Free energies, kinetics, and photoelectron-transfer properties, and theoretical and quantitative structural relationship studies of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-CnH20][R] (R = η2-CmPd(dppf), η2-CmPd(dppr), and η2-CmPd(dppcym)2, n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) nanostructure complexes

Abstract

Metal complexes containing one or several bis(triorganylphosphine)palladium fragments attached to the C 60 core and coordinated in olefinic η 2 mode have been previously described. The number of carbon atoms of the single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) is the useful numerical and structural electrochemical properties contributing to the relationship between the structures of the η 2_ C m Pd(dppf), η 2_ C m Pd(dppr), and η 2_ C m Pd(dppcym) 2 ( m = 60 and 70) ligands (A to E) and [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 1 to 18 and the production of the [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) complexes 30 to 174. In this study, the relationship between the number of carbon atoms index and the first and second free energies of electron transfer ( ΔG et( n ) , n = 1,2) using the Rehm-Weller equation based on the first and second oxidation potentials ( ox E 1 and ox E 2 ) of A to E for the predicted complexes 30 to 174 between 1 and 29 with exohedral metallofullerenes A to E, as [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) 30 to 174 was assessed. Here, the first and second free activation energies of electron transfer and the wavelengths of the electromagnetic photons in the photoelectron transfer process, ΔG # et( n ) and λ ( n ) (nm), respectively, for 30 to 174 in accordance with the Marcus theory and Planck's equation were also calculated.


Background

The first metal complexes containing one or several bis(triorganylphosphine)platinum fragments attached to the C 60 core and coordinated in the olefinic η 2 mode were described in 1991 [ 13 ], revealing that fullerenes, at least buckminsterfullerene C 60 , can function as ligands in reactions with transition metals. Electronic structures of exohedral palladium complexes of [60] and [70] fullerenes with diphenylphosphinoferrocenyl, diphenylphosphinoruthenocenyl, and diphenylphosphinocymantrenyl ligands were studied by cyclic voltammetry and semi-empirical quantum chemical calculations in 2004 [ 1 ]. The probable sites of the electronic changes in these complexes under electrochemical oxidation and reduction have also been determined [ 14 ].

The bulk of fullerene metal complexes consist of heteroligand complexes. The only exceptions known to date are polymeric homoligand complexes of C 60 with palladium or platinum, which are prepared by the direct reaction of fullerene with zero-valent complexes of these metals with a weakly bound ligand, dibenzylideneacetone [ 18 ]. The platinum and palladium complexes (C 60 ) M x ( M = Pt and Pd) can also be prepared from the Pt(0) and Pd cyclooctadiene complexes. Two C 60 molecules are bound to the metal atom in η 2 mode. However, instead of separate (C 60 ) 2 M molecules, a polymeric chain is formed, which is probably indicative of enhanced reactivity (with respect to ligand-free palladium) of the other fullerene double bonds upon coordination of one bond. If an excess of the M (0) compound is present, the specific content of the metal increases [ 18 ]. According to elemental analysis, the insoluble precipitates have compositions of (C 60 )Pd x , where x = 1, 2, 3, and more. Some free metal is always present. C 60 molecules are presumably linked by metal atoms into one-dimensional chains or two- and three-dimensional frameworks. The palladium (platinum) fullerene polymer reacts heterogeneously with P ligands (tertiary phosphines or tertiary phosphites) in solution to give the C 60 ML 2 complexes, which can also be synthesized by other methods [ 18 ]. The electrochemical synthesis of the ( η 2 -C 60 M(PPh 3 ) 2 ( M = Pt, Pd) complexes was performed by reacting the dianion of C 60 2- prepared by electrochemical reduction (at a Pt electrode in a toluene-acetonitrile solution in the presence of Bu 4 NBF 4 as the supporting electrolyte) with the ML 2 Cl 2 complex or with a divalent metal chloride in the presence of triphenylphosphine [ 14 ]. The palladium derivatives of C 60 and C 70 with cymantrenyldiphenylphosphine ligand were prepared in a similar way [ 7 , 8 ]. A series of new exohedral Pd(0) complexes with C 60 and C 70 fullerenes containing bisdiphenylphosphinoferrocene (dppf), bisdiphenylphosphinoruthenocene (dppr), or two diphenylphosphinocymantrene (dppcym) molecules as stabilizing ligands have been synthesized. These complexes contain a strongly electron-withdrawing fullerene cage and a metallocene group, which can be either electron releasing (ruthenocene) or electron withdrawing (cymantrene) and is linked with the cage through a bisdiphenylphosphine palladium bridge. The electrochemical pattern is impeded because the bisdiphenylphosphine palladium fragment linking these terminal groups is also redox active [ 18 ].

Metal complexes with fullerenes have attracted attention due to the prospects of their application in catalysis, in materials for nonlinear optics, for designing artificial photosynthesis systems, and in the development of supra- and nanomaterials [ 4 ]. More specifically, metal-fullerene interactions are of particular importance. Platinum was the first metal found to form π -complexes with fullerenes. However, evidence for the existence of similar complexes for palladium was obtained soon thereafter. The most practical preparation of palladium η 2 complexes appeared to be by direct synthesis using Pd 2 (dba) 3 , fullerene, and a free phosphine ligand. Almost all known complexes of fullerenes with an undisturbed electronic system involve only η 2 coordination, which is typical of an isolated olefinic double bond. The η 2 coordination is probably due to the nonplanar surface geometry, which makes the axes of the pseudo- π -orbitals nonparallel and, thus, hampers their bonding to metal orbitals [ 18 ].

Nanotubes of type ( n , n ) are called armchair nanotubes because of their ‘W’ shape perpendicular to the tube axis. They are symmetrical along the tube axis, with a short unit cell (0.25 nm or 2.5 Å) that is repeated along the entire section of a long nanotube. All other nanotubes are called chiral nanotubes and have longer unit cell sizes along the tube axis [ 911 ]. The simplest type of nanotube is a cylindrical structure, which conceptually could be formed by folding and gluing a pair of opposite sides of a rectangular graphite sheet [ 924 ]. If both ends are capped, it will have at least two pentagons and be a type of fullerene. Nanotubes are large, linear fullerenes with aspect ratios as large as 103 to 105 [ 11 ]. The walls of such tubes can have various sizes of polygons [ 25 ]. Although many nanoscale fullerene materials occur regularly in applications, controlled production of numerous fullerenes and nanotubes with well-defined characteristics has not yet been achieved [ 1619 , 25 ].

Carbon nanotubes possess many special properties, such as an open mesoporous structure, high electrical conductivity and chemical stability, and extremely high mechanical strength and modulus [ 11 , 1921 ]. These properties not only help in the transportation of ions but also facilitate the charging of the double layer and confer advantages in the development of electrochemical capacitors [ 22 ]. Single-walled carbon nanotubes have been recognized as potential electrode materials for electrochemical capacitors [ 23 , 24 ].

One of the most widely recognized structures of nanotubes is the (5,5) tube, which can be built by successively adjoining sections of ten C atoms. In the infinite tube, the periodic unit cell has two sections, each consisting of 20 C atoms [ 9 ]. The electronic structures and electrical properties of single-walled nanotubes can be simulated from those of a graphite layer (graphene sheet) [ 1924 ].

Figure  1 shows the (5,5) armchair form with the imaginary structures of the η 2_ C m Pd(dppf), η 2_ C m Pd(dppr), and η 2_ C m Pd(dppcym) 2 ( m = 60 and 70) ligands (A to E) and 1 to 174 as [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) 30 to 174. The nanotubes may not contain any hydrogen atoms (there is no hydrogen in the electric arc technique), and the nanotubes can be easily closed at both ends.

Figure 1

Schemes. A to E and [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) complexes.

Electronic structures of tubular aromatic molecules derived from the metallic (5,5) armchair SWCNT for C 20 H 20 up to C 210 H 20 (see Figure  1 ) were reported by Zhou et al. in 2004 [ 9 ]. The authors considered how the electronic structures of short molecular sections of the (5,5) tube relate to, differ from, and asymptotically approach those of an infinite metallic tube [ 9 ]. Some of the structural and electronic properties were investigated, such as the ionization potential, electron affinity, Fermi energy, chemical hardness, and relative energetic stability. All of these metrics show the length periodicity in the frontier orbital (i.e., highest occupied molecular orbital-lowest unoccupied molecular orbital) gap, in contrast to the optical ‘charge transfer’ transition and the static axial polarizability [ 9 ]. The (5,5) nanotubes have two types of symmetry. For nanotubes with odd identification numbers (1 to 17), the point group is D 5 d , whereas nanotubes with even identification numbers (2 to 18) have a point group of D 5 h . Static and time-dependent density function theory calculations were used to independently optimize the structure for neutral, cationic, and anionic complexes [ 9 ]. The hybrid nonlocal Becke, three-parameter, Lee-Yang-Parr (B3LYP) function was applied [ 9 ].

Infinite-length SWCNTs are π -bonded aromatic structures that can be either semi-conducting or metallic, depending upon the diameter and helical angle of the SWCNTs. In a pioneering 1992 DFT calculation, Mintmire et al. predicted that the infinite length (5,5) armchair SWCNT (6.70 Å diameter) would be metallic with a very low transition temperature separating the uniform (high-temperature) structure from the Peierls bond alternating (low-temperature) structure [ 23 , 26 ]. This specific SWCNT is the elongated tube of the C 60 , C 70 , etc. molecular family [ 9 ]. Most of the previous studies have dealt with C 60 @SWCNT and C 70 @SWCNT structures [ 18 , 2730 ].

The diameter sizes of C 60 and [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] 1 to 18 were reported to be 6.70 and 6.94 Å, respectively [ 2830 ]. With these diameters, C 60 and larger fullerenes cannot be encapsulated inside the [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] in the structure of C n @[SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ].

Any extrapolation of results from one compound to other compounds must take into account considerations based on a Quantitative Structural Analysis Relationship Study, which mostly depends on the similarity of the physical and chemical properties of the compounds in question. Numerous studies in the above areas have also used topological indices [ 3135 ]. In previous studies, the relationship between the D U index and electron affinity, reduction potential ( Red. E 1 ) of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] as well as the free energy of electron transfer (Δ G et ) between [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] structures and fullerene C 60 in C 60 @[SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] complexes was investigated [ 28 ]. In some studies, the relationship between the D U index and the free energy of electron transfer (Δ G et ) using the Rehm-Weller equation based on the first oxidation potential ( ox E 1 ) of Sc 2 @C 84 and Er 2 @C 82 for the predicted supramolecular complexes between SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 and the endohedral metallofullerenes Sc 2 @C 84 and Er 2 @C 82 as [M 2 @C x ]@[SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( M = Er and Sc, x = 82 and 84) [ 2830 , 36 ] was assessed.

To characterize the structural properties of the π -bonds, we investigated the relationship between the number of carbon atoms of the SWCNT (C n ) index and electron affinity, Red. E 1 of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] 1 to 18 (and extension of the results to 19 to 29) as well as the first and second free energies of electron transfer (Δ G et( n ) , n = 1,2) using the Rehm-Weller equation [ 36 ] based on the first and second oxidation potential ( ox E 1 and ox E 2 ) of the η 2_ C m Pd(dppf)), η 2_ C m Pd(dppr), and η 2_ C m Pd(dppcym) 2 ( m = 60 and 70) ligands (A to E) for the predicted [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) supramolecular complexes 30 to 174. We also calculated the first and second activation free energies of electron transfer and the wavelengths of the electromagnetic photons in the photoelectron transfer process, Δ G # et( n ) , and λ ( n ) (nm) using the Marcus theory, Planck's equation, and the equations based on the first and second oxidation potentials ( ox E 1 and ox E 2 ) of A-E for the predicted supramolecular complexes 30 to 174. The Marcus theory is based on the traditional Arrhenius equation for the rates of chemical reactions in two ways. First, it provides a formula for the pre-exponential factor in the Arrhenius equation, based on the electronic coupling between the initial and final states of the electron-transfer reaction (i.e., the overlap of the electronic wave functions of the two states). Second, it provides a formula for the activation energy, based on a parameter called the reorganization energy , as well as the Gibbs free energy. The reorganization energy is defined as the energy required to reorganize the structure of the system from initial to final coordinates without changing the electronic state [ 3742 ].

Although electrons are commonly described as residing in electron bands in bulk materials and electron orbitals in molecules, the following description will be described in molecular terms. When a photon excites a molecule, an electron in a ground state orbital can be excited to a higher energy orbital. This excited state leaves a vacancy in a ground state orbital that can be filled by an electron donor. An electron is produced in a high-energy orbital and can be donated to an electron acceptor. Photo-induced electron transfer is an electron transfer that occurs when certain photoactive materials interact with light, including semiconductors that can be photo-activated, such as many solar cells, biological systems like those used in photosynthesis, and small molecules with suitable absorptions and redox states [ 3642 ].

Methods

The number of carbon atoms of the SWCNTs (C n ) was used as a structural index (1 to 29). All mathematical and graphing operations were performed using MATLAB-7.4.0(R2007a) and Microsoft Office Excel 2003 programs. The number of carbon atoms in the SWCNTs (C n ) is a useful numerical and structural value in characterizing the empty fullerenes. However, we used other selected indices and the best results and equations for extending the physicochemical and electrochemical data.

The Rehm-Weller equation estimates the free energy change between an electron donor ( D ) and an acceptor ( A ) as

ΔGet°=eED°-EA°-ΔE*+ω1,

where e is the unit electrical charge, E D ° and E A ° are the reduction potentials of the electron donor and acceptor, respectively, Δ E * is the energy of the singlet or triplet excited state, and ω 1 is the work required to bring the donor and acceptor within the electron transfer (ET) distance. The work term in this expression can be considered to be ‘0’ in so far as an electrostatic complex exists before the electron transfer [ 36 ].

The Marcus theory of electron transfer implies rather weak (<0.05 eV) electronic coupling between the initial (locally excited (LE)) and final (ET) states, and presumes that the transition state is close to the crossing point of the LE and CT terms. The value of the electron transfer rate constant k et is controlled by the activation free energy Δ G # et , which is a function of the reorganization energy ( l /4) and the electron transfer driving force Δ G et :

ΔG#et=l/41+ΔGet/l2,
ket=k0exp-ΔG#et/RT.

The reorganization energy of organic molecules ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 eV. In this study, we used the minimum amount of reorganization energy [ 3742 ].

To calculate the maximum wavelengths ( λ ( n ) ; n = 1 to 2 of the electromagnetic photon for the electron transfer process in the nanostructure supramolecular complexes, we used Planck's formula:

ΔG#et=ΔE=h.c/λn.

In this study, this formula was also used to calculate the activation free energy of the electron transfer process [ 43 ].

Results and discussion

The electronic structures of the exohedral palladium complexes of [60]_ and [70]_fullerenes with diphenylphosphinoferrocenyl, diphenylphosphinoruthenocenyl, and diphenylphosphinocymantrenyl ligands ( η 2_ C m Pd(dppf), η 2_ C m Pd(dppr), and η 2_ C m Pd(dppcym) 2 ( m = 60 and 70) (A to E), respectively) were studied by cyclic voltammetry and semi-empirical quantum chemical calculations. The C 60 Pd(dppf), C 60 Pd(dppcym) 2 , C 60 Pd(dppr), C 70 Pd(dppr), and C 70 Pd(dppcym) 2 complexes were synthesized using the Schlenk technique by a previously described method [ 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 ]. The reaction required equivalent amounts of the respective fullerene, Pd 2 (dba) 3 complex (where dba is dibenzylideneacetone) and phosphine ligand under argon. Measurements of Ox E and Red E have been previously reported [ 1 , 2 ]. Voltammograms were recorded with 0.15 МBu n 4 NBF 4 as a supporting electrolyte in ortho- dichlorobenzene at 20°C in a 10-mL electrochemical cell vs. Ag/AgCl/KCl. Oxygen was removed by passing dry argon through the cell [ 1 , 2 ]. The CV curves were recorded on a stationary graphite electrode with sweep rates of 100 and 200 mV s -1 . The potentials of the peaks, which were often poorly pronounced in the CV curves, were determined [ 1 , 2 ]. The first and second reported oxidation potential ( ox E 1 and ox E 2 in volt) states of A to E are as follows [ 1 , 2 ]:

ox E 1 : + 0.87(A), + 0.82(B), + 1.03(C), + 0.86(D), + 1.03(E) [ 16 ]

ox E 2 : + 1.22(A), + 1.16(B), + 1.44(C), + 1.20(D), + 1.35(E) [ 16 ]

The energy ( E a ) is released upon the attachment of an electron to an atom or a molecule (A), resulting in the formation of the negative ion A - , i.e., A + e - → A - + E a . As in the case of the ionization potential, the adiabatic electron affinity ( E aa ) and vertical electron affinity can be defined. The adiabatic E a is equal to the difference between the total energies of a neutral system (A) and the corresponding anion (A - ). The vertical A X is equal to the difference between the total energies of A and the anion A - in the equilibrium geometry of A [ 44 ]. The free energy of this reaction ( ΔE s (A→A - )) corresponds to the absolute redox energy for the above process. The free energy of an electron (e - ) at rest in the gas phase is set to zero [ 45 , 46 ]. The redox energy of the reaction (A + e - → A - + E a ) can be calculated using a thermodynamic equation (see Equation 5). In this equation, Δ G s (A) and Δ G s (A - ) are the solvation energies of molecule A and its anion A - , respectively, and Δ E g (A→A - ) is the energy difference between molecule A and its anion (which is defined as the redox energy in the gas phase). Based on this thermodynamic cycle, we can obtain Δ E s (A→A - ), the absolute redox energy [ 45 , 46 ]:

ΔEsAA-=ΔEgAA-+ΔGsA-AGsA-.

By calculating the gas phase energies and solvation energies of molecule A and its anion A - , the absolute redox potential (scaled) of molecule A in solution can be derived. A scaling coefficient that translates electron affinity into standard redox potentials can be extracted [ 4446 ]. As seen in the results of [ 16 ], the static TD-DFT and independently optimized structure were used to calculate the physicochemical and electronic structure of tubular aromatic molecules derived from the metallic (5,5) armchair single-walled carbon nanotubes using the hybrid nonlocal B3LYP function [ 8 , 47 , 48 ].

The reduction potential ( Red E ) of 1 to 18 can be calculated using the Gibbs equation ( ΔG = - nFE ) and the definition of adiabatic electron affinity. In this equation, ΔG is equal to the adiabatic electron affinity (the free energy of electron transfer, ΔG et in J mol -1 , 1 eV = 96,471 J mol -1 , F = 96,495 coulomb, and n = 1). For example, the reduction potentials ( Red E ) of C 20 H 20 and C 30 H 20 are equal to -0.34 and -0.89 V, respectively. The Red E of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 1 to 18 were calculated and are presented in Table  1 . The amount of Red E (in V) = -E aa (in eV), where E aa is the adiabatic electron affinity (see Table  1 for more details).

Table 1

The values of the coefficients of SWCNT 1 to 18 and the complexes 30 to 119

Number

Molecular formula

Point group

Eaa(eV)

RedE(V)

[SWCNT][η2-C60Pd(dppf)]

[SWCNT][η2-C60Pd(dppr)]

[SWCNT][η2-C60Pd(dppcym)2]

[SWCNT][η2-C70Pd(dppr)]

[SWCNT][η2-C70Pd(dppcym)2]

(30 to 47)

(48 to 65)

(66 to 83)

(84 to 101)

(102 to 119)

ΔGet(1)

ΔGet(2)

ΔGet(1)

ΔGet(2)

ΔGet(1)

ΔGet(2)

ΔGet(1)

ΔGet(2)

ΔGet(1)

ΔGet(2)

1

C20H20

D5d

0.34

-0.34

27.2108

35.2818

26.0578

33.8982

30.9004

40.3550

26.9802

34.8206

30.9004

38.2796

2

C30H20

D5h

0.89

-0.89

39.8938

47.9648

38.7408

46.5812

43.5834

53.0380

39.6632

47.5036

43.5834

50.9626

3

C40H20

D5d

0.67

-0.67

34.8206

42.8916

33.6676

41.5080

38.5102

47.9648

34.5900

42.4304

38.5102

45.8894

4

C50H20

D5h

1.14

-1.14

45.6588

53.7298

44.5058

52.3462

49.3484

58.8030

45.4282

53.2686

49.3484

56.7276

5

C60H20

D5d

1.56

-1.56

55.3440

63.4150

54.1910

62.0314

59.0336

68.4882

55.1134

62.9538

59.0336

66.4128

6

C70H20

D5h

1.34

-1.34

50.2708

58.3418

49.1178

56.9582

53.9604

63.4150

50.0402

57.8806

53.9604

61.3396

7

C80H20

D5d

1.61

-1.61

56.4970

64.5680

55.3440

63.1844

60.1866

69.6412

56.2664

64.1068

60.1866

67.5658

8

C90H20

D5h

1.98

-1.98

65.0292

73.1002

63.8762

71.7166

68.7188

78.1734

64.7986

72.6390

68.7188

76.0980

9

C100H20

D5d

1.71

-1.71

58.8030

66.8740

57.6500

65.4904

62.4926

71.9472

58.5724

66.4128

62.4926

69.8718

10

C110H20

D5h

1.91

-1.91

63.4150

71.4860

62.2620

70.1024

67.1046

76.5592

63.1844

71.0248

67.1046

74.4838

11

C120H20

D5d

2.24

-2.24

71.0248

79.0958

69.8718

77.7122

74.7144

84.1690

70.7942

78.6346

74.7144

82.0936

12

C130H20

D5h

2.06

-2.06

66.8740

74.9450

65.7210

73.5614

70.5636

80.0182

66.6434

74.4838

70.5636

77.9428

13

C140H20

D5d

2.13

-2.13

68.4882

76.5592

67.3352

75.1756

72.1778

81.6324

68.2576

76.0980

72.1778

79.5570

14

C150H20

D5h

2.43

-2.43

75.4062

83.4772

74.2532

82.0936

79.0958

88.5504

75.1756

83.0160

79.0958

86.4750

15

C160H20

D5d

2.35

-2.35

73.5614

81.6324

72.4084

80.2488

77.2510

86.7056

73.3308

81.1712

77.2510

84.6302

16

C170H20

D5h

2.23

-2.23

70.7942

78.8652

69.6412

77.4816

74.4838

83.9384

70.5636

78.4040

74.4838

81.8630

17

C180H20

D5d

2.53

-2.53

77.7122

85.7832

76.5592

84.3996

81.4018

90.8564

77.4816

85.3220

81.4018

88.7810

18

C190H20

D5h

2.45

-2.45

75.8674

83.9384

74.7144

82.5548

79.5570

89.0116

75.6368

83.4772

79.5570

86.9362

[SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 1 to 18 and ΔG et (n) ( n = 1,2) of the complexes [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) 30 to 119. Values for [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 1 to 18 were calculated and reported at the 6-31G* level ([ 7 ] and calculated method in the text). The compounds [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) supramolecular complexes 30 to 119 were not synthesized or reported. The data of ΔG et (n) ( n = 1 and 2, in kcal mol -1 ) for supramolecular complexes 30 to 119 were calculated using the Rehm-Weller equation.

The values of the relative structural coefficients of the (5,5) armchair SWCNT for C 20 H 20 up to C 190 H 20 ([SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ], 1 to 18), the adiabatic electron affinity ( E aa in eV) and the reduction potentials ( Red E in V) of 1 to 18 are shown in Table  1 . The absolute value of E aa or Red E increases with the number of carbon atoms in 1 to 18. From C 20 H 20 up to C 190 H 20 , the point groups alternate between D 5 d and D 5 h [ 9 ]. Using the equations 8 to 16 in Table  2 , the values in Table  1 , and the Rehm-Weller equation, we extended our results to compounds 19 to 29.

Table 2

The Nieperian relationship equations 8 to 16

Complexes of 1 to 18 with ligands A to E [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-CnH20][ R] (R= η2-CmPd(dppf), η2-CmPd(dppr), and η2-CmPd(dppcym)2, n= 20 to 300 and m= 60 to 70)

Equation

R2

ΔGet( n) = a Ln( n) + b

Stage ( n)

Liganda

a

b

1

A

8

0. 9461

22.416

40.789

9

0. 9461

22.416

32.718

2

1

B

10

0.9461

22.416

41.942

2

11

0.9461

22.416

34.102

1

C

12

0.9461

22.416

37.100

2

13

0.9461

22.416

27.645

1

D

14

0.9461

22.416

41.020

2

15

0.9461

22.416

33.180

1

E

16

0.9461

22.416

37.100

The said equations indicated the relationship between the number of carbon atoms in 1 to 18 and Δ G et( n ) ( n = 1,2) of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 1 to 18. with η 2_ C m Pd(dppf), η 2_ C m Pd(dppr), and η 2_ C m Pd(dppcym) 2 ( m = 60 and 70) (A to E) in the complexes [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) 30 to 119. a The structures concerning these equations are shown in Figure  1 .

Equations 6 and 7 show the relationship between the number of carbon atoms ( n ) of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair] and the adiabatic electron affinity ( E aa in eV) and reduction potential ( Red E in V) of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 1 to 18, respectively. Equation 6, like Equation 7, shows the Nieperian logarithmic behavior of the relationship. The R squared value ( R 2 ) for the graphs was 0.9461.

Eaa=22.417Lnn-66.853
RedE=0.9721Lnn2.6088.

Using these equations, we derived a good approximation for extending the formulas for the E aa and the Red E to [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 200 to 300) 19 to 29.

The relative structural coefficients, the E aa (in eV), and the Red E (in V) of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 1 to 18 are found in Table  1 . The relationship between this index and the first and second free energies of electron transfer ( ΔG et( n ) , n = 1,2), as assessed using the Rehm-Weller equation based on the first and second oxidation potentials ( ox E 1 and ox E 2 ) of A to E for the predicted supramolecular complexes between 1 to 18 with the η 2_ C m Pd(dppf), η 2_ C m Pd(dppr), and η 2_ C m Pd(dppcym) 2 ( m = 60 and 70) ligands (A to E) as [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 1 to 18 to produce [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) 30 to 119, is presented.

Figure  2 shows the relationship between the number ( n ) of carbon atoms in the [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair] 1 to 18 and the first and second free energies of electron transfer ( ΔG et( n ) , n = 1,2 kcal mol -1 ) of the ligands η 2_ C 60 Pd(dppf) (A). These data were fit using a regression with a second-order polynomial. The R 2 values for these graphs were 0.9461. We calculated the values of ΔG et(1) and ΔG et(2) of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 60 Pd(dppf)] ( n = 20 to 190) 30 to 47 using equations 1, 8, and 9 (see Tables  1 and 2 ). The predicted values of ΔG et( n ) ( n = 1,2) for [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 60 Pd(dppf)] ( n = 20 to 300) 30 to 47, and 120 to 130 were calculated using equations 8 and 9 (see Tables  2 and 3 ).

Figure 2

The relationship between the number of carbon atoms and free energies of ET. [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 60 Pd(dppf)] complexes 30 to 47. The free energies of ET were calculated using the Rehm-Weller equation. The related curves for other complexes [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 60 Pd(dppf)] ( n = 20 to 190) 30 to 47 have similar structures with this figure.

Table 3

Values of the relative coefficients of SWCNT 19 to 29 and the complexes 120 to 174

Number

Molecular formula

Point group

Adiabatic electron affinity (eV)

RedE(V)

[SWCNT][η2-C60Pd(dppf)]

[SWCNT][η2-C60Pd(dppr)]

[SWCNT][η2-C60Pd(dppcym)2]

[SWCNT][η2-C70Pd(dppr)]

[SWCNT][η2-C70Pd(dppcym)2]

(120 to 130)

(131 to 141)

(142 to 152)

(153 to 163)

(164 to 174)

ΔGet(1)

ΔGet(2)

ΔGet(1)

ΔGet(2)

ΔGet(1)

ΔGet(2)

ΔGet(1)

ΔGet(2)

ΔGet(1)

ΔGet(2)

19

C200H20

D5d

2.49

-2.49

76.7898

84.8608

75.6368

83.4772

80.4794

89.9340

76.5592

84.3996

80.4794

87.8586

20

C210H20

D5h

2.53

-2.53

77.7122

85.7832

76.5592

84.3996

81.4018

90.8564

77.4816

85.3220

81.4018

88.7810

21

C220H20

D5d

2.57

-2.57

78.6346

86.7056

77.4816

85.3220

82.3242

91.7788

78.4040

86.2444

82.3242

89.7034

22

C230H20

D5h

2.60

-2.60

79.3264

87.3974

78.1734

86.0138

83.0160

92.4706

79.0958

86.9362

83.0160

90.3952

23

C240H20

D5d

2.64

-2.64

80.2488

88.3198

79.0958

86.9362

83.9384

93.3930

80.0182

87.8586

83.9384

91.3176

24

C250H20

D5h

2.67

-2.67

80.9406

89.0116

79.7876

87.6280

84.6302

94.0848

80.7100

88.5504

84.6302

92.0094

25

C260H20

D5d

2.71

-2.71

81.8630

89.9340

80.7100

88.5504

85.5526

95.0072

81.6324

89.4728

85.5526

92.9318

26

C270H20

D5h

2.74

-2.74

82.5548

90.6258

81.4018

89.2422

86.2444

95.6990

82.3242

90.1646

86.2444

93.6236

27

C280H20

D5d

2.77

-2.77

83.2466

91.3176

82.0936

89.9340

86.9362

96.3908

83.0160

90.8564

86.9362

94.3154

28

C290H20

D5h

2.80

-2.80

83.9384

92.0094

82.7854

90.6258

87.6280

97.0826

83.7078

91.5482

87.6280

95.0072

29

C300H20

D5d

2.83

-2.83

84.6302

92.7012

83.4772

91.3176

88.3198

97.7744

84.3996

92.2400

88.3198

95.6990

[SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 200 to 300) 19 to 29 and ΔG et( n ) ( n = 1,2) of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300, and m = 60 and 70) complexes 120 to 174.The compounds [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) supramolecular complexes 120 to 174 were not synthesized or reported. The data of Δ G et( n ) ( n = 1 and 2, in kcal mol -1 ) for supramolecular complexes 120 to 174 were calculated using equations 8 to 16.The complexes 120 to 174 were not synthesized and reported previously.

The first and second free energies of electron transfer ( ΔG et( n ) , n = 1,2 in kcal mol -1 ) of the supramolecular complexes between the ligand η 2 -C 60 Pd(dppr) B and [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 1 to 18 as presented [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 60 Pd(dppr)] ( n = 20 to 190) 48 to 65 are shown in Table  1 . Equations 10 and 11 show the second-order polynomial behavior between the number of carbon atoms of 1 to 18 and the free energies of electron transfers in the supramolecular nanostructures of 48 to 65. Using these equations, we achieved a good approximation for extending the first and second free energies of electron transfer (Δ G et( n ) ; n = 1,2 in kcal mol -1 ) for the other [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 60 Pd(dppr)] ( n = 200 to 300) 131 to 141. The R 2 values for the relationships were 0.9461. The predicted values of Δ G et( n ) ( n = 1,2) for [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 60 Pd(dppr)] ( n = 200 to 300) 131 to 141 were calculated using equations 10 and 11 (see Tables  2 and 3 ). Tables  1 and 3 show that the values of the first and second free energies of electron transfer (Δ G et( n ) , n = 1,2) increased in the supramolecular complexes of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 60 Pd(dppr)] ( n = 20 to 300) 48 to 65 and 131 to 141 with increasing numbers of carbon atoms in the [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] structures.

The free energies of electron transfer ( ΔG et( n ) , n = 1,2 in kcal mol -1 ) of the complexes between the ligand η 2_ C 60 Pd(dppcym) 2 C and [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 1 to 18, as presented in [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 60 Pd(dppcym) 2 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 66 to 83, are shown in Table  1 . Equations 12 and 13 show the second-order polynomial relationship between the number of carbon atoms of 1 to 18 and the free energies of electron transfers at the supramolecular nanostructures of 66 to 83. Using these equations, we were able to extend the first and second free energies of electron transfer (Δ G et( n ) n = 1,2 in kcal mol -1 ) for [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 60 Pd(dppcym) 2 ] ( n = 200 to 300) 142 to 152. The R 2 values for the relationships were 0.9461. The predicted values of Δ G et( n ) ( n = 1,2) for [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 60 Pd(dppcym) 2 ] ( n = 200 to 300) 142 to 152 were calculated using equations 12 and 13 (Tables  2 and 3 ). The values of the first and second free energies of electron transfer (Δ G et( n ) , n = 1,2) increased in the supramolecular complexes of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 60 Pd(dppcym) 2 ] ( n = 20 to 300) 66 to 83 and 142 to 152 with increasing numbers of carbon atoms in the [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] structures (Tables  1 and 3 ).

The first and second free energies of electron transfer (Δ G et( n ) , n = 1,2 in kcal mol -1 ) of the supramolecular complexes between the ligands η 2_ C 70 Pd(dppr) D and η 2_ C 70 Pd(dppr) E with [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 1 to 18 as presented in [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 70 Pd(dppr)] and [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 70 Pd(dppcym) 2 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 84 to 101 and 102 to 119, respectively, are shown in Table  1 . Equations 14 to 15 and 16 to 17 show the second-order polynomial relationship between the number of carbon atoms of 1 to 18 and the free energies of electron transfers in the 84 to 101 and 102 to 119 nanostructures. Using these equations, we extended the first and second free energies of electron transfer (Δ G et( n ) , n = 1,2 in kcal mol -1 ) for [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 70 Pd(dppr)] and [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 70 Pd(dppcym) 2 ] 153 to 163 and 164 to 174. The R 2 for the relationships were 0.9461. The predicted values of Δ G et( n ) ( n = 1,2) for [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 70 Pd(dppr)] and [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 70 Pd(dppcym) 2 ] 153 to 163 and 164 to 174 were calculated using equations 14 to 15 and 16 to 17 (Tables  2 and 3 , respectively). The values of the first and second free energies of electron transfer (Δ G et( n ) , n = 1,2) increased in the supramolecular complexes of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 70 Pd(dppr)] and [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ η 2 -C 70 Pd(dppcym) 2 ] 84 to 119 and 153 to 174 with increasing numbers of carbon atoms in the [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] structures (Tables  1 and 3 ).

The Marcus theory is currently the dominant theory of electron transfer in chemistry. This theory is widely accepted because it accurately predicts electron transfer rates. The most significant prediction is that the rate of electron transfer will increase as the electron transfer reaction becomes more exergonic, but only to a point [ 3742 ].

ET is one of the most important chemical processes in nature and plays a central role in many biological, physical, and chemical (both organic and inorganic) systems. Solid-state electronics depends on controlling ET in semiconductors. Current molecular electronics depends critically on understanding and controlling the transfer of electrons in and between molecules and nanostructures. Electron transfer is a very simple chemical reaction, which can be used to gain insight into other kinds of chemistry and biochemistry. Electron transfer is fundamental in chemistry [ 3742 ].

The free energy of electron transfer Δ G et is the difference between the reactants and the products, and Δ G et # is the activation energy. The reorganization energy is the energy required to force the reactants to have the same nuclear configuration as the products without permitting the electron transfer. If the entropy changes are ignored, the free energy becomes energy or potential energy [ 3742 ].

Using Equation 2, we calculated the first and second activation free energies of electron transfer, Δ G # et( n ) , for 30 to 174 in accordance with the Marcus theory; see Table  4 . Figure  3 shows the surfaces of the free energies of electron transfer Δ G et( n ) and Δ G et( n ) # ( n = 1,2) between [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 300) 1 to 29 and the ligands η 2_ C m Pd(dppf), η 2_ C m Pd(dppr), and η 2_ C m Pd(dppcym) 2 ( m = 60 and 70) A to E to produce [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) 30 to 174. The values of the first and second activation free energies of electron transfer Δ G # et( n ) ( n = 1,2) for 30 to 174 increased with increasing Δ G et( n ) and the numbers of carbon atoms in the complexes, while the kinetic rate constants of the electron transfers decreased with increasing ΔG et( n ) and ΔG et( n ) # ( n = 1,2) (see Tables  1 , 3 , and 4 , and Figure  3 ).

Table 4

The values of the first and second free activation energies of electron transfer

Number of SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-CnH20

[SWCNT][η2-C60Pd(dppf)]

[SWCNT][η2-C60Pd(dppr)]

[SWCNT][η2-C60Pd(dppcym)2]

[SWCNT][η2-C70Pd(dppr)]

[SWCNT][η2-C70Pd(dppcym)2]

(30 to 47)

(48 to 65)

(66 to 83)

(84 to 101)

(102 to 119)

ΔG1#

ΔG2#

ΔG1#

ΔG2#

ΔG1#

ΔG2#

ΔG1#

ΔG2#

ΔG1#

ΔG2#

1

35.9794

53.6851

33.7382

50.3991

43.6353

66.6218

35.5254

52.5782

43.6353

61.1609

2

65.3881

88.6426

62.3542

84.4054

75.5806

105.0671

64.7755

87.2187

75.5806

98.1794

3

52.5782

73.6133

49.8615

69.7565

61.7561

88.6426

52.0291

72.3162

61.7561

82.3256

4

81.6382

107.4149

78.2440

102.7453

92.9837

125.4248

80.9536

105.8468

92.9837

117.8885

5

112.9940

143.0080

108.9945

137.6120

126.2766

163.6813

112.1883

141.1978

126.2766

155.0554

6

95.9354

123.7299

92.2530

118.7143

108.2033

143.0080

95.1931

122.0465

108.2033

134.9529

7

117.0655

147.5840

112.9940

142.1015

130.5787

168.5744

116.2455

145.7450

130.5787

159.8188

8

149.4346

183.6859

144.8298

177.5634

164.6542

207.0226

148.5078

181.6335

164.6542

197.3071

9

125.4248

156.9521

121.2091

151.2967

139.3991

178.5766

124.5759

155.0554

139.3991

169.5616

10

143.0080

176.5531

138.5041

170.5518

157.9048

199.4459

142.1015

174.5411

157.9048

189.9121

11

174.5411

211.4155

169.5616

204.8434

190.9599

236.4010

173.5395

209.2133

190.9599

226.0111

12

156.9521

192.0105

152.2320

185.7497

172.5407

215.8546

156.0023

189.9121

172.5407

205.9316

13

163.6813

199.4459

158.8603

193.0641

179.5927

223.7339

162.7114

197.3071

179.5927

213.6293

14

194.1205

232.9118

188.8672

226.0111

211.4155

259.1022

193.0641

230.6000

211.4155

248.2193

15

185.7497

223.7339

180.6117

216.9715

202.6758

249.4170

184.7164

221.4682

202.6758

238.7416

16

173.5395

210.3130

168.5744

203.7582

189.9121

235.2351

172.5407

208.1165

189.9121

224.8710

17

204.8434

244.6435

199.4459

237.5699

222.5996

271.4681

203.7582

242.2741

222.5996

260.3258

18

196.2420

235.2351

190.9599

228.2998

213.6293

261.5523

195.1798

232.9118

213.6293

250.6175

19

200.5197

239.9162

195.1798

232.9118

218.0914

266.4871

199.4459

237.5699

218.0914

255.4486

20

204.8434

244.6435

199.4459

237.5699

222.5996

271.4681

203.7582

242.2741

222.5996

260.3258

21

209.2133

249.4170

203.7582

242.2741

227.1540

276.4952

208.1165

247.0245

227.1540

265.2491

22

212.5210

253.0273

207.0226

245.8326

230.6000

280.2957

211.4155

250.6175

230.6000

268.9718

23

216.9715

257.8814

211.4155

250.6175

235.2351

285.4035

215.8546

255.4486

235.2351

273.9759

24

220.3397

261.5523

214.7405

254.2365

238.7416

289.2646

219.2141

259.1022

238.7416

277.7591

25

224.8710

266.4871

219.2141

259.1022

243.4574

294.4531

223.7339

264.0139

243.4574

282.8439

26

228.2998

270.2185

222.5996

262.7817

247.0245

298.3748

227.1540

267.7280

247.0245

286.6877

27

231.7544

273.9759

226.0111

266.4871

250.6175

302.3224

230.6000

271.4681

250.6175

290.5574

28

235.2351

277.7591

229.4484

270.2185

254.2365

306.2959

234.0720

275.2341

254.2365

294.4531

29

238.7416

281.5684

232.9118

273.9759

257.8814

310.2954

237.5699

279.0260

257.8814

298.3748

[SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 190 and m = 60 and 70) complexes 30 to 119, between 1 to 18 and A to E.

Figure 3

The values of Δ G et( n ) and Δ G et( n ) # of ET between 1 to 29 and A to E in the structures 30 to 174.

Because of the good linear correlations between Δ G et( n ) ( n = 1,2), E aa and Red E of 1 to 18 with the ligands A to E, we used the values of E aa and Red E to calculate the free energies of electron transfer (Δ G et in kcal mol -1 ) of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 1 to 18 to produce [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , m = 60 and 70) n = 20 to 190, 30 to 119, and n = 200 to 300, 120 to 174. The electron affinity and reduction potential have the same magnitude with opposite signs. The free energy of electron transfer can be calculated with the Rehm-Weller equation, which we determined was linearly dependent on the electron affinity of the compounds studied here. In Tables  1 and 3 , the values of the first and second free energies of electron transfer (Δ G et( n ) , n = 1,2) obtained for supramolecular complexes 30 to 119 and 120 to 174 from equations 8 to 17 (Table  2 ) are compared with those obtained with the Rehm-Weller equation.

The number of carbon atoms ( n ), E aa , Red E , and Δ G et( n ) ( n = 1,2) of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 300) 1 to 29 and their complexes with the ligands η 2_ C m Pd(dppf), η 2_ C m Pd(dppr), and η 2_ C m Pd(dppcym) 2 ( m = 60 and 70) (A to E) as [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 200 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) supramolecular complexes 120 to 174 are shown in Table  3 . The Red E were extended for C 200 H 20 up to C 300 H 20 ([SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ], 19 to 29). The calculated results for Red E as well as the free energies of electron transfer (Δ G et( n ) , n = 1, 2, in kcal mol -1 ) according to the Rehm-Weller equation between A to E with 19 to 29 in structures 120 to 174 are presented in Table  3 .

As shown in Figure  2 , the periodicity of the plotted points is 3, which is common among benzenoids. Using Equation 1 (Rehm-Weller equation) and equations 2 to 17, the values of E aa , Red E , Δ G et( n ) ( n = 1,2), Δ G # et( n ) , and k et( n ) ( n = 1,2) for 30 to 174 were calculated. The number of carbon atoms showed a good relationship with the values of the E aa , the Red E of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 190) 1 to 18 and 19 to 29, and the Δ G et in [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70) supramolecular complexes 30 to 174. Figure  3 shows the free energy surfaces of electron transfer Δ G et( n ) and Δ G et( n ) # ( n = 1,2) between 1 to 29 and the ligands A to E in the structures of 30 to 174, which were calculated using equations 1 to 17 and are shown in Tables  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 . With the appropriate equations, we calculated the E aa , the Red E in 1 to 18 and 19 to 29, the first and second free energies of electron transfer (Δ G et in kcal mol -1 ), and the first and second activation free energies of electron transfer Δ G # et( n ) for 30 to 174 in accordance with the Marcus theory.

Table 5

Values of the first and the maximum wave lengths for each stage of the ET process

Number of SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-CnH20

Molecular formula

[SWCNT][η2-C60Pd(dppf)]

[SWCNT][η2-C60Pd(dppr)]

[SWCNT][η2-C60Pd(dppcym)2]

[SWCNT][η2-C70Pd(dppr)]

[SWCNT][η2-C70Pd(dppcym)2]

λ(1)

λ(2)

λ(1)

λ(2)

λ(1)

λ(2)

λ(1)

λ(2)

λ(1)

λ(2)

1

C20H20

794

532

847

567

655

429

804

543

655

467

2

C30H20

437

322

458

339

378

272

441

328

378

291

3

C40H20

543

388

573

410

463

322

549

395

463

347

4

C50H20

350

266

365

278

307

228

353

270

307

242

5

C60H20

253

200

262

208

226

175

255

202

226

184

6

C70H20

298

231

310

241

264

200

300

234

264

212

7

C80H20

244

194

253

201

219

169

246

196

219

179

8

C90H20

191

156

197

161

174

138

192

157

174

145

9

C100H20

228

182

236

189

205

160

229

184

205

169

10

C110H20

200

162

206

168

181

143

201

164

181

150

11

C120H20

164

135

169

139

150

121

165

137

150

126

12

C130H20

182

149

188

154

166

132

183

150

166

139

13

C140H20

175

143

180

148

159

128

176

145

159

134

14

C150H20

147

123

151

126

135

110

148

124

135

115

15

C160H20

154

128

158

132

141

115

155

129

141

120

16

C170H20

165

136

169

140

150

121

166

137

150

127

17

C180H20

139

117

143

120

128

105

140

118

128

110

18

C190H20

146

121

150

125

134

109

146

123

134

114

19

C200H20

142

119

146

123

131

107

143

120

131

112

20

C210H20

139

117

143

120

128

105

140

118

128

110

21

C220H20

137

115

140

118

126

103

137

116

126

108

22

C230H20

134

113

138

116

124

102

135

114

124

106

23

C240H20

132

111

135

114

121

100

132

112

121

104

24

C250H20

130

109

133

112

120

99

130

110

120

103

25

C260H20

127

107

130

110

117

97

128

108

117

101

26

C270H20

125

106

128

109

116

96

126

107

116

100

27

C280H20

123

104

126

107

114

95

124

105

114

98

28

C290H20

121

103

125

106

112

93

122

104

112

97

29

C300H20

120

101

123

104

111

92

120

102

111

96

The values are calculated using the Plank's formula. The wavelengths of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 to 70 30 to 174.

We determined the values of the maximum wavelengths ( λ ( n ) ; n = 1 or2, in nm) for each stage of the electron transfer process in the nanostructure supramolecular complexes 30 to 174 with Planck's formula. Using this formula, we also determined the activation free energy of the electron transfer process. Most of the values were found in the UV–vis (190 to 800 nm) range of the electromagnetic spectrum. The maximum wavelengths ( λ ( n ) ; n = 1 or 2) depended on the Δ G # et( n ) value in each stage (Equation 4 and Table  5 ).

The supramolecular complexes of armchair single-wall nanotubes [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 300) 1 to 18 and 19 to 29 with the ligands η 2_ C m Pd(dppf), η 2_ C m Pd(dppr), and η 2_ C m Pd(dppcym) 2 ( m = 60 and 70) (A to E), i.e., [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ][ R ] ( R = η 2 -C m Pd(dppf), η 2 -C m Pd(dppr), and η 2 -C m Pd(dppcym) 2 , n = 20 to 300 and m = 60 and 70), and the calculated values of Δ G et( n ) , ΔG # et( n ) , and λ ( n ) ( n = 1 and 2) corresponding to the supramolecular complexes 30 to 174 have neither been synthesized nor reported before.

Conclusions

The complexes η 2_ C m Pd(dppf), η 2_ C m Pd(dppr), and η 2_ C m Pd(dppcym) 2 ( m = 60 and 70) (A to E) contain a strongly electron-withdrawing fullerene cage and a metallocene group, which can be either electron releasing (ruthenocene) or electron withdrawing (cymantrene) and is linked with the cage through a bisdiphenylphosphinepalladium bridge. The oxidation potentials ( ox E 1 and ox E 2 ) of η 2_ C m Pd(dppf), η 2_ C m Pd(dppr), and η 2_ C m Pd(dppcym) 2 ( m = 60 and 70) (A to E) have been reported. In this study, we identified structural relationships between the number of carbon atoms and the E aa , the values of the Red E of [SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-C n H 20 ] ( n = 20 to 300) 1 to 18 and 19 to 29, the Δ G et( n ) , and the ΔG # et( n ) for the complexes 30 to 174. The number of carbon atoms is strongly correlated with the values of E aa and Red E in the (5,5) armchair SWCNT 1 to 18 and 19 to 29, which are important factors in characterizing these materials. The values of Δ G et( n ) and Δ G # et( n ) ( n = 1,2) were calculated using the Rehm-Weller equation and Equations 2 and 3 for 30 to 119 and 120 to 174 supramolecular nanostructure complexes, respectively. The maximum wavelengths of the electromagnetic photons in the photoelectron transfer process for each stage ( λ ( n ) ; n = 1 to 2, in nm) of the nanostructure complexes 30 to 174 were calculated with Planck's equation. The novel supramolecular complexes and the calculated values have neither been synthesized nor reported previously. Using this model and the associated equations, we can easily calculate the E aa , Red E , Δ G et( n ) , Δ G # et( n ) (kcal mol -1 ), and λ ( n ) ( n = 1,2; in nm) of this family of compounds 30 to 174 with good approximation.

Authors’ information

AAT is professor of Organic Chemistry and is an academic member of the Razi University (Kermanshah-Iran) since 2012. He was the academic member of Islamic Azad University (IAU), Arak, Iran from 1998 to 2012. AAT has spent his post-doctorate at The University of Queensland (UQ), Brisbane, Australia in Reactive Intermediates and Unusual Molecules Group under the supervision of Professor Curt Wentrup in Brisbane, Australia during 2006 and 2007. He has as well developed his scientific activities in Professor Curt Wentrup's laboratory at The University of Queensland and under his supervision in July to September of 2008 and August to September of 2009. Professor AAT has worked in The University of New England (UNE), Armidale, NSW, Australia with a sabbatical opportunity with Professor Stephen Glover's group from 2011 to 2012. AAT has won national prizes for his scientific paper (ISI, ISC, educational and propagation publication), books, invention, scientific activities, and conferences papers until now. AAT is one of the Members of the Central Committee of the Iranian Chemical Society (CCICS). ZTH has masters degree in Organic Chemistry from Islamic Azad University (IAU), Arak, Iran in 2011. ZTH has studied on theoretical electron transfer process between the exohedral metallofullerenes of Pd and SWCNT(5,5)-armchair nanotubes under the supervision of AAT.


Acknowledgments

The corresponding author gratefully acknowledges his colleagues in the Chemistry Department of The University of New England (UNE), Australia for their useful suggestions.


Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


Authors’ contributions

AAT carried out the ET investigations. This study was a part of AAT's studies in ET process between important molecules and nanostructures. ZTH participated in the statistical analysis and background part of the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


References

  1. Magdesieva et al. (2004) Comparison of electrochemical behavior of exohedral palladium complexes with [60]- and [70]-fullerenes and metallocene ligands 53(4) (pp. 795-799) 10.1023/B:RUCB.0000037844.93864.3c
  2. Sokolov (2007) Fullerenes as a new type of ligands for transition metals 33(10) (pp. 711-724) 10.1134/S1070328407100016
  3. Fagan et al. (1991) The chemical nature of buckminsterfullerene (C60) and the characterization of a platinum derivative 10.1126/science.252.5009.1160
  4. Denisovich et al. (2010) Electrochemical properties of transition metal complexes with C60 and C70 fullerene ligands 46(1) (pp. 3-20) 10.1134/S1023193510010015
  5. Bashilov et al. (2000) A new heterobimetallic palladium–[60] fullerene complex with bidentate bis-1,1′-[P]2-ferrocene ligand J 10.1016/S0022-328X(99)00687-7
  6. Bashilov et al. (1993) Synthesis of the first optically active organometallic fullerene derivative by η2 functionalization of buckminsterfullerene by Pd(0) complexes (pp. 392-393) 10.1007/BF00697111
  7. Yanilkin et al. (2003) Electrochemical synthesis of a phosphorylated monomethano [60] fullerene (pp. 13-14) 10.1070/MC2003v013n01ABEH001708
  8. Magdesieva et al. (2002) Metalation of fullerenes: electrochemical synthesis and voltammetric study of heterometallic C60 and C70 complexes 10.1023/A:1020900131485
  9. Zhou et al. (2004) Electronic structure of tubular aromatic molecules derived from the metallic (5,5) armchair single wall carbon nanotube 126(11) (pp. 3597-3607) 10.1021/ja039294p
  10. Srivastava et al. (2001) Computational nanotechnology with carbon nanotubes and fullerenes (pp. 42-55) 10.1109/5992.931903
  11. Lourie et al. (1998) Buckling and collapse of embedded carbon nanotubes (pp. 1638-1641) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1638
  12. Nagase and Kobayashi (1994) The ionization energies and electron affinities of endohedral metallofullerenes MC82 (M = Sc, Y, La): density functional calculations (pp. 1837-1838) 10.1039/c39940001837
  13. Dubois et al. (1991) Electrochemical detection of fulleronium and highly reduced fulleride (C605-) ions in solution 113(20) (pp. 7773-7774) 10.1021/ja00020a056
  14. Xie et al. (1992) Electrochemical detection of C606- and C706-: enhanced stability of fullerides in solution 114(10) (pp. 3978-3980) 10.1021/ja00036a056
  15. Li et al. (1992) The unusual electrochemical properties of the higher fullerene, chiral C76 114(10) (pp. 3994-3996) 10.1021/ja00036a068
  16. Arellano et al. (2002) Interaction of molecular and atomic hydrogen with (5,5) and (6,6) single-wall carbon nanotubes 117(5) (pp. 2281-2288) 10.1063/1.1488595
  17. Srivastava and Barnard (1997) IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos
  18. Yakobson et al. (1996) Nanomechanics of carbon tubes: instabilities beyond linear response (pp. 2511-2514) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.2511
  19. Dresselhaus et al. (1996) Academic
  20. Dai (2002) Carbon nanotubes: synthesis, integration, and properties 35(12) (pp. 1035-1044) 10.1021/ar0101640
  21. Collins and Avouris (2000) Nanotubes for electronics (pp. 38-45)
  22. Dresselhaus et al. (1992) Carbon fibers based on Ceo and their symmetry 45(11) (pp. 6234-6242) 10.1103/PhysRevB.45.6234
  23. Mintmire et al. (1992) Are fullerene tubules metallic? 68(5) (pp. 631-634) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.631
  24. Barnett et al. (2005) Electron–phonon interaction in ultrasmall-radius carbon nanotubes 135(5) (pp. 335-339) 10.1016/j.ssc.2005.04.049
  25. Diudea (2005) Nanoporous carbon allotropes by septupling map operations (pp. 1002-1009) 10.1021/ci050054y
  26. Srivastava and Atluri (2002) Computational nanotechnology: a current perspective 3(5) (pp. 531-538)
  27. Bandow et al. (2001) Smallest limit of tube diameters for encasing of particular fullerenes determined by radial breathing mode Raman scattering 347(1–3) (pp. 23-28) 10.1016/S0009-2614(01)01020-X
  28. Taherpour (2009) Quantitative structural relationship and theoretical study of electrochemical properties of C60@[SWCN(5, 5)-Armchair-CnH20] complexes (pp. 135-139) 10.1016/j.cplett.2008.12.039
  29. Taherpour (2009) Theoretical and quantitative structural relationship study of the electrochemical properties of [M2@Cx]@[SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-CnH20] (M = Er and Sc, x = 82 and 84, and n = 20–300) complexes (pp. 5402-5408) 10.1021/jp8096617
  30. Taherpour (2009) Theoretical and quantitative structural relationships of the electrochemical and electron transfer properties of [Mx@C82]@[SWCNT(5,5)-armchair-Cn H20] (x = 0, 1; for x = 1: M = Ce & Gd and n = 20–300) nanostructure complexes (pp. 233-240) 10.1016/j.cplett.2009.10.075
  31. Hansen and Jurs (1988) Chemical applications of graph theory. Part I. Fundamentals and topological indices 65(7) (pp. 574-580) 10.1021/ed065p574
  32. Hosoya (1971) Topological index. A newly proposed quantity characterizing the topological nature of structural isomers of saturated hydrocarbons (pp. 2332-2339) 10.1246/bcsj.44.2332
  33. Randić (1998) On characterization of molecular attributes 45(3) (pp. 239-252)
  34. Du et al. (2002) Orthogonalization of block variables by subspace projection for quantitative structure property relationship (QSPR) research 42(5) (pp. 993-1003) 10.1021/ci020283+
  35. Bolboaca and Jantschi (2007) How good can the characteristic polynomial be for correlations? Int 8(4) (pp. 335-345) 10.3390/i8040335
  36. Rehm and Weller (1970) Kinetics of fluorescence quenching by electron and H-atom transfer Isr (pp. 259-271)
  37. Marcus (1993) Electron transfer reactions in chemistry: theory and experiment 65(3) (pp. 599-610) 10.1103/RevModPhys.65.599
  38. Andrea (2008) Marcus theory for electron transfer a short introduction MPIP (pp. 1-13)
  39. Barbara et al. (1996) Contemporary issues in electron transfer research 100(31) (pp. 13148-13168) 10.1021/jp9605663
  40. Newton (1991) Quantum chemical probes of electron-transfer kinetics: the nature of donor-acceptor interactions (pp. 767-792) 10.1021/cr00005a007
  41. Marcus and Sutin (1985) Electron transfer in Chemistry and Biology 10.1016/0304-4173(85)90014-X
  42. Kuzmin (2000)
  43. Atkins (1998) Oxford University Press
  44. Minkin (1999) Glossary of terms used in theoretical organic chemistry 71(10) (pp. 1919-1981) 10.1351/pac199971101919
  45. Zhang and Friesner (1995) Ab initio electronic structure calculation of the redox potentials of bacteriochlorophyll and bacteriopheophytin in solution 99(44) (pp. 16479-16482) 10.1021/j100044a042
  46. Topol et al. (2001) Experimental determination and calculations of redox potential descriptors of compounds directed against retroviral zinc fingers: implications for rational drug design 10(7) (pp. 1434-1445) 10.1110/ps.52601
  47. Becke (1993) Density‐functional thermochemistry. III. The role of exact exchange 98(7) (pp. 5648-5652) 10.1063/1.464913
  48. Curtiss and Raghavachari (2002) Addendum to Gaussian-3 and related methods for accurate thermochemistry (pp. 61-70) 10.1007/s00214-002-0355-9