Slow magnetization dynamics in a series of two-coordinate iron(<scp>ii</scp>) complexes

TLDR

The authors synthesized a series of two‑coordinate iron(II) complexes to investigate their single‑molecule magnet behavior. They characterized five linear and one bent Fe(II) complexes, determining their geometries and performing CASSCF/NEVPT2 calculations to assess d‑orbital splittings and electronic state energies. All complexes exhibited slow magnetic relaxation in a dc field, with the linear species showing decreasing spin‑reversal barriers (Ueff = 181–43 cm⁻¹) and the bent compound displaying markedly slower relaxation; asymmetry quenches orbital angular momentum but spin–orbit coupling restores it, and the non‑Arrhenius behavior arises from ligand‑field asymmetry and vibronic coupling.

Abstract

A series of two-coordinate complexes of iron(II) were prepared and studied for single-molecule magnet behavior. Five of the compounds, Fe[N(SiMe3)(Dipp)]2 (1), Fe[C(SiMe3)3]2 (2), Fe[N(H)Ar′]2 (3), Fe[N(H)Ar*]2 (4), and Fe(OAr′)2 (5) feature a linear geometry at the FeII center, while the sixth compound, Fe[N(H)Ar#]2 (6), is bent with an N–Fe–N angle of 140.9(2)° (Dipp = C6H3-2,6-Pri2; Ar′ = C6H3-2,6-(C6H3-2,6-Pri2)2; Ar* = C6H3-2,6-(C6H2-2,4,6-Pri2)2; Ar# = C6H3-2,6-(C6H2-2,4,6-Me3)2). Ac magnetic susceptibility data for all compounds revealed slow magnetic relaxation under an applied dc field, with the magnetic relaxation times following a general trend of 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 ≫ 6. Arrhenius plots created for the linear complexes were fit by employing a sum of tunneling, direct, Raman, and Orbach relaxation processes, resulting in spin reversal barriers of Ueff = 181, 146, 109, 104, and 43 cm−1 for 1–5, respectively. CASSCF/NEVPT2 calculations on the crystal structures were performed to explore the influence of deviations from rigorous D∞h geometry on the d-orbital splittings and the electronic state energies. Asymmetry in the ligand fields quenches the orbital angular momentum of 1–6, but ultimately spin–orbit coupling is strong enough to compensate and regenerate the orbital moment. The lack of simple Arrhenius behavior in 1–5 can be attributed to a combination of the asymmetric ligand field and the influence of vibronic coupling, with the latter possibility being suggested by thermal ellipsoid models to the diffraction data.