Maksim Y.
Livshits
*ab,
Lei
Wang
b,
Sebastian B.
Vittardi
a,
Stefan
Ruetzel
c,
Albert
King
a,
Tobias
Brixner
*c and
Jeffrey J.
Rack
*ab
aDepartment of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA. E-mail: jrack@unm.edu
bDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA
cInstitut für Physikalische und Theoretische Chemie, Universität Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074 Würzburg, Germany. E-mail: brixner@phys-chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de
First published on 27th May 2020
We report the excited-state behavior of a structurally simple bis-sulfoxide complex, cis-S,S-[Ru(bpy)2(dmso)2]2+, as investigated by femtosecond pump–probe spectroscopy. The results reveal that a single photon prompts phototriggered isomerization of one or both dmso ligands to yield a mixture of cis-S,O-[Ru(bpy)2(dmso)2]2+ and cis-O,O-[Ru(bpy)2(dmso)2]2+. The quantum yields of isomerization of each product and relative product distribution are dependent upon the excitation wavelength, with longer wavelengths favoring the double isomerization product, cis-O,O-[Ru(bpy)2(dmso)2]2+. Transient absorption measurements on cis-O,O-[Ru(bpy)2(dmso)2]2+ do not reveal an excited-state isomerization pathway to produce either the S,O or S,S isomers. Femtosecond pulse shaping experiments reveal no change in the product distribution. Pump–repump–probe transient absorption spectroscopy of cis-S,S-[Ru(bpy)2(dmso)2]2+ shows that a pump–repump time delay of 3 ps dramatically alters the S,O:O,O product ratio; pump–repump–probe transient absorption spectroscopy of cis-O,O-[Ru(bpy)2(dmso)2]2+ with a time delay of 3 ps uncovers an excited-state isomerization pathway to produce the S,O isomer. In conjunction with low-temperature steady-state emission spectroscopy, these results are interpreted in the context of an excited-state bifurcating pathway, in which the isomerization product distribution is determined not by thermodynamics, but rather as a dynamics driven reaction.
The ground-state equivalent of dynamics-driven transition–state reactions are well known and have been studied for some time in the cases of select organic transformations (e.g., isomerization of cyclooctatetraene and Diels–Alder-type reactions).8 Specifically, in conjunction with DFT calculations, photoelectron and photodetachment spectroscopy of cyclooctatetraene found evidence for interconversion between planar and boat isomers.9 Moreover, synthetic studies of unimolecular and bimolecular cycloadditions have been observed to generate multiple product isomers simultaneously from the same set of reactants.10,11 To explain the product isomer distribution in both cases, a bifurcating transition state driven by dynamics instead of thermodynamics was invoked. A more quantitative explanation for the reactivity above was developed employing a combination of density functional theory and molecular dynamics computations.12 Complete active space self-consistent field (CASSCF) calculations informed by experimentally derived energies have located stationary points on the potential energy surface, from which multidimensional trajectories yield a bifurcation resulting in multiple isomeric product formation.8,12 Despite these examples, definitive evidence of potential energy surfaces with saddle points and bifurcation regions remains relatively rare.
While computational efforts have been at the frontier for the development of excited-state multi-dimensional reaction coordinate models, there is limited spectroscopic data from which to gain additional understanding. Typically, major experimental difficulties, such as the lack of large spectral changes in the visible and infrared regions as well as ultrafast lifetimes (<1 ps) associated with excited-state bifurcating reactions, plague unequivocal identification of these effects.13 While transition metal complexes feature large visible absorption changes, experimental efforts are limited by broad overlapping spectral signatures from a large density of excited states.14 The computational work for transition metal complexes is further complicated by the level of theory required to accurately model these states, which plays a large role in transition-metal excited-state dynamics.
Complex 1 (Scheme 1) features one-photon absorption, one-isomerization (S,S → S,O) photochemistry.28 Femtosecond pump–probe spectroscopy reveals the formation of a new absorption maximum following excitation at 355 nm that appears at 400 nm after long pump–probe delays (Δτ > 500 ps). The new absorption is ascribed to an isomer featuring a mixed S,O coordination environment. Pump–repump–probe spectroscopic measurements were utilized to convert the S,O isomer to the O,O isomer in two sequential phototriggered reactions.28 These data are consistent with the bulk photolysis data where one observes the emergence of two sets of isosbestic points (one at early bulk irradiation times, a second at later irradiation times) indicating conversion of one isomer to a new compound that is subsequently converted to a third isomer in two distinct steps (S,S → S,O and S,O → O,O). In contrast, complex 2 (Scheme 1) exhibits one-photon absorption, one-isomerization and one-photon absorption, two-isomerization (S,S → S,O and S,S → O,O) photochemistry upon irradiation at 400 nm.27 Transient absorption spectroscopy confirms the presence of both S,O, and O,O isomers following excitation from the emergence of absorption features at 400 nm (S,O isomer) and 500 nm (O,O isomer) in the pump–probe spectra with statistically identical time constants. It is striking to note that both complexes 1 and 2 are C2 symmetric in the ground state, indicating that the sulfoxide ligands are identical.27 Indeed, the 1H NMR spectrum is consistent with C2 symmetry, and the molecular structure reveals similar Ru–S bond distances of 2.248, 2.258 Å (complex 1) and 2.293 Å (complex 2).27,28 Moreover, the only noticeable structural difference between complexes 1 and 2 is the nature of the linker atoms in the chelate, as well as the R group bound to the sulfinyl group. While the linker vibrations are critical for isomerization, these vibrations are not intimately coupled to the Ru dπ → bpy π* MLCT transition. It seems reasonable to assert that the excited state potential energy surfaces for complexes 1 and 2 are quite different, leading to disparate photochemical products.
To explain the reactivity of complex 2, we previously proposed a model where the excited-state barriers separating isomeric structures were small relative to kBT, such that the excited-state S,S, S,O, and O,O isomers were in a thermal equilibrium with one another along one large PES prior to relaxation to the appropriate ground-state isomer.27 The difference in reactivity between 1 and 2 could simply be explained through an increase in the excited-state barrier separating these isomers. In support of this mechanism, a recent gas-phase ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) study clearly demonstrated that complex 1 features both one-photon absorption, one-isomerization and one-photon absorption, two-isomerization reactivity in the gas phase, indicating an important role for solvent reorganization, solvent friction, and energy transfer to solvent in this complex.31
A computational study of complex 3 was also reported in which they specifically addressed whether or not complex 3 would show one-photon, one-isomerization (S,S → S,O) or one-photon, two-isomerization (S,S → O,O) reactivity.32 In sum, they proposed that isomerization occurs sequentially along the lowest-energy triplet state and that isomerization may occur by either a one-photon or two-photon excitation mechanism. These calculations identify the lowest-energy triplet state as metal-centered. While complex 3 has been previously reported, femtosecond pump–probe transient spectra have not been recorded.19,24 We sought to examine complex 3 to not only determine the photochemical reactivity, but also to further examine the role of the chelate in the excited-state reactivity. The computational study seems to identify both sequential and direct isomerization pathways from the S,S isomer to the O,O isomer.32
Herein, we report the experimental excited-state dynamics for a structurally simple bis-sulfoxide complex (cis-[Ru(bpy)2(DMSO)2]2+, complex 3; Scheme 1) as well as an unusual wavelength dependence, which provides evidence for a bifurcating excited state surface and a dynamics driven reaction. Our excited-state dynamics discussion consists of data from femtosecond pump–probe transient absorption, femtosecond pulse shaping, and femtosecond pump–repump–probe (PRP) transient absorption spectroscopy. We further report low-temperature emission results for the S,S complex and a mixture of S,O and O,O photoproduct isomers. The sum total of our experimental results enables a mechanistic hypothesis invoking a multi-dimensional bifurcating excited state potential energy surface to produce a photoproduct distribution of isomers following a single-pulse excitation. Lastly, we revisit the previous mechanistic model proposed for the one versus two sulfoxide isomerization as reported for complexes 1 and 2.27
Transient absorption measurements were carried out on a custom built instrument. An amplified one box Ti:sapphire laser (Solstice, Spectra-Physics) was used to generate ∼800 nm pulses at a repetition rate of 1 kHz. The output from the Solstice is split into pump and probe beams. The pump beam was directed into an optical parametric amplifier (TOPAS, Light Conversion). The probe beam was passed through a CaF2 crystal to yield a white-light continuum via an eight-pass variable distance retroreflector. Neutral density filters were used to attenuate the pump beam intensity to prevent multi-exciton generation. Finally, the data were collected using a custom-built transient absorption spectrometer (TAS; Newport). A bulk solution of ∼50 ml ruthenium sulfoxide in propylene carbonate (unless otherwise noted) was flowed through a 2 mm quartz cuvette by a fluid pump at a flow rate of 12 ml min−1. Quantum control measurements were performed on a similar, but different instrument. Full details of both instruments can be found in the ESI.†
Bulk photolysis data was collected on an Agilent 8453 UV-Vis with Chemstation Ver. B.04.01 kinetics mode. A 3 ml solution of [Ru(bpy)2(DMSO)2](OTf)2 (0.12 OD at 355 nm) in a fluorescence cell was irradiated using a 405 nm continuous-wave LED (Lightland 3350 Laser Module, power ∼500 μW) with a variable ND filter. Spectra were recorded every thirty seconds for the duration of the experiment. The full quantum yield procedure by actinometry may also be found in the ESI.† Briefly, absorption spectra were collected on an Agilent 8453 UV-Vis Spectrometer. A Ti:sapphire amplifier (Solstice, Spectra-Physics) with an optical parametric amplifier (TOPAC, Light Conversion) was used to generate the desired wavelength for sample irradiation. Individual S,O-bonded and O,O-bonded complex quantum yields of isomerization measurements were determined by irradiating a solution of the S,S-bonded complex in propylene carbonate at room temperature. Incident radiation intensity (I0) was determined using potassium ferrioxalate actinometry.33–35 By knowing the radiation intensity and the concentration of the O,O isomer produced (isolated spectral changes are observed for wavelengths >500 nm) over time, an initial first-order rate-law approximation was utilized to calculate the isomerization quantum yield, ΦS,S→O,O. The concentration of S,O-isomer production over time was determined by subtracting the O,O-isomer contribution, followed by reapplying the same initial first-order rate-law approximation to the S,O isomer at 415 nm to yield the quantum yield, ΦS,S→S,O. For all experiments, less than 10% of the initial S,S-isomer solution was isomerized.
Singular value decomposition (SVD) global analysis was employed to describe the absorption changes as a function of time retrieving a tri-exponential fit with time-constant values of 0.3 ± 0.1, 1.8 ± 0.1, and 236 ± 5 ps. Single wavelength kinetic traces were also analyzed to produce time constants consistent with the global analysis results. In accord with previous studies, we assign the 0.3 ps time constant to formation of the 3MLCT state,36 the 1.8 ps time constant is assigned to a combination of solvent reorganization and intramolecular vibrational redistribution (IVR) processes to form a thermally relaxed state from which isomerization occurs, and the 236 ps time constant is ascribed to the sum of relaxation pathways from the excited-state to ground-state isomers.38,39 Importantly, we see no evidence from the kinetic analysis or transient spectra to support the notion that the O,O isomer is formed from the S,O isomer in a sequential reaction as observed in the pump–repump–probe experiment of Complex 1.28 If a single photon prompted a sequential S,S → S,O → O,O reaction then we would expect to see statistically significant differences in the single-wavelength kinetic lifetimes for the formation of the S,O and O,O isomers as well as a delayed formation of the O,O absorption, neither of which are observed. Based on these data, we propose that (similar to compound 2 described in a previous study) ground-state S,S, S,O, and O,O isomers are ultimately formed from a single excited-state surface, which allows all three of these excited-state structures to be formed. These data support the pre-existing computational study that predicted that both S,O and O,O isomers would be formed upon single-photon excitation of the ground-state RuII S,S isomer.27
The simultaneous formation of S,O and O,O isomers prompted us to question if the excited-state surface is best described as a “soft surface” where multiple isomeric structures are in equilibrium with one another (as described above for complex 2), or if there exist multiple deactivation channels from an earlier formed excited state that lead to different isomeric products. In the former case, the excitation wavelength will have no effect on the product distribution, meaning that the product distribution is a function of the barriers on the excited-state surface that lead to isomerization and not on the initial state formed upon excitation. That is, the product distribution is determined solely by the thermodynamics of the excited-state surface. In contrast, if multiple pathways from an initial S,S-isomer excited state are present or a dynamics driven mechanism is operative, then one might anticipate a change in the product distribution and quantum yield of isomerization upon variations in the excitation wavelength. In this case, the fate of the isomerization may be dependent upon where the excited state is formed on the initial excited-state surface (1MLCTSS).
Quantum yields for the formation of the S,O and O,O isomers as a function of excitation wavelength are found in Table 1. The data show that as the excitation energy is lowered the S,O isomer is formed to a lesser extent, and correspondingly the O,O isomer is produced to a greater extent. The aggregate quantum yield (Φ[S,O] + Φ[O,O]) is nearly invariant with changing excitation energy, suggesting that the excitation wavelength promotes one pathway over another along a bifurcation or saddle point on the excited-state potential energy surface. Shorter wavelengths favour one sulfoxide isomerization product (S,O), whereas longer wavelengths favour the bis-sulfoxide isomerization product (O,O).
Excitation (nm) | Φ[S,O] | Φ[O,O] |
---|---|---|
355 | 0.40 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.02 |
375 | 0.25 ±.0.02 | 0.17 ±.0.10 |
390 | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 0.21 ± 0.07 |
405 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.24 ± 0.09 |
One possible explanation for the wavelength dependence of the data is population of ground-state hot vibrational states as an explanation for the formation of the O,O isomer following excitation of the S,S isomer. However, this explanation seems non-intuitive given that the bis- or double isomerization product is formed to a greater extent at lower energy excitation. Nevertheless, we collected pump–probe data at 20 °C, −19 °C, and −38 °C and compared the product distributions. Plots of the representative data are shown in Fig. S28 and S29.† While the product ratio at lower temperatures favours the S,O isomer, there is still evidence for substantial production of the O,O isomer. This result suggests that ground-electronic-state hot vibrational states are not solely responsible for the formation of the O,O product following excitation of the S,S ground-state isomer.
Another possible consideration for the wavelength dependence of the data is population of discreet non-interacting triplet excited states through local heating (energy non-radiatively dissipated from IC and ISC). As cooling the sample bath only effects the bulk temperature of the solution, this hypothesis was tested by comparing pump–probe data collected in propylene carbonate to that in ethylene glycol. While again this hypothesis is non-intuitive for the same reasons above, the greater viscosity of the ethylene glycol should raise excited state activation barriers to counteract the effects from local heating. Plots of the representative data (Fig. S27)† depict a small change in the product ratio favouring the S,O isomer. This result suggests that there is a higher activation barrier to O,O isomer formation, which is logical as both sulfoxides must isomerize. However, this result argues against excited state local heating driving the reactivity as one would expect higher energy excitation to yield more O,O- isomer instead of less. More about the discreet non-interacting triplet excited states will be discussed below with the 77 K emission experiments.
These results further confirm that the excited-state surface leading to isomerization is not characterized by all three isomers (S,S, S,O, and O,O) existing in equilibrium with one another. At the very least, the lowest-energy excited-state surface must feature a gradient in which the S,O and O,O isomers are thermodynamically downhill from the S,S isomer, such that the barrier crossing from O,O to S,O are too great at room temperature. Alternatively, excitation of the O,O-bonded singlet ground state to the 1MLCT eventually produces a thermally relaxed 3MLCT that is structurally and electronically distinct from that produced from excitation of the S,S-bonded ground state. There is no requirement that the motions that lead to isomerization from the S,S isomer are the same for the motions that would convert the O,O isomer to the S,O or S,S isomer, if such a pathway existed. Furthermore, if the isomeric structures had identical excited states, then one would anticipate the formation of S,O- and S,S-bonded isomers following excitation of the O,O-bonded isomer, which is not observed. Thus, the data show that an excited-state surface characterized by three isomers in equilibrium does not adequately describe the experimental data.
An oscillation is observed predominantly in the 342 and 371 nm kinetic trace following 355 nm excitation with an oscillation period of ∼80 fs, corresponding to a vibration of ∼420 cm−1 (ESI, Fig. S33†). It is not immediately clear if this oscillation is due to ruthenium donor atom stretches (e.g., ν(Ru–S), ν(Ru–N)) or ligand torsional vibrations,1,46–48 or if this is more appropriately assigned to the propylene carbonate solvent that exhibits a strong Raman band at this energy.49 We suspect that the latter argument is a better descriptor of the observed oscillations as the 342 nm kinetic displays stronger oscillations than the 371 nm kinetic trace. If the oscillations were tied with low energy ruthenium ligand vibrational modes, then we would expect that the stronger signal will be observed at 371 nm (bpy- π* to π* absorption) over 342 nm. Moreover, the observation of solvent coherence in the transient absorption of ruthenium polypyridyl complexes is not completely surprising as the solvent is known to direct the early excited state dynamics via selection of one bipyridine for electron localization in [Ru(bpy)3]2+.50,51 With solvent domination of the early femtosecond timescale molecular vibrations along the PES, it is conceivable that the fs pulse shaping will not generate large enough changes along the 3MLCTS,S PES to alter the S,O and O,O product distribution. We subsequently deduce that solvent control of the early dynamics will force the bifurcation of the excited-state complex responsible for S,O or O,O formation to be determined at later times (>1 ps), while on the thermally relaxed 3MLCTS,S PES. These data and analysis are consistent with our earlier gas phase isomerization measurements that supported a determining role for the solvent.31
We determine these product ratios taking the ΔA at 400 nm and dividing by the ΔA at 500 nm (Fig. S26†). As stated above, by averaging the last 10 ps of pump–probe data, we feel that these spectra capture the true S,O- and O,O-isomer product distributions. That is, isomerization is complete and we are not relying on any one particular transient absorption spectrum to report the product distribution. In order to compare the excitation wavelength dependence, we then plotted these spectra and normalized the absorbance at 500 nm (Fig. 2 and S26†).
An S,O/O,O product ratio of 1.75 is found for the standard pump–probe experiment with 355 nm excitation and no repump excitation. This serves as a benchmark value in order to determine if the PRP experiments alter the product ratio. PRP experiments (355 nm pump; 400 nm repump) with time delays of 0.5 and 675 ps yield product ratios of 1.66 and 1.60, respectively (column heading “355 nm; 400 nm”). The decrease in S,O/O,O ratio is interpreted as an increase in the formation of the O,O isomer. For the 675 ps time delay, the 400 nm repump pulse is simply exciting a population of ground-state S,O isomer formed following the initial 355 nm pump pulse, as the photochemical reaction from excitation of the S,S isomer is nearly complete by this time (see Fig. 1). Numerous runs of this experiment suggest that the absolute difference in the ratios (1.75 versus 1.60) is significant albeit modest, though we are uncertain how to assess error precisely and reliably to these values. Indeed, the product ratio is determined through division of difference spectra. Importantly, we note that the 400 nm repump of the bipyridine π* → π* transition does not yield a pump–dump–probe response of either pathway as an instantaneous photoproduct formation is not observed in the spectral traces (Fig. S6a–f†). This observation further supports our assertion that the change in the product distribution is due to excitation of the newly formed ground state S,O isomer. For the 0.5 ps time delay, the increase in the relative amount of O,O isomer suggests some re-direction of the fate of the excited-state population such that more O,O isomer is formed. This may simply be thought of as a scrambling of the excited-state population. Again, the effect is modest, but it does indicate that the timing of the pulse with the bifurcation event is not coincident.
Surprisingly, an S,O/O,O ratio of 2.35 is observed with a 355 nm pump-400 nm repump delay of ∼3 ps. This is interpreted as an increase in the relative concentration of the S,O isomer with respect to the pump–probe measurement (S,O/O,O = 1.75). A similar trend is observed for the 390 nm pump-400 nm repump–probe experiments, indicating that the effect is not unique to a single pair of pump repump wavelengths. Δ(ΔA) kinetic traces were fit for both the 355 and 390 nm pump–repump–probe experiments at an intermediate repump delay of ∼3 ps to yield a new 5 ps time constant after the repump (Fig. S42†). A 1 to 10 ps time constant is typically observed in ruthenium sulfoxide pump–probe experiments (and other [Ru(bpy)3]2+-type chromophores) and is ascribed to a combination of solvent reorganization and intramolecular vibrational redistribution (IVR) processes to form a thermally relaxed state from which isomerization occurs, as noted above. We interpret the appearance of a second 5 ps time constant as the relaxation of the S,O-isomer to the isomerizing surface from higher-lying CT states. We propose that this isomer has a conformation prone to relaxation to the ground state S,O surface. In sum, these data suggest that a time delay of ∼3 ps in the PRP experiments appears to coincide with the arrival of the molecule near or at a bifurcation point on the MLCT excited-state surface.
Based on the results above, we conducted PRP experiments on the O,O isomer consisting of a 500 nm pump excitation followed by a 400 nm repump time delay of ∼3 ps. Following the repump pulse, a new negative signal from 400–480 nm as well as an induced excited-state absorption from 500 to 650 nm are observed with a lifetime of 14.8 ± 1.9 ps (ESI, Fig. S41†). Moreover, this new repump state relaxes to a spectrum with a positive signature at 355 nm and a bleach across the visible region (400–650 nm). We interpret this result as evidence for the formation of the S,S isomer after the repump pulse. This result contrasts with the pump–probe measurement that did not reveal a photochemical O,O → S,S or O,O → S,O pathway. The nature of the higher-lying CT surface coupling to the isomerizing surface and ground states will be addressed in subsequent publications.
While uncommon for the vast majority of ruthenium polypyridyl complexes (see spectrum of [Ru(bpy)3]2+, Fig. 4A), this type of peak intensity ordering has been observed with [Ru(CH3CN)4(bpy)]2+ and [Ru(aneS4)(bpy)]2+ (where aneS4 is 1,4,8,11-tetrathiacyclotetradecane), where the emission peaks are ascribed to higher energy 3MLCT excited states.54–56 This differs from the standard Meyer analysis of ruthenium polypyridyl emission spectra, where the vibronic progression can be fit by a two-mode approximation of ∼1300 cm−1 (bipyridine localized vibrations) and ∼400 cm−1 (metal–ligand torsion).1 Moreover, as the excitation wavelength moves to lower energy (Fig. 4B), the 20120 cm−1 peak changes in shape and position to lower energy. We interpret this shift to mean that lower energy excitation(s) of the S,S isomer is coupled to different 3MLCT states. In aggregate, the 77 K emission data point to the creation of different emitting states following excitation of the S,S-isomer. Presumably, population of these 3MLCT states at room temperature leads to the observed wavelength dependence of the photoisomerization product distribution.
Fig. 5 Proposed photochemical mechanistic model for the isomerization of complex 3. The surface depicted is the lowest energy excited state surface from where isomerization occurs. |
Footnote |
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: Instrumentation details and procedures for QY, fs pump–probe TA spectra and kinetic fitting for S,S and O,O cis-[Ru(bpy)2(DMSO)2]2+, temperature and solvent dependent fs pump–probe TA of S,S cis-[Ru(bpy)2(DMSO)2]2+, fs pump–repump–probe TA of S,S and O,O cis-[Ru(bpy)2(DMSO)2]2+, 77 K emission spectra of O,S and O,O cis-[Ru(bpy)2(DMSO)2]2+, fs pulse shaping of S,S cis-[Ru(bpy)2(DMSO)2]2+. See DOI: 10.1039/d0sc00551g |
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020 |