = 172.6 (1)°, the bending is clearly displayed. Thus it seems that the bending of the PPh₃ ligand from the C16–Cu1 axis increases with the increasing size of the counter anion (BF₄ < PF₆ < BPh₄). The crystal packing diagram of compound 3 with the most pronounced PPh₃ bending reveals that this bending is a result of the interaction of the PPh₃ ligand with the counter anion BPh₄ (see Fig. S3, ESI†). One phenyl group of BPh₄ is directly oriented towards the PPh₃ ligand of the adjacent copper complex. The resulting steric repulsion is decreased by the bending of the PPh₃ ligand. For compounds 1 and 2 with the smaller counter anions PF₆ and BF₄, the interaction of the PPh₃ group of the Cu(I) complex with its neighboring molecules is rather balanced. This can be supported by the performed DFT calculations (see below) which indicate that in the absence of counter ions and neighboring molecules the angle P1–Cu1–C16 amounts to 180°.

It is remarked that we have performed similar investigations for neutral Cu(I) complexes with tripodal ligands (similar to tpym) previously but with a halide (Cl, Br, or I) instead of the PPh₃ ligand at the fourth coordination site. Also for these compounds a bending of the monodentate (halide) ligand has been observed in the crystal structures.⁵⁴

Computational studies

Quantum chemical calculations have been carried out for the cationic complex [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]⁺ using density functional theory (DFT) and time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) with the hybrid functional B3LYP^85–87 and the basis set def2-SVP.^88,89 For [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]⁺, the ground state (S₀), the first excited triplet state (T₁), and the first excited singlet state (S₁) geometries were calculated. The results are displayed in Fig. 2. Frequency calculations confirm that these three optimized structures are minima on the potential energy surface.

Fig. 2 Optimized geometries of the ground state S₀ (a), the first excited triplet state T₁ (b), and the first excited singlet state S₁ (c) of [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]⁺. Calculations were performed on the B3LYP/def2-SVP level of theory. All hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity.

For the S₀ geometry, it was found that the atom P1 of the PPh₃ group lies on the axis that is defined by the atoms C16 and Cu1 (Fig. 2a) (angle P1–Cu1–C16 = 180°). The bond lengths of the three Cu–N bonds are almost equal, amounting to 2.137 Å (Cu1–N1), 2.137 Å (Cu1–N2), and 2.139 Å (Cu1–N3). However, in the T₁ (Fig. 2b) and S₁ state geometries (Fig. 2c), the P1 atom, and thus, the whole PPh₃ group, is bent away from the C16–Cu1 axis. For the T₁ geometry, the PPh₃ group is angled by about 26° (P1–Cu1–C16 = 153.8°) and for the S₁ geometry by about 30° (P1–Cu1–C16 = 149.7°). Also, the three Cu–N bonds are no longer equal in the excited state geometries. In the T₁ geometry, two Cu–N bonds are significantly shorter than in the S₀ geometry, with bond lengths amounting to Cu1–N1 = 2.000 Å and Cu1–N2 = 1.965 Å, whereas the length of the third copper–nitrogen bond increases to Cu1–N3 = 2.167 Å. On the other hand, for the S₁ geometry two Cu–N bonds become longer, with two equal bond lengths of Cu1–N1 = 2.149 Å and Cu1–N3 = 2.149 Å, and one Cu–N bond becomes significantly shorter, with a bond length of Cu1–N2 = 1.986 Å. These data and other important bond lengths and angles are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 Selected calculated bond distances [Å] and angles [°] for the ground state (S₀), the first excited triplet state (T₁), and the first excited singlet state (S₁) geometry of [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]⁺

	S0	T1	S1
Cu1–N1	2.137	2.000	2.149
Cu1–N2	2.137	1.965	1.986
Cu1–N3	2.139	2.167	2.149
Cu1–P1	2.242	2.356	2.339
P1–Cu1–N1	125.9	108.4	106.4
P1–Cu1–N2	125.9	150.0	154.8
P1–Cu1–N3	126.4	110.3	107.8
N1–Cu1–N2	88.9	89.2	90.0
N1–Cu1–N3	88.9	97.4	93.2
N2–Cu1–N3	88.9	90.5	89.8
P1–Cu1–C16	179.7	153.8	149.7

---

Furthermore, it was found that the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) is mainly located at the Cu(I) center whereas the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) is distributed over two of the three pyridine moieties of the tpym ligand (compare Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Highest occupied (HOMO) and lowest unoccupied molecular orbitals (LUMO) for [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]⁺ calculated for the ground state geometry. Calculations were performed on the B3LYP/def2-SVP level of theory. All hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity.

TDDFT calculations reveal that transitions between these two frontier orbitals largely determine the first excited singlet S₁ and triplet T₁ states which leads to the assignment of these states as metal-to-ligand charge-transfer (MLCT) states. This allows us to give an explanation for the occurrence of geometry distortions in the S₁ and T₁ states: On excitation, a significant amount of charge is transferred from the Cu(I) metal center to the ligand. As a consequence, the copper center is formally partially oxidized from Cu(I) to Cu(II). As Cu(II) prefers a planar coordination environment in contrast to Cu(I) (which favors tetrahedral coordination), such an oxidation is connected with pronounced structural reorganizations. For example, for Cu(I) complexes with two bidentate ligands, this is displayed by a flattening distortion from a tetrahedral to a more planar coordination geometry.^{71,77,90–92} In the case of the cationic Cu(I) complex presented in this study, the distortion is represented by the bending of the PPh₃ group as described above.

The pronounced charge transfer character of the S₁ and T₁ states has another important consequence. Due to the distinct spatial separation of HOMO and LUMO, the spatial overlap between these two frontier orbitals is small. As a consequence, the exchange integral is also small. Accordingly, the energy separation ΔE(S₁–T₁) between the first excited singlet and triplet state is small. From TDDFT calculations it was found that this energy separation amounts only to ΔE(S₁–T₁) = 810 cm⁻¹. For such a small energy splitting a thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) is expected to occur at ambient temperature, which is also indicated by the studies presented below.

Photophysical studies

In Fig. 4, electronic absorption spectra of the compounds [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]PF₆ (1), [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]BF₄ (2), and [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]BPh₄ (3) are displayed. In addition, the absorption spectra of the tpym and the PPh₃ ligands are also shown. All spectra were recorded under ambient conditions for the compounds dissolved in dichloromethane, except for PPh₃ for which the absorption was measured in acetonitrile.⁹³

Fig. 4 Absorption spectra of the three compounds 1–3 and the tpym ligand recorded in dichloromethane solution under ambient conditions. PPh₃ absorption has been measured under the same conditions but in acetonitrile solution.⁹³

The absorption spectra of compounds 1–3 show similar spectral shapes. All spectra exhibit intense high energy absorption bands in the wavelength region below 280 nm with peaks at 229 nm, 248 nm, and 260 nm, respectively. The corresponding electronic transitions are identified to originate from ligand centered (LC) π–π* transitions of the tpym and the PPh₃ ligands, which show intense absorptions in this spectral range. At longer wavelengths, distinctly weaker absorption bands are observed which are not present in the spectrum of the tpym or PPh₃ ligands. Therefore, these bands can be attributed to transitions that are of metal-to-ligand charge transfer (MLCT) character. This assignment is also in agreement with DFT and TDDFT calculations discussed in the previous section which predict low lying MLCT states and agrees with literature reports of other Cu(I) complexes.^{9,14,22,33,40–45,51,52}

It is not surprising that the absorption spectra of all three compounds exhibit similar spectral shapes as the investigated substances differ only in their respective counter anions. In a dilute solution, the counter anions do not interact with the Cu(I) complexes and therefore, do not influence the absorption behavior. Furthermore, the BF₄⁻ and PF₆⁻ ions are not expected to show absorption in the investigated wavelength range. In contrast, the phenyl groups of BPh₄⁻ show distinct absorption in the wavelength range between 230 nm and 260 nm which explains the differences in the spectra of substance 3 when compared to those of 1 and 2.

In fluid dichloromethane (DCM) solution, the Cu(I) complexes are not emissive at ambient temperature, even if oxygen is carefully removed from the solution by repeatedly applying a freeze–pump–thaw process. In contrast, emission is observed for complexes doped into a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) matrix. The corresponding emission spectra are displayed in Fig. 5 and are found to be essentially identical for all the compounds. They are broad and featureless, being in agreement with the MLCT character of the emissive state,^{31–35,40,63–65} with a peak at λ_max = 470 nm. Also, the emission quantum yield of Φ_PL = 7% is equal for all the compounds (compare Table 4). These results show that the counter anions do not have an influence on the emission behavior of the Cu(I) complexes doped into the PMMA matrix which presumably is due to the spatial separation of the counter anions and the Cu(I) complex in the PMMA matrix at low doping concentrations. The relatively small value of Φ_PL is related to the non-rigid environment in the PMMA polymer. This allows significant quenching of the excited states as explained below. Interestingly, for the powder samples with different counter anions one finds distinct differences in the emission properties. The spectra of the three compounds are clearly shifted relative to each other with emission maxima lying at λ_max(1) = 466 nm, λ_max(2) = 449 nm, and λ_max(3) = 452 nm (Fig. 5). Also, the emission quantum yields vary distinctly amounting to Φ_PL(1) = 43%, Φ_PL(2) = 19%, and Φ_PL(3) = 7%, at ambient temperature.

Fig. 5 Normalized emission spectra of the investigated compounds 1–3 doped into a PMMA matrix and as powders. All spectra were recorded under ambient conditions. The samples were excited at λ_exc = 350 nm.

Table 4 Emission properties of [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]PF₆ (1), [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]BF₄ (2) and [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]BPh₄ (3) powders at 300 K and 77 K. λ_max represents the wavelength at the maximum of the emission spectrum, τ the emission decay time, and Φ_PL the photoluminescence quantum yield. The radiative rate k_r and the nonradiative rate k_nr were calculated according to k_r = Φ_PLτ⁻¹ and k_nr = (1-Φ_PL) τ⁻¹, respectively. The asterisk (*) indicates that the decay behavior deviates slightly from a mono-exponential decay. Decay times for the compounds doped into a PMMA matrix deviate significantly from a mono-exponential behavior. For this reason, no τ value is given for the PMMA samples

		1	2	3
Powder	λ max (300 K) [nm]	466	449	452
	τ (300 K) [μs]	14	7.5*	5.4*
	Φ PL (300 K) [%]	43	19	7
	k r (300 K) [s^−1]	3.1 × 10^4	2.5 × 10^4	1.3 × 10^4
	k nr (300 K) [s^−1]	4.1 × 10^4	1.1 × 10^5	1.7 × 10^5
	λ max (77 K) [nm]	478	462	462
	τ (77 K) [μs]	26	19*	25*
PMMA	λ max (300 K) [nm]	470	470	470
	Φ PL (300 K) [%]	7	7	7

---

Presumably, these differences are a consequence of the interaction of the counter anions with the Cu(I) complex due to their proximity in the solid phase. In the crystals of the compounds, these interactions are displayed in different packings and different geometries of the [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]⁺ complex, depending on the counter anion (compare crystal structures discussed above and ESI Fig. S1–S3†). For example, the orientation of the PPh₃ group compared to the rest of the molecules is strongly dependent on the counter anion and thus, influences the emission properties. Similar effects have been investigated previously.^94–97 It is reasonable to assume that in the powder phase, the counter anions have similar effects on the compounds’ geometries.

A comparison of the emission properties in different matrices reveals an interesting trend. In the powder phase, compound 1 exhibits an emission quantum yield of 43%, but when doped into a PMMA matrix the quantum yield amounts only to 7% and in solution, the quantum yield is ≪1%. This is related to increasing distortions that Cu(I) complexes undergo on excitation with decreasing matrix rigidity.^{9,31,40,55,60} As already discussed in the previous section, the compounds show structural distortion on excitation, especially, a bending of the PPh₃ group away from the C16–Cu1 axis. As a consequence, the potential energy curves for the excited and the ground states are shifted with respect to each other. Accordingly, the non-radiative rate increases due to an increase of the Franck–Condon factors that govern these deactivation processes to the ground state.^9,31,98,99 In matrices with low rigidity, such as fluid solutions, this effect is particularly pronounced. In more rigid environments, geometry distortions are much less distinct resulting in higher quantum yields. In powder, geometry distortions upon excitation are partly suppressed resulting in higher quantum yields of the Cu(I) compounds. Interestingly, here it is shown that also the counter anion (and the resulting molecular packing) has an influence on the emission quantum yield of the powder samples. Thus, the counter anions prevent large geometry distortions if they limit the available space for distortions in the molecular packing.

It is remarked that the emission spectra of the compounds as powders show a clear blue shift of the order of 10 nm on heating from T = 77 K to ambient temperature (1: 540 cm⁻¹, 2: 620 cm⁻¹, 3: 480 cm⁻¹). This is an indication that a thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) occurs. According to this emission mechanism, the singlet state S₁ is populated at ambient temperature and contributes to the emission (Fig. 6). As this state lies energetically higher, a blue shift of the emission with increasing temperature is expected. The energy separation of ΔE(S₁–T₁) = 810 cm⁻¹, as found from TDDFT calculations, is in fairly good agreement with the experimental values resulting from the spectral shifts and therefore supports this assignment. Furthermore, the thermal population of the singlet state should result in an increase of the radiative rate on heating as the spin-allowed S₁ → S₀ transition carries significantly more allowedness than the spin-forbidden T₁ → S₀ transition. Indeed, on heating, a slight increase of the radiative rate from k_r (77 K) = 2.7 × 10⁴ s⁻¹ to k_r (300 K) = 3.1 × 10⁴ s⁻¹ is observed for compound 1. However, this increase is smaller than that observed for other TADF materials. Presumably, this is mainly due to the fact that the triplet state itself exhibits comparably fast deactivation to the ground state with a decay time of only 26 μs for compound 1. This value is significantly shorter than that found for other TADF systems for which triplet decay times can be several hundred μs or even longer.^31–33,41

Fig. 6 Emission decay paths for compound 1 at different temperatures. At low temperatures (T = 77 K), only the lowest excited triplet state T₁ emits, while at ambient temperature (T = 300 K), an additional radiative decay path via thermal population of the S₁ state is opened.

Conclusion and outlook

In this contribution, we have presented a new class of emitter materials based on a Cu(I) complex with a tripodal ligand. As powders, the three compounds [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]X (X = PF₆ (1), BF₄ (2), and BPh₄ (3)) display bright emission in the deep-blue range of the spectrum. For example, at ambient temperature, the emission of [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]PF₆ (1) peaks at 466 nm and the emission quantum yield amounts to 43%. However, if this compound is doped into a polymer PMMA matrix, the emission is slightly red-shifted to 470 nm, but the quantum yield is drastically reduced to 7%. In fluid dichloromethane solution, the compound is not emissive. This indicates that molecular reorganizations on excitation which can easily occur in non-rigid environments are a major source of non-radiative relaxation to the ground state. For other Cu(I) compounds, it has been shown that limiting such distortions can lead to drastic increases of the emission quantum yields even in solution. For example, for the cationic complexes [Cu(POP)(dmbpy)]⁺ and [Cu(POP)(tmbpy)]⁺ (POP = bis[2-(diphenylphosphino)-phenyl]ether, dmbpy = 4,4′-dimethyl-2,2′-bipyridyl, tmbyp = 4,4′,6,6′-tetramethyl-2,2′-bipyridyl)⁴⁰ it has been demonstrated that the introduction of two sterically demanding methyl groups can significantly reduce geometry distortions on excitation and therefore, cause a drastic increase of the emission quantum yield by almost a factor of ten. This strategy could also be applied in future investigations to increase the quantum yield of the compounds presented in this study, for example, by introducing sterically demanding groups that prohibit the bending distortion of the triphenylphosphine group.

Furthermore, we have demonstrated that different counter ions and molecular packings can have a strong impact on the emission behavior of solid samples. For example, the powder of the compound [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]PF₆ exhibits an emission quantum yield of 43% and an emission maximum of 466 nm at ambient temperature, whereas for [Cu(PPh₃)tpym]BPh₄ the emission is blue shifted to 452 nm and the emission quantum yield is decreased to 7%. These results should be taken into consideration, if solid state samples of other Cu(I) complexes are being investigated.

Experimental

General remarks

Syntheses and handling of air- and moisture-sensitive substances were carried out using standard Schlenk- and glovebox-techniques. Solvents were dried using standard procedures¹⁰⁰ and stored over Al₂O₃/molecular sieves 3 Å/R3-11G catalyst (BASF). The starting materials were obtained from commercial sources and used as received. The following materials were prepared according to literature procedures: Copper(I) chloride,¹⁰¹ tetrakis(acetonitrile)copper(I) hexafluorophosphate,¹⁰² tetrakis(acetonitrile)copper(I) tetrafluoroborate,¹⁰³ and tris(2-pyridyl)methane (tpym).⁸⁴

NMR spectra were recorded at 300 K on a Bruker DPX 250, Bruker ARX 300, Bruker DRX 400, Bruker ARX 500, or Bruker DRX 500 using CDCl₃ or CD₃CN as the solvent. Chemical shifts are given with respect to tetramethylsilane (¹H, ¹³C) and 85% phosphoric acid (³¹P). Calibration of ¹H and ¹³C NMR spectra was accomplished with the deuterated solvent residual signals. ³¹P NMR spectra were calibrated externally (phosphoric acid). The numbering of the hydrogen and carbon atoms of the three compounds is shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7 Numbering of the compounds.

Electrospray ionization (ESI) mass spectra were recorded on a Thermo Fisher Scientific LTQ FT Ultra using acetonitrile as the solvent. IR spectra were recorded on a Bruker Alpha FT-IR spectrometer using powder samples at ambient temperature. Intensities of the bands were characterized as follows: vs = very strong (0–50% transmission), s = strong (50–70% transmission), m = medium (70–90% transmission), w = weak (90–100% transmission). Elemental analysis was performed on an Elementar vario MICRO cube.

UV-Vis absorption measurements were carried out using a Varian Cary 300 double beam spectrometer. Emission spectra were recorded with a Fluorolog 3-22 (Horiba Jobin Yvon) spectrophotometer which was equipped with a cooled photo-multiplier (RCA C7164R). For the decay time measurements, the same photomultiplier was used in combination with a FAST ComTec multichannel scaler PCI card with a time resolution of 250 ps. As the excitation source for the decay time measurements, a pulsed diode laser (Picobrite PB-375L) with an excitation wavelength of λ_exc = 378 nm and a pulse width <100 ps was used. For absolute measurements of photoluminescence quantum yields at ambient temperature, a Hamamatsu Photonics (C9920-02) system was applied. Doping of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) films was performed by dissolving the respective complex (<1 wt%) and the polymer in dichloromethane. After this, the solution was spin-coated onto a quartz-glass plate.

All calculations were carried out with Gaussian09.¹⁰⁴ As the functional B3LYP^85–87 and as the basis set def2-SVP^88,89 were used. As the starting geometry for optimization, a structure obtained from X-ray measurements was used. The optimization of the S₀ and T₁ structures was made by DFT methods and the optimization of the S₁ structure was made by TDDFT methods. No symmetry constraints were applied. Vibrational frequency calculations confirm that all three optimized structures are minima on the potential energy surface.

The data collection for the single crystal structure determinations was performed on a Bruker D8 QUEST diffractometer by the X-ray service department of the Faculty of Chemistry, University of Marburg. The D8-QUEST is equipped with a Mo-K_α X-ray microsource (Incotec), a fixed chi goniometer and a PHOTON 100 CMOS detector. Bruker software (Bruker Instrument Service, APEX2, SAINT) was used for data collection, cell refinement and data reduction.¹⁰⁵ The structures were solved with SIR-97,¹⁰⁶ refined with SHELXL-2014¹⁰⁷ and finally validated using PLATON¹⁰⁸ software, all within the WinGX¹⁰⁹ software bundle. Absorption corrections were applied within the APEX2 software (multi-scan).¹⁰⁵ Graphic representations were created using Diamond 3.¹¹⁰ C-bound H-atoms were constrained to the parent site. In all graphics the displacement ellipsoids are shown for the 50% probability level, hydrogen atoms are shown with an arbitrary radius. CCDC 1415676–1415678 contain the supplementary crystallographic data for the structures reported in this paper.

Syntheses

General procedure for compounds 1 and 2. The ligand tpym was dissolved in a minimum amount of acetonitrile and [Cu(MeCN)₄]X (X = PF₆ or BF₄) was added. After stirring for 10 min, PPh₃ was added to the solution. The reaction solution was stirred at room temperature for 1 d. The solvent was removed in vacuo and the crude product was triturated with diethyl ether (2× with 10 mL). Single crystals were obtained in chloroform by layering with n-pentane.

[Cu(PPh₃)tpym]PF₆ (1). Prepared from [Cu(MeCN)₄]PF₆ (75 mg, 0.20 mmol, 1.0 eq.), tpym (50 mg, 0.20 mmol, 1.0 eq.), and PPh₃ (53 mg, 0.20 mmol, 1.0 eq.) in acetonitrile (8 mL); grey powder. Yield: quantitative. Anal. Calc. for C₃₄H₂₈CuF₆N₃P₂ (718.10 g mol⁻¹) C 56.87, H 3.93, N 5.85%; found C 56.46, H 3.84, N 5.68%. ¹H NMR (300.1 MHz, CDCl₃): δ (ppm) = 8.15 (d, ³J₃₄ = 7.8 Hz, 3H, H3), 8.08 (dd, ³J₆₅ = 5.1 Hz, ⁴J₆₄ = 1.0 Hz, 3H, H6), 7.82 (ddd, ³J₄₃ = 7.8 Hz, ³J₄₅ = 7.8 Hz, ⁴J₄₆ = 1.8 Hz, 3H, H4), 7.42–7.64 (m, 15H, H8/H9/H10), 7.15 (ddd, ³J₅₄ = 7.8 Hz, ³J₅₆ = 5.1 Hz, ⁴J₅₃ = 1.1 Hz, 3H, H5), 6.46 (s, 1H, H11). ¹³C{¹H} (75.5 MHz, CDCl₃): δ (ppm) = 155.1 (s, C2), 149.7 (s, C6), 139.6 (s, C4), 133.7 (d, ²J_CP = 16.2 Hz, C8), 133.0 (d, ¹J_CP = 36.4 Hz, C7), 130.9 (d, ⁴J_CP = 1.2 Hz, C10), 129.5 (d, ³J_CP = 9.9 Hz, C9), 127.2 (s, C3), 123.6 (s, C5), 57.6 (s, C11). ³¹P{¹H} (101.3 MHz, CDCl₃): δ (ppm) = 3.00–8.00 (bs, PPh₃), −143.52 (sept, ¹J_PF = 713 Hz, PF₆⁻). HRMS (ESI+, MeCN): m/z (%) = 351.0664 (100, [tpymCu + MeCN]⁺ requires 351.0665), 572.1309 (15, [tpymCuPPh₃]⁺ requires 572.1311), 310.0404 (6, [tpymCu]⁺ requires 310.0400). HRMS (ESI−, MeCN): m/z (%) = 144.9647 (100, [PF₆]⁻ requires 144.9647). IR (ATR): ν = 1597 (m), 1573 (w), 1473 (w), 1438 (m), 1351 (w), 1305 (w), 1161 (w), 1161 (w), 1096 (w), 1059 (w), 1018 (w), 910 (w), 834 (vs), 783 (m), 750 (m), 696 (m), 648 (w), 619 (m), 556 (m), 529 (m), 501 (m), 423 (m) cm⁻¹.

[Cu(PPh₃)tpym]BF₄ (2). Prepared from [Cu(MeCN)₄]BF₄ (64 mg, 0.20 mmol, 1.0 eq.), tpym (50 mg, 0.20 mmol, 1.0 eq.), and PPh₃ (53 mg, 0.20 mmol, 1.0 eq.) in acetonitrile (8 mL); beige-colored powder. Yield: quantitative. Anal. Calc. for C₃₄H₂₈BCuF₄N₃P (659.94 g mol⁻¹) C 61.88, H 4.28, N 6.37%; found C 60.60, H 4.41, N 6.40%. ¹H NMR (300.1 MHz, CD₃CN): δ (ppm) = 8.18–8.23 (m, 3H, H6), 7.85–7.97 (m, 6H, H3/H4), 7.40–7.70 (m, 15H, H8/H9/H10), 7.25 (ddd, ³J₅₄ = 7.5 Hz, ³J₅₆ = 5.1 Hz, ⁴J₅₃ = 1.4 Hz, 3H, H5), 6.21 (s, 1H, H11). ¹³C{¹H} (75.5 MHz, CD₃CN): δ (ppm) = 155.5 (s, C2), 151.3 (s, C6), 140.6 (s, C4), 134.5 (d, ²J_CP = 16.2 Hz, C8), 134.1 (d, ¹J_CP = 36.8 Hz, C7), 131.6 (d, ⁴J_CP = 1.2 Hz, C10), 130.3 (d, ³J_CP = 9.9 Hz, C9), 126.9 (s, C3), 124.8 (s, C5), 58.6 (s, C11). ¹⁹F{¹H} (282.4 MHz, CD₃CN): δ (ppm) = −150.97 (s, BF₄⁻). HRMS (ESI+, MeCN): m/z (%) = 351.0656 (100, [tpymCu + MeCN]⁺ requires 351.0665), 572.1288 (48, [tpymCuPPh₃]⁺ requires 572.1311), 310.0393 (6, [tpymCu]⁺ requires 310.0400). HRMS (ESI−, MeCN): m/z (%) = 87.0034 (100, [BF₄]⁻ requires 87.0035). IR (ATR): ν = 1597 (m), 1574 (w), 1473 (m), 1438 (m), 1355 (w), 1303 (w), 1287 (w), 1158 (w), 1097 (m), 1053 (s), 1021 (m), 1001 (m), 967 (w), 910 (w), 881 (w), 850 (w), 784 (m), 759 (m), 744 (m), 706 (m), 691 (s), 647 (m), 619 (m), 528 (s), 500 (s), 434 (w), 420 (m) cm⁻¹.

[Cu(PPh₃)tpym]BPh₄ (3). Tpym (50 mg, 0.20 mmol, 1.0 eq.) was dissolved in acetonitrile (5 mL) and CuCl (20 mg, 0.20 mmol, 1.0 eq.) was added. An orange-colored precipitate formed which was converted into a solution by addition of acetonitrile (45 mL). The solution was stirred for 10 min at ambient temperature. Then, NaBPh₄ (70 mg, 0.20 mmol, 1.0 eq.) was added. After stirring the reaction solution for 20 min, a fine colorless precipitate formed which was removed via a syringe filter. The ligand PPh₃ (53 mg, 0.20 mmol, 1.0 eq.) was added to the filtrate and the reaction solution was stirred for 30 min. Then, the solution was evaporated to dryness and the crude product was triturated with diethyl ether (2× with 10 mL). The product was obtained as a beige-colored powder. Single crystals were obtained in chloroform by layering with n-pentane. Yield: 61 mg (0.07 mmol, 35%). Anal. Calc. for C₅₈H₄₈BCuN₃P (892.37 g mol⁻¹) C 78.07, H 5.42, N 4.71%; found C 77.60, H 5.44, N 4.62%. ¹H NMR (500.2 MHz, CD₃CN): δ (ppm) = 8.20 (d, ³J₆₅ = 4.9 Hz, 3H, H6), 7.81–7.90 (m, 6H, H3/H4), 7.40–7.70 (m, 15H, H8/H9/H10), 7.25–7.33 (m, 8H, H13), 7.21 (ddd, ³J₅₄ = 7.1 Hz, ³J₅₆ = 5.1 Hz, ⁴J₅₃ = 1.7 Hz, 3H, H5), 6.96 (t, 8H, H14), 6.81 (t, 4H, H15), 6.16 (s, 1H, H11). ¹³C{¹H} (75.5 MHz, CD₃CN): δ (ppm) = 164.8 (q, ¹J_CB = 49 Hz, C12), 155.4 (s, C2), 151.4 (s, C6), 140.6 (s, C4), 136.7 (d, ²J_CB = 1.1 Hz, C13), 134.5 (d, ²J_CP = 16.7 Hz, C8), 131.6 (s, C10), 130.2 (d, ³J_CP = 9.7 Hz, C9), 126.9 (s, C3), 126.5 (q, ³J_CB = 2.7 Hz, C14), 124.9 (s, C5), 122.7 (s, C15), 58.8 (s, C11). The quaternary signal C7 of the PPh₃ group could not be observed in the ¹³C NMR spectrum. HRMS (ESI+, MeCN): m/z (%) = 351.0657 (100, [tpymCu + MeCN]⁺ requires 351.0665), 572.1294 (40, [tpymCuPPh₃]⁺ requires 572.1311), 310.0393 (2, [tpymCu]⁺ requires 310.0400). HRMS (ESI−, MeCN): m/z (%) = 319.1663 (100, [BPh₄]⁻ requires 319.1668). IR (ATR): ν = 1594 (m), 1573 (m), 1499 (m), 1466 (m), 1435 (m), 1364 (m), 1326 (m), 1302 (m), 1264 (m), 1228 (m), 1204 (m), 1179 (m), 1158 (m), 1118 (m), 1094 (m), 1069 (m), 1031 (m), 996 (m), 955 (m), 936 (m), 843 (m), 813 (m), 801 (w), 782 (m), 744 (m), 732 (s), 706 (s), 693 (s), 645 (m), 611 (m), 542 (w), 529 (s), 494 (m), 469 (m), 439 (w), 619 (m), 406 (w) cm⁻¹.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the European Research Council (ERC), the German Association of Chemical Industry (Verband der chemischen Industrie, VCI), and the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), GRK 1782 “Functionalization of Semiconductors” for financial support.

Notes and references

1. Highly Efficient OLEDs with Phosphorescent Materials, ed. H. Yersin, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2008.
2. Physics of Organic Semiconductors, ed. W. Brütting and C. Adachi, Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2nd edn, 2012.
3. S. Reineke, M. Thomschke, B. Lüssem and K. Leo, Rev. Mod. Phys., 2013, 85, 1245–1293.
4. C.-L. Ho and W.-Y. Wong, New J. Chem., 2013, 37, 1665–1683.
5. G. M. Farinola and R. Ragni, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2011, 40, 3467–3482.
6. P.-T. Chou and Y. Chi, Chem. – Eur. J., 2007, 13, 380–395.
7. J. Kalinowski, V. Fattori, M. Cocchi and J. A. G. Williams, Coord. Chem. Rev., 2011, 255, 2401–2425.
8. G. J. A. Williams, S. Develay, D. L. Rochester and L. Murphy, Coord. Chem. Rev., 2008, 252, 2596–2611.
9. H. Yersin, A. F. Rausch, R. Czerwieniec, T. Hofbeck and T. Fischer, Coord. Chem. Rev., 2011, 255, 2622–2652.
10. D. Volz, M. Wallesch, C. Flechon, M. Danz, A. Verma, J. M. Navarro, D. M. Zink, S. Bräse and T. Baumann, Green Chem., 2015, 17, 1988–2011.
11. R. D. Costa, E. Ortí, H. J. Bolink, F. Monti, G. Accorsi and N. Armaroli, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2012, 124, 8300–8334.
12. R. D. Costa, E. Ortí and H. J. Bolink, Pure Appl. Chem., 2011, 83, 2115–2128.
13. T. Hu, L. He, L. Duan and Y. Qiu, J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 4206–4215.
14. M. Wallesch, D. Volz, D. M. Zink, U. Schepers, M. Nieger, T. Baumann and S. Bräse, Chem. – Eur. J., 2014, 20, 6578–6590.
15. T. A. Niehaus, T. Hofbeck and H. Yersin, RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 63318–63329.
16. A. Bossi, A. F. Rausch, M. J. Leitl, R. Czerwieniec, M. T. Whited, P. I. Djurovich, H. Yersin and M. E. Thompson, Inorg. Chem., 2013, 52, 12403–12415.
17. J. W. Facendola, M. Seifrid, J. Siegel, P. I. Djurovich and M. E. Thompson, Dalton Trans., 2015, 44, 8456–8466.
18. W. Mroz, R. Ragni, F. Galeotti, E. Mesto, C. Botta, L. D. Cola, G. M. Farinola and U. Giovanella, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2015, 3, 7506–7512.
19. M. A. Baldo, S. Lamansky, P. E. Burrows, M. E. Thompson and S. R. Forrest, Appl. Phys. Lett., 1999, 75, 4–6.
20. M. A. Baldo, D. F. O'Brien, Y. You, A. Shoustikov, S. Sibley, M. E. Thompson and S. R. Forrest, Nature, 1998, 395, 151–154.
21. S. Lamansky, P. Djurovich, D. Murphy, F. Abdel-Razzaq, H.-E. Lee, C. Adachi, P. E. Burrows, S. R. Forrest and M. E. Thompson, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2001, 123, 4304–4312.
22. H. Yersin, A. F. Rausch and R. Czerwieniec, in Physics of Organic Semiconductors, ed. W. Brütting and C. Adachi, Wiley-VCH, 2012, pp. 371–424.
23. J. Brooks, Y. Babayan, S. Lamansky, P. I. Djurovich, I. Tsyba, R. Bau and M. E. Thompson, Inorg. Chem., 2002, 41, 3055–3066.
24. Y. Chi and P.-T. Chou, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2010, 39, 638–655.
25. C.-L. Ho, H. Li and W.-Y. Wong, J. Organomet. Chem., 2014, 751, 261–285.
26. C. Ulbricht, B. Beyer, C. Friebe, A. Winter and U. S. Schubert, Adv. Mater., 2009, 21, 4418–4441.
27. Y. You and S. Y. Park, Dalton Trans., 2009, 1267–1282.
28. G. Tan, S. Chen, N. Sun, Y. Li, D. Fortin, W.-Y. Wong, H.-S. Kwok, D. Ma, H. Wu, L. Wang and P. D. Harvey, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2013, 1, 808–821.
29. T. Fischer, R. Czerwieniec, T. Hofbeck, M. M. Osminina and H. Yersin, Chem. Phys. Lett., 2010, 486, 53–59.
30. T. Sajoto, P. I. Djurovich, A. B. Tamayo, J. Oxgaard, W. A. Goddard and M. E. Thompson, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2009, 131, 9813–9822.
31. R. Czerwieniec, J. Yu and H. Yersin, Inorg. Chem., 2011, 50, 8293–8301.
32. R. Czerwieniec, K. Kowalski and H. Yersin, Dalton Trans., 2013, 42, 9826–9830.
33. R. Czerwieniec and H. Yersin, Inorg. Chem., 2015, 54, 4322–4327.
34. T. Hofbeck, U. Monkowius and H. Yersin, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2015, 137, 399–404.
35. M. J. Leitl, F. R. Küchle, H. A. Mayer, L. Wesemann and H. Yersin, J. Phys. Chem. A, 2013, 117, 11823–11836.
36. D. Volz, Y. Chen, M. Wallesch, R. Liu, C. Fléchon, D. M. Zink, J. Friedrichs, H. Flügge, R. Steininger, J. Göttlicher, C. Heske, L. Weinhardt, S. Bräse, F. So and T. Baumann, Adv. Mater., 2015, 27, 2538–2543.
37. A. Barbieri, G. Accorsi and N. Armaroli, Chem. Commun., 2008, 2185–2193.
38. M. J. Leitl, V. A. Krylova, P. I. Djurovich, M. E. Thompson and H. Yersin, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2014, 136, 16032–16038.
39. S. L. Murov, G. L. Hug and I. Carmichael, Handbook of Photochemistry, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2nd edn, 1993.
40. C. L. Linfoot, M. J. Leitl, P. Richardson, A. F. Rausch, O. Chepelin, F. J. White, H. Yersin and N. Robertson, Inorg. Chem., 2014, 53, 10854–10861.
41. J. C. Deaton, S. C. Switalski, D. Y. Kondakov, R. H. Young, T. D. Pawlik, D. J. Giesen, S. B. Harkins, A. J. M. Miller, S. F. Mickenberg and J. C. Peters, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2010, 132, 9499–9508.
42. M. Osawa, I. Kawata, R. Ishii, S. Igawa, M. Hashimoto and M. Hoshino, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2013, 1, 4375–4383.
43. M. Osawa, M. Hoshino, M. Hashimoto, I. Kawata, S. Igawa and M. Yashima, Dalton Trans., 2015, 44, 8369–8378.
44. G. Blasse and D. R. McMillin, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1980, 70, 1–3.
45. G. Cheng, G. K.-M. So, W.-P. To, Y. Chen, C.-C. Kwok, C. Ma, X. Guan, X. Chang, W.-M. Kwok and C.-M. Che, Chem. Sci., 2015, 6, 4623–4635.
46. X.-L. Chen, R. Yu, Q.-K. Zhang, L.-J. Zhou, X.-Y. Wu, Q. Zhang and C.-Z. Lu, Chem. Mater., 2013, 25, 3910–3920.
47. A. Tsuboyama, K. Kuge, M. Furugori, S. Okada, M. Hoshino and K. Ueno, Inorg. Chem., 2007, 46, 1992–2001.
48. Q. Zhang, T. Komino, S. Huang, S. Matsunami, K. Goushi and C. Adachi, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2012, 22, 2327–2336.
49. S. Igawa, M. Hashimoto, I. Kawata, M. Yashima, M. Hoshino and M. Osawa, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2013, 1, 542–551.
50. C. Murawski, K. Leo and M. C. Gather, Adv. Mater., 2013, 25, 6801–6827.
51. Q. Zhang, J. Chen, X. Y. Wu, X. L. Chen, R. Yu and C. Z. Lu, Dalton Trans., 2015, 44, 6706–6710.
52. H. Ohara, A. Kobayashi and M. Kato, Dalton Trans., 2014, 43, 17317–17323.
53. C. A. Parker and C. G. Hatchard, Trans. Faraday Soc., 1961, 57, 1894–1904.
54. T. Gneuß, M. J. Leitl, L. H. Finger, N. Rau, H. Yersin and J. Sundermeyer, Dalton Trans., 2015, 44, 8506–8520.
55. D. M. Zink, D. Volz, T. Baumann, M. Mydlak, H. Flügge, J. Friedrichs, M. Nieger and S. Bräse, Chem. Mater., 2013, 25, 4471–4486.
56. D. Volz, M. Wallesch, S. L. Grage, J. Göttlicher, R. Steininger, D. Batchelor, T. Vitova, A. S. Ulrich, C. Heske, L. Weinhardt, T. Baumann and S. Bräse, Inorg. Chem., 2014, 53, 7837–7847.
57. A. Acosta, J. I. Zink and J. Cheon, Inorg. Chem., 2000, 39, 427–432.
58. V. Pawlowski, G. Knör, C. Lennartz and A. Vogler, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem., 2005, 2005, 3167–3171.
59. K. Tsuge, Chem. Lett., 2013, 42, 204–208.
60. D. M. Zink, M. Bächle, T. Baumann, M. Nieger, M. Kühn, C. Wang, W. Klopper, U. Monkowius, T. Hofbeck, H. Yersin and S. Bräse, Inorg. Chem., 2013, 52, 2292–2305.
61. H. Araki, K. Tsuge, Y. Sasaki, S. Ishizaka and N. Kitamura, Inorg. Chem., 2005, 44, 9667–9675.
62. P. Aslanidis, P. J. Cox, S. Divanidis and A. C. Tsipis, Inorg. Chem., 2002, 41, 6875–6886.
63. V. A. Krylova, P. I. Djurovich, M. T. Whited and M. E. Thompson, Chem. Commun., 2010, 46, 6696–6698.
64. V. A. Krylova, P. I. Djurovich, J. W. Aronson, R. Haiges, M. T. Whited and M. E. Thompson, Organometallics, 2012, 31, 7983–7993.
65. V. A. Krylova, P. I. Djurovich, B. L. Conley, R. Haiges, M. T. Whited, T. J. Williams and M. E. Thompson, Chem. Commun., 2014, 50, 7176–7179.
66. P. C. Ford, E. Cariati and J. Bourassa, Chem. Rev., 1999, 99, 3625–3648.
67. P. M. Graham, R. D. Pike, M. Sabat, R. D. Bailey and W. T. Pennington, Inorg. Chem., 2000, 39, 5121–5132.
68. O. Horváth, Coord. Chem. Rev., 1994, 135–136, 303–324.
69. C. Kutal, Coord. Chem. Rev., 1990, 99, 213–252.
70. N. Armaroli, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2001, 30, 113–124.
71. N. Armaroli, G. Accorsi, F. Cardinali and A. Listorti, Top. Curr. Chem., 2007, 280, 69–115.
72. D. V. Scaltrito, D. W. Thompson, J. A. O'Callaghan and G. J. Meyer, Coord. Chem. Rev., 2000, 208, 243–266.
73. A. Vogler and H. Kunkely, Top. Curr. Chem., 2001, 213, 143–182.
74. V. W.-W. Yam, K. K.-W. Lo, W. K.-M. Fung and C.-R. Wang, Coord. Chem. Rev., 1998, 171, 17–41.
75. V. W.-W. Yam and K. K.-W. Lo, Chem. Soc. Rev., 1999, 28, 323–334.
76. V. W.-W. Yam, V. K.-M. Au and S. Y.-L. Leung, Chem. Rev., 2015, 115, 7589–7728.
77. A. Lavie-Cambot, M. Cantuel, Y. Leydet, G. Jonusauskas, D. M. Bassani and N. D. McClenaghan, Coord. Chem. Rev., 2008, 252, 2572–2584.
78. A. J. M. Miller, J. L. Dempsey and J. C. Peters, Inorg. Chem., 2007, 46, 7244–7246.
79. O. Moudam, A. Kaeser, B. Delavaux-Nicot, C. Duhayon, M. Holler, G. Accorsi, N. Armaroli, I. Seguy, J. Navarro, P. Destruel and J.-F. Nierengarten, Chem. Commun., 2007, 3077–3079.
80. R. Venkateswaran, M. S. Balakrishna, S. M. Mobin and H. M. Tuononen, Inorg. Chem., 2007, 46, 6535–6541.
81. A. Robertazzi, A. Magistrato, P. de Hoog, P. Carloni and J. Reedijk, Inorg. Chem., 2007, 46, 5873–5881.
82. L.-Y. Zou, M.-S. Ma, Z.-L. Zhang, H. Li, Y.-X. Cheng and A.-M. Ren, Org. Electron., 2012, 13, 2627–2638.
83. G. Accorsi, N. Armaroli, B. Delavaux-Nicot, A. Kaeser, M. Holler, J.-F. Nierengarten and A. Degli Esposti, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM), 2010, 962, 7–14.
84. A. Maleckis, J. W. Kampf and M. S. Sanford, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2013, 135, 6618–6625.
85. A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 1993, 98, 5648–5652.
86. C. Lee, W. Yang and R. G. Parr, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter, 1988, 37, 785–789.
87. B. Miehlich, A. Savin, H. Stoll and H. Preuss, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1989, 157, 200–206.
88. A. Schäfer, H. Horn and R. Ahlrichs, J. Chem. Phys., 1992, 97, 2571–2577.
89. F. Weigend and R. Ahlrichs, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2005, 7, 3297–3305.
90. D. R. McMillin and K. M. McNett, Chem. Rev., 1998, 98, 1201–1220.
91. I. I. Vorontsov, T. Graber, A. Y. Kovalevsky, I. V. Novozhilova, M. Gembicky, Y.-S. Chen and P. Coppens, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2009, 131, 6566–6573.
92. M. Iwamura, S. Takeuchi and T. Tahara, Acc. Chem. Res., 2015, 48, 782–791.
93. UV-VIS spectra of neutral bases and their protonated conjugate cationic acids in acetonitrile, http://tera.chem.ut.ee/~manna/spe/base.htm, (accessed July 27, 2015).
94. H. Yersin, H. Otto and G. Gliemann, Theor. Chim. Acta, 1974, 33, 63–78.
95. D. Volz, M. Nieger, J. Friedrichs, T. Baumann and S. Bräse, Langmuir, 2013, 29, 3034–3044.
96. L. Zhang, B. Li and Z. Su, Langmuir, 2009, 25, 2068–2074.
97. Q. Benito, X. F. Le Goff, S. Maron, A. Fargues, A. Garcia, C. Martineau, F. Taulelle, S. Kahlal, T. Gacoin, J. P. Boilot and S. Perruchas, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2014, 136, 11311–11320.
98. G. W. Robinson and R. P. Frosch, J. Chem. Phys., 1963, 38, 1187–1203.
99. W. Siebrand, J. Chem. Phys., 1967, 46, 440–447.
100. W. L. F. Armarego and D. D. Perrin, Purification of Laboratory Chemicals, Elsevier, 4th edn, 1996.
101. R. N. Keller and H. D. Wycoff, in Inorganic Syntheses, McGraw-Hill, 1946, vol. 2, pp. 1–4.
102. G. J. Kubas, in Inorganic Syntheses, John Wiley & Sons, 1979, vol. 19, pp. 90–92.
103. E. J. Parish, H. Qin, B. H. Lipshutz and T. B. Petersen, in Encyclopedia of Reagents for Organic Synthesis, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2001.
104. M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, G. Scalmani, V. Barone, B. Mennucci, G. A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, M. Caricato, X. Li, H. P. Hratchian, A. F. Izmaylov, J. Bloino, G. Zheng, J. L. Sonnenberg, M. Hada, M. Ehara, K. Toyota, R. Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y. Honda, O. Kitao, H. Nakai, T. Vreven, J. A. Montgomery Jr., J. E. Peralta, F. Ogliaro, M. J. Bearpark, J. Heyd, E. N. Brothers, K. N. Kudin, V. N. Staroverov, R. Kobayashi, J. Normand, K. Raghavachari, A. P. Rendell, J. C. Burant, S. S. Iyengar, J. Tomasi, M. Cossi, N. Rega, N. J. Millam, M. Klene, J. E. Knox, J. B. Cross, V. Bakken, C. Adamo, J. Jaramillo, R. Gomperts, R. E. Stratmann, O. Yazyev, A. J. Austin, R. Cammi, C. Pomelli, J. W. Ochterski, R. L. Martin, K. Morokuma, V. G. Zakrzewski, G. A. Voth, P. Salvador, J. J. Dannenberg, S. Dapprich, A. D. Daniels, Ö. Farkas, J. B. Foresman, J. V. Ortiz, J. Cioslowski and D. J. Fox, 2009.
105. Bruker AXS, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 2012.
106. A. Altomare, M. C. Burla, M. Camalli, G. L. Cascarano, C. Giacovazzo, A. Guagliardi, A. G. G. Moliterni, G. Polidori and R. Spagna, J. Appl. Crystallogr., 1999, 32, 115–119.
107. G. Sheldrick, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Fundam. Crystallogr., 2008, 64, 112–122.
108. A. L. Spek, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. D: Biol. Crystallogr., 2009, 65, 148–155.
109. L. Farrugia, J. Appl. Crystallogr., 1999, 32, 837–838.
110. K. Brandenburg and H. Putz, Crystal Impact GbR, Bonn, Germany, 2012.

---

Footnotes

† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: Parts of the crystal structures and NMR spectra of 1–3 are given in Fig. S1–S11. CCDC 1415676–1415678. For ESI and crystallographic data in CIF or other electronic format see DOI: 10.1039/c5dt03065j

‡ These authors contributed equally to this work.

---