Abstract
The role of 2nd sphere residues in catalytic processes that require multiple protons and multiple electrons is a growing area of interest. These 2nd sphere effects manifest through hydrogen bonding, proton transfer, and electrostatic interactions, resulting in very selective catalysis. Here, a biguanide functional group, which can form very strong hydrogen bonding with several water molecules, is installed in the 2nd sphere of an iron porphyrin. The resulting porphyrin, Fe–biguanide, selectively reduces O2 to H2O via 4e−/4H+ pathway in both aqueous and organic media, with rates much faster than those reported for any porphyrin to date. In the aqueous medium, the biguanide is protonated, whereas in the organic medium, it exists in neutral form. Several spectroscopic techniques confirmed the presence of hydrogen bonding with water molecules in the 2nd sphere. These results indicate that water molecules, held by 2nd sphere residues, can accelerate the kinetics of 4e−/4H+ reduction of O2 as well as any other functional group.
Fe–biguanide catalyzes selective four-electron/four-proton reduction of O2 to H2O, exhibiting rates that surpass those reported for any porphyrin catalyst to date. Spectroscopic studies reveal that second-sphere hydrogen-bonding interactions with water significantly enhance O2 reduction kinetics.
Introduction
Selective reduction of O2 by 4e−/4H+ to H2O is an active area of research, which is being pursued by several groups in the world.1–5 While material-based catalysts can be robust, molecular catalysts offer an opportunity to introduce nuanced changes in the catalyst design to investigate the reaction mechanism in great detail, resulting in a better understanding of the chemical steps involved in determining the rate and selectivity of O2 reduction, which helps to develop better catalysts for the purpose.6–9 The 4e−/4H+ reduction of O2 to H2O can proceed through numerous combinations of electron transfer (ET), proton transfer (PT) and proton-coupled electron transfer (PCET) steps (Scheme 1, exemplified using iron porphyrin), resulting in multiple branching points in the reaction landscape that can be controlled through catalyst design. For example, the reduction of an Fe(iii)–O2˙− species, formed after O2 binding to Fe(ii), to an Fe(iii)–OOH species can occur via either PCET or ETPT or hydrogen atom transfer (HAT) pathways. These pathways have all been observed in different synthetic and enzymatic systems and impose distinct requirements on their respective transition states.10–15 Fundamental understanding of the mechanism of the O2 reduction process allows better design of catalysts to navigate through this labyrinth of possible routes.
Scheme 1. Mechanistic possibilities of 4e−/4H+ O2 reduction. Compound I is better described as an Fe(iv) = O unit bound to a porphyrin radical cation.
Iron porphyrins, analogues of the heme active site of cytochrome c oxidase—an enzyme that reduces O2 to H2O in mitochondria—have been investigated as potential O2 reduction catalysts for several decades now. Elaborate models of cytochrome c oxidase have been developed and investigated by several groups. These models have been very useful in understanding the mechanism of O2 reduction by the metallo-enzyme.16–20 However, these models require elaborate synthesis and, thus, there has been a continuing effort to develop simpler iron porphyrins which can reduce O2 to H2O selectively. This will require a detailed understanding of the mechanistic landscape and tools to navigate it.
The O2 reduction is probed electrochemically both in organic solvents and aqueous solutions. In organic solvents, where the porphyrins are readily soluble, acids are used as proton sources. In aqueous solutions, porphyrins are adsorbed on graphitic electrodes or on self-assembled monolayers on Au electrodes.17,21–25 In organic solvents and under homogeneous electrochemical conditions, the rate-determining step of O2 reduction is the protonation of the Fe(iii)–O2˙− species, and in the presence of strong acids, it generally results in 4e−/4H+ reduction.2,26,27 In the case of sterically congested iron porphyrins, O2 binding has been recently reported to be the rate-determining step.28In situ spectro-electrochemistry indicates that in the presence of weak acids, the reduction of O2 proceeds via an ECEC mechanism where the reduction of the iron to its Fe(ii) state initiates O2 binding to result in Fe(iii)–O2−, which is then reduced to an Fe(iii)–O22− species, which is then protonated, resulting in the cleavage of the O–O bond.8,15 In the case of simple porphyrins, a linear free energy-based correlation exists between the rate of O2 reduction and the overpotential of O2 reduction, in the presence of strong acids. However, this correlation breaks down when 2nd sphere residues that can participate in proton transfer are included in the catalyst.29,30
In contrast, in situ mechanistic investigations of iron porphyrins have revealed that the rate and selectivity of O2 reduction under heterogeneous conditions in aqueous medium are determined by the fate of an Fe(iii)–OOH species. The rate of O–O bond cleavage is the rate-determining step, and the site of protonation of this species determines the selectivity of O2 reduction.31 Protonation of the proximal oxygen of the Fe(iii)–OOH species results in the release of H2O2, i.e. 2e−/2H+ O2 reduction, while protonation of the distal oxygen results in O–O bond cleavage and 4e−/4H+ reduction.7,32,33 However, the mechanism of electrochemical O2 reduction varies substantially depending on the presence of 2nd sphere residues, which can participate in hydrogen bonding with or proton transfer to the active site. Using pendant groups like pyridine, imidazole and amines in the 2nd sphere of iron porphyrins, the rates of O2 reduction could be enhanced by several orders of magnitude relative to previous reports on elaborate heme/Cu systems while keeping the selectivity for 4e−/4H+ reduction intact. These residues can hydrogen-bond to the Fe(iii)–OOH intermediate, preventing its hydrolysis, which would otherwise lead to the 2e−/2H+ reduced product H2O2, and can facilitate proton transfer to the distal oxygen, thereby facilitating heterolytic cleavage of the O–O bond.20–22,34–38
An unresolved question is the potential role of solvent H2O molecules in these reactions. Although in some cases, the 2nd sphere residues have been proposed to “hold” water molecules, their role/effect in catalysis has not been unambiguously established.39 The presence of water clusters near the active site can, in principle, provide the same hydrogen bonding stability to intermediates formed during O2 reduction and facilitate proton transfer to the active site. However, formation of such clusters near the active site is entropically unfavorable. Investigations show that the –NH termini of metformin, a demethylated biguanide, form strong hydrogen bonds with multiple water molecules in both its neutral and protonated states.40,41 In this study, an iron porphyrin with a distal biguanide residue is synthesized, and its O2 reduction is investigated in both organic and aqueous media. The data presented in this study unambiguously demonstrate that, indeed, biguanide residues in the 2nd sphere stabilize a cluster of water molecules, which in turn facilitate proton transfer to the reaction intermediates, resulting in rapid and selective 4e−/4H+ reduction of O2 to H2O in both organic and aqueous solvents.
Results
Synthesis
The pendant biguanide group was introduced into the iron porphyrin by reacting (o-aminophenyl)triphenylporphyrin (H2MAPP) with cyanoguanidine in the presence of AlCl3, a Lewis acid, in THF solvent under reflux conditions (Scheme 2). The resulting solution was then neutralized with ammonium hydroxide, yielding pure H2–biguanide after further workup and column chromatography. Hexagonal purple crystals were obtained by slow evaporation of the ether in DCM (Fig. 1B). H2–biguanide was crystallized in the C2/c space group. The crystal structure reveals a cluster promoted by intermolecular hydrogen bonding interactions between the polar N–H groups of four H2–biguanide molecules. These polar biguanide moieties are encapsulated by the planar porphyrin rings, forming a cage-like arrangement (Fig. 1A). To evaluate the effect of the chelating biguanide moiety on the oxygen reduction reaction, a control porphyrin H2–triazine was synthesized. This involved blocking the biguanide residue of H2–biguanide by reacting it with ethyl acetate (Scheme 2) in the presence of sodium methoxide as a deprotonating agent, resulting in a 1,3,5-triazine derivative. H2–triazine was further purified using column chromatography. Both ligands were metalated with FeBr2 salt and collidine as a base in THF solvent under an inert atmosphere, followed by aerobic workup with 4 N HCl, resulting in the formation of chloride-bound iron complexes in both cases. Characterization data for the ligands and the iron porphyrins (Fig. S1–S11 and Table S1) are provided in the SI.
Scheme 2. Synthetic procedure adapted to access the complexes investigated.
Fig. 1. X-ray crystallographic structures of biguanide. (A) Ellipsoid plot of the cluster showing four biguanide macrocycles with coordinated chloride ligands and associated solvent molecules. (B) Simplified molecular view highlighting the porphyrin core and the appended biguanide functionality. Hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity.
Oxygen reduction in organic solvent
The electrochemical properties of the Fe–biguanide porphyrin were probed in acetonitrile solvent. Under a nitrogen atmosphere, cyclic voltammetry (CV) revealed a chemically reversible Fe(iii/ii) redox process at −0.65 V versus Fc+/Fc0 (Fig. 2A, green trace), which is similar to that of other iron tetraphenylporphyrin derivatives.20,35 Upon the addition of 5% (v/v) water, this couple shifted anodically by 80 mV, appearing at −0.57 V versus Fc+/Fc0 (Fig. 2A, blue trace). Such an anodic displacement is indicative of microsolvation of the iron site when water is added to the organic solution. This is made possible by the 2nd sphere biguanide residue, which can hydrogen bond with several water molecules and thereby form a water cluster in the vicinity of the iron.39 The presence of a microsolvation environment around the iron is further evidenced by the absence of comparable shifts in Fe(iii/ii) E0 in the Fe–triazine control complex (Fig. 2B), in which the biguanide group is blocked and thus incapable of engaging in strong hydrogen bonding with the added water. This result highlights a secondary coordination sphere effect, whereby the distal functionality, biguanide, tunes redox energetics by as much as 80 mV through microsolvation.
Fig. 2. (A) Cyclic voltammograms of Fe–biguanide recorded in CH3CN under N2 atmosphere, in the absence and presence of H2O, and under O2 atmosphere with added H2O. (B) Identical measurements for Fe–triazine, which serves as the control complex. (C) Effect of adding a strong acid (HDMF) to Fe–biguanide solutions, under both N2 and O2 atmospheres. (D) Results of parallel experiments with Fe–triazine in the presence of HDMF.
When the Fe–biguanide solution was saturated with O2, the Fe(iii/ii) couple became electrochemically irreversible. This behavior is characteristic of oxygen coordination to Fe(ii) and subsequent electron transfer to generate an Fe(iii)–O2˙− superoxo intermediate. In the presence of 5% water, a well-defined catalytic wave emerged at −0.80 V versus Fc+/Fc0, following a precatalytic feature at −0.7 V (Fig. 2A, red trace). The separation between the two processes suggests an EC mechanism, in which the electron transfer to Fe–O2˙− is followed by a chemical step, specifically, protonation of the Fe–O22− (peroxide) species. The Fe–triazine did not display any substantial catalytic current under the same conditions in the presence of added water (Fig. 2B).
Iron porphyrins without 2nd sphere assistance typically require strong acids (e.g., trifluoroacetic acid or perchloric acid) to protonate the Fe(iii)–O2˙− intermediate in aprotic media. Water is generally too weak a proton source to participate in this step. Previously, Anxolabéhère-Mallart and co-workers demonstrated that in the absence of strong acids, the O2 reduction proceeds through electrochemical conversion of Fe(iii)–O2˙− to an Fe(iii)–O22− intermediate, with subsequent protonation by weak acids like (CF3)3C–OH.15 Against this backdrop, the observation that an iron porphyrin can catalyze O2 reduction with water as the sole proton source in an organic solvent is unprecedented. This unique reactivity suggests that the biguanide substituent, which will stay neutral in an organic solvent, not only pre-organizes water molecules around the porphyrin periphery but may also effectively tune the pKa of the reactants involved, thereby rendering proton transfer to the bound oxygen intermediates through an extended hydrogen-bonding network. Such organization of water molecules could potentially stabilize protonated water clusters or “caged hydronium” motifs resembling Zundel- or Stoyanov-like structures,42 which is consistent with the observed reactivity trends. Density functional theory was used to examine the spatial arrangement of the appended biguanide group relative to the iron center and the axial ligand environment. The optimized structure supports the proposed secondary coordination sphere interaction, showing intramolecular hydrogen bonding between the axial Fe–OH ligand and the appended biguanide –NH group, with an H–O⋯H–N distance of 1.79 Å. These results support the feasibility of the proposed hydrogen-bonding interaction (Fig. S12). However, accurate modelling in the presence of explicit water clusters and a hydrogen-bonding network would require extensive computational treatment, which is beyond the scope of the present work.
The catalytic performances of Fe–biguanide and Fe–triazine were benchmarked in the presence of HDMF (protonated DMF) as the proton donor (Fig. 2C and 2D). Under acidic conditions, the Fe(iii/ii) redox process, probed under N2 atmosphere, shifts to −0.49 V vs. Fc/Fc+, which is anodically shifted by 160 mV with respect to its value in the absence of acid. This is likely the result of protonation of the biguanide residue in the 2nd sphere, which results in a positively charged electrostatic potential near the iron. In the presence of HDMF, an O2 reduction current is observed which peaks at Fe(iii/ii) potential (Fig. 2C). Under acidic conditions, oxygen reduction follows a CE pathway in an organic solvent, in which the Fe(iii)–O2˙− superoxide intermediate undergoes protonation prior to electron transfer such that the protonation is the rate-determining step and all subsequent steps are relatively rapid.11 As a result, the Fe(iii)–O2˙− superoxide species is the only intermediate observed under these conditions. The anodic shift of the Fe(iii/ii) reduction potential in the presence of acid, thus, automatically lowers the overpotential of O2 reduction. The kinetic parameters, including kobs, TOFmax, and onset values obtained by foot-of-the-wave analysis (FOWA), are summarized in Table 1 (Fig. S13).
Table 1. Comparative catalytic parameters for oxygen reduction by FeTPP, Fe–biguanide, Fe–triazine, Fe-DB, Fe-OB, FeL2, and Fe-TPPMIm in CH3CN with HDMF and TsOH as the proton source.
The rate of the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) catalyzed by Fe–biguanide under these conditions is 8510 M−1 s−1. The rate for FeTPP, which does not have any 2nd sphere residues, under the same conditions is 309 M−1 s−1. The rate for Fe–triazine is 600 M−1 s−1, which is similar to that for FeTPP. The data clearly establish Fe–biguanide as the superior catalyst, having both lower overpotential and significantly higher catalytic turnover relative to FeTPP and Fe–triazine. Importantly, Fe–biguanide reaches TOF values nearly 14-fold greater than that of Fe–triazine at a lower overpotential, illustrating how the second-sphere biguanide residue favorably affects both the kinetics and thermodynamics of ORR (Table 1). In fact, the Fe–biguanide surpasses the kinetic rates of similar iron porphyrins with pyridine (FeL2, Table 1), dibenzylamine (FeDB, Table 1) and imidazole (FeMIm, Table 1). Needless to say, the higher O2 reduction rate at lower overpotential contradicts the expected trend based on a scaling relationship proposed in the past.30 This is a characteristic of iron porphyrins with proton transfer residues in the 2nd sphere.35
EPR measurements of Fe(iii)–biguanide showed a characteristic high-spin Fe(iii) signal (at g = 6), indicating the absence of µ-oxo dimer formation, as µ-oxo Fe(iii) porphyrins are typically EPR-silent due to antiferromagnetic coupling (Fig. S14A). Additionally, controlled potential electrolysis (CPE) under O2-saturated conditions showed less than 10% catalyst degradation after 1 h. Both pre- and post-electrolysis UV-visible spectra displayed a Soret band at 416 nm, characteristic of monomeric Fe(iii) porphyrins, whereas µ-oxo species typically exhibit a Soret band at around 410 nm. The high ORR catalytic rate of Fe–biguanide (8510 M−1 s−1) further supports the absence of µ-oxo formation under electrochemical conditions (Fig. S14B and C).
Microsolvation environment of Fe–biguanide
A key question that arises from the reactivity exhibited by Fe–biguanide is how O2 reduction in organic solvents can proceed using a weak acid source such as water, when all other iron porphyrins require stronger acid sources. Several complementary spectroscopic studies were employed to probe the interaction of the biguanide group in the 2nd sphere with water in the medium. 1H NMR spectroscopy of the free H2–biguanide–porphyrin ligand in DMSO-d6 shows that the 1H resonance of the dissolved water (750 mM, chosen arbitrarily) is at 3.392 ppm, whereas it is found at 3.355 ppm in DMSO-d6. The water content in DMSO-d6 was quantified using the –OMe (9H's) resonance of 10 mM 1,3,5-trimethoxybenzene as an internal standard (Fig. 3). The observed downfield shift of the water signal in the presence of H2–biguanide supports hydrogen bonding interactions, which weaken the O–H bond. Upon increasing the water content from 2 M to 15 M in neat DMSO-d6 and in DMSO-d6 that contains H2–biguanide, the water resonance shifts progressively downfield (Fig. S15–S18). The shift in DMSO-d6 arises from enhanced water–water as well as water–DMSO hydrogen-bonding interactions. However, in the presence of H2–biguanide, the water signal is always shifted ∼0.1 ppm further downfield compared to neat DMSO-d6, indicating additional interaction between water and the biguanide moiety. To confirm whether this interaction originates from the biguanide unit itself, the experiment was repeated using phenylbiguanide (lacking the porphyrin core), which produced a comparable downfield shift of the water resonance to that observed with H2–biguanide (Fig. S15–S18).
Fig. 3. 1H NMR spectra of DMSO-d6 + 750 mM H2O (blue spectrum) and H2–biguanide + 750 mM H2O (orange spectrum).
The presence of water in the vicinity of the porphyrin can be evidenced more directly by using TCSPC (time-correlated single-photon counting). Local water molecules quench the excited state rapidly, leading to shorter excited-state lifetimes. Fluorescence studies of Zn–biguanide (a fluorescent analogue of Fe–biguanide) revealed that its emission properties are highly sensitive to the presence of water in the medium. In dry DMSO, Zn–biguanide displayed a sharp emission peak at 452 nm with a lifetime of 3.21 ns (Fig. 4A) whereas no emission peak at 452 nm was observed for Zn–triazine (Fig. 4B). Incremental water addition progressively quenched the emission, and at 5% water, the lifetime decreased to 1.54 ns, representing a nearly 50% reduction (Fig. 4C) of the excited-state lifetime. No such effect was observed for Zn–triazine, confirming that the biguanidinium groups are directly responsible (Fig. 4D) for holding water molecules in the vicinity of the active site, as has been indicated by the 1H NMR results for samples in DMSO-d6. A satisfactory fit was confirmed when the weighted residuals were randomly distributed around zero (Fig. S19).
Fig. 4. (A) Emission spectra of Zn–biguanide in pure acetonitrile and in the presence of 1% and 5% H2O, showing progressive quenching of fluorescence intensity with increasing water fraction. (B) Corresponding spectra for Zn–triazine under identical conditions, displaying only minimal changes in intensity upon water addition. (C) Time-resolved fluorescence decay profiles of Zn–biguanide with increasing water content, demonstrating a marked decrease in excited-state lifetime as the H2O percentage increases, consistent with enhanced non-radiative deactivation. Instrument response function (IRF) represents the temporal response of the detection system to an instantaneous excitation pulse and is used for accurate fluorescence lifetime analysis. (D) Decay profiles for Zn–triazine in acetonitrile with 1% and 5% H2O, showing only slight modulation of lifetime relative to that of Zn–biguanide.
Heterogeneous O2 reduction reaction
The Fe–biguanide complex was immobilized on edge-plane graphite (EPG) electrodes and on self-assembled monolayer (SAM)-modified Au electrodes via drop-casting, and their electrochemical responses were recorded in pH 7 phosphate buffer solutions. At this pH, the biguanide residue should be protonated as the pKa of phenylbiguanide is ∼11.0.40,43 In the absence of O2, the complex exhibited an electrochemically reversible Fe(iii/ii) redox couple, with half-wave potentials (E1/2) of −320 mV vs. Ag/AgCl on octanethiol (C8SH) SAM and −328 mV on EPG (Fig. 5A). Upon exposure to O2, the reversible Fe(iii/ii) feature is replaced by a diffusion-limited catalytic wave corresponding to O2 reduction, with peak potential similar to the Fe(iii/ii) E1/2 on EPG (Fig. 5A) as well as on C8SH-SAM (Fig. S20). Rotating disk electrode (RDE) measurements revealed that the catalytic current increased proportionally with rotation rate, indicating mass transport-controlled kinetics (Fig. 5B). Koutecký–Levich (K–L) analysis yielded a linear relationship between 1/Icat and 1/ω1/2, with a slope consistent with a four-electron reduction of O2 to water (Fig. 5C). From the K–L intercept, the second-order rate constant (kcat) was determined to be 2.5 × 107 M−1 s−1, approximately an order of magnitude higher than that for the Fe–porphyrin bearing triazine (Fig. S21) or guanidine substituents,22 implying that the definite role of the biguanide 2nd sphere functionality in facilitating O2 reduction extends to aqueous medium as well (Table 2).
Fig. 5. (A) Cyclic voltammograms of Fe–biguanide recorded under N2 and O2 atmospheres in pH 7 phosphate buffer on EPG, showing the reversible Fe(iii/ii) couple under N2 and the appearance of a catalytic wave in O2. (B) Linear sweep voltammograms with a RDE at various rotation rates, displaying diffusion-limited catalytic currents consistent with multi-electron oxygen reduction. (C) K–L analysis of the RDE data at different potentials, yielding linear fits that confirm first-order dependence on O2 concentration and establish the number of electrons transferred per O2 molecule, consistent with a 4e−/4H+ pathway to H2O. (D) RRDE experiment showing the disk current corresponding to O2 reduction and the simultaneous ring current for peroxide detection, indicating high selectivity for complete 4e− reduction with only minor H2O2 release.
Table 2. Kinetics and selectivity of oxygen reduction by Fe–biguanide under heterogeneous conditions.
| Catalyst | Kinetics of ORR | PROS analysis (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| k cat (×106 M−1 s−1) | EPG | C8SH-SAM | C16SH-SAM | ||
| Fe–biguanide | H2O | 25.02 ± 0.32 | 5.6 | 9.0 | 11.7 |
| D2O | 8.30 ± 0.22 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 4.6 | |
| H/D | 3.0 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 2.5 | |
Selectivity for 4e− reduction and PROS analysis
O2 reduction can proceed via either a 2e−/2H+ pathway, producing H2O2 or a 4e−/4H+ pathway, producing H2O. The RDE data indicate that the O2 reduction involves the delivery of 4e− (Fig. 5C, n = 4). Selectivity was further evaluated using rotating ring-disk electrode (RRDE) experiments, which detect partially reduced oxygen species (PROS) released from the working electrode and oxidized at the surrounding Pt ring (Fig. 5D).44 PROS during O2 reduction in aqueous medium result from the hydrolysis of the Fe(iii)–OOH intermediate.45 On EPG, Fe–biguanide generated only ∼6% PROS, corresponding to 94% selectivity for complete 4e−/4H+ reduction (Table 2), consistent with the RDE data. The negligible release of H2O2 indicates stabilization of the Fe(iii)–OOH species against hydrolysis by the 2nd sphere biguanide residue by hydrogen bonding. This stability is tested better under slow ET rates. Au electrodes functionalized with SAMs of varying alkyl chain lengths (C8SH and hexadecanethiol (C16SH)) were employed. As the chain length increases, electron tunneling slows down substantially, providing more time for partially reduced species to diffuse before full reduction (∼103 s−1 in C8SH, ∼4–6 s−1 C16SH and >105 s−1 in EPG).46–49 Even under these slow ET conditions, PROS formation increased only modestly to 9.0% on C8SH-SAM and 11.7% on C16SH-SAM (Table 2), indicating that Fe–biguanide maintains high selectivity for complete O2 reduction across a broad range of ET rates.
Kinetic isotope effect
The rate of O2 reduction on the EPG electrode decreased to 8.3 × 106 M−1 s−1 in D2O, yielding a kinetic isotope effect (KIE) of ∼3.0 (Table 2). This indicates that a PT or a PCET is involved in the rate-determining step.27 Additionally, the KIE on PROS indicates that the step responsible for the generation of PROS involves protonation or PCET. Past mechanistic investigations on iron porphyrins using surface-enhanced resonance Raman spectroscopy (SERRS) coupled to rotating disc electrochemistry have indicated that PROS is generated via the protonation of an Fe(iii)–OOH intermediate species (pKa ∼7) generated during O2 reduction to release H2O2.45 Thus, the KIE in PROS generation is consistent with the protonation of Fe(iii)–OOH to release H2O2. The KIE on the rate of ORR recorded for a thiolate-bound iron porphyrin without a distal superstructure was 18 owing to the lack of proton transfer pathways to the catalytically active site.27 The low KIE of 3.0 in Fe–biguanide is consistent with a well-organized proton transfer channel during ORR.
Identification of catalytic intermediates
The SERRS-RDE technique was developed to identify the reactive intermediates formed during catalytic ORR activity on heterogeneous electrodes using a home-built set-up combining in situ SERRS and rotating disc electrochemistry.50,51 Oxygen reduction is a multistep process involving delivery of 4e− and 4H+ to O2 during the catalytic cycle. Under steady-state conditions, different oxygen-bound intermediate species accumulate depending on the rate-determining step of the ORR cycle, i.e., the intermediate with the slowest decay rate accumulates under steady state. If these intermediates can be identified, direct characterization of the key intermediate species that dominate the rate and selectivity of the overall process can be attempted. When excited into the Soret region, iron porphyrin complexes exhibit intense Raman bands characteristic of the metal ligand as well as oxidation and spin states.52–54 In particular, the v4 and the v2 marker bands represent the oxidation state, spin state and coordination number of the iron with high fidelity. The Fe–biguanide complex immobilized over a C8SH-modified Ag electrode shows the presence of Feiii HS only marked by v4 and v2 at 1365 cm−1 and 1555 cm−1, respectively (Fig. 6B), when the electrode is held at 0 V in a pH 7 buffer, indicating a high-spin Fe(iii) resting state of the iron porphyrin. In the low-energy region of the SERRS data, a band at 582 cm−1 is observed (Fig. 7A), which loses intensity upon reduction of Feii, which arises from Fe–O stretching of the hydroxide ligand of the Feiii–biguanide complex in aqueous solutions.55
Fig. 6. (A) SERRS of Fe–biguanide immobilized on C8SH-modified Ag electrode recorded under air-saturated pH 7 buffer at different applied potentials. (B) Deconvolution of the ν4 (left) and ν2 (right) regions reveals the coexistence of Fe(iii) HS and Fe(ii) HS states, along with the emergence of new bands at 1371 cm−1 and 1570 cm−1, assigned to ferryl (Fe(iv) = O) species accumulated under catalytic turnover.
Fig. 7. (A) Low-frequency region of the SERRS-RDE spectra showing the formation of the Fe(iv) = O species, evidenced by a band at 785 cm−1 upon applying potentials from 0 to −0.5 V. (B) The band shifts to 754 cm−1 when 18O2 is used instead of 16O2, confirming the isotopic substitution of the oxo species.
In the absence of O2, applying a potential below the Feiii/iiE1/2 results in conversion of the resting high-spin Fe(iii) to high-spin Fe(ii), indicated by a downshift of v4 and v2 to 1344 cm−1 and 1543 cm−1, respectively (Fig. S22). Under catalytic conditions in air-saturated buffer, these Feii HS marker bands are replaced by broad bands indicating the presence of a mixture of species (Fig. 6A). The deconvolution of the v4 and v2 peaks shows a rise of v4 and v2 bands at 1371 cm−1 and 1570 cm−1, respectively, along with residual Feiii HS and Feii HS species with ν4 and ν2 vibrations at 1362, 1555 cm−1 and 1346, 1539 cm−1, respectively. These high-energy marker bands (1371, 1570 cm−1) indicate the accumulation of ferryl (Feiv = O) species during ORR.21,56 As the potential was lowered from −0.3 V to −0.5 V, these 1370 cm−1 and 1571 cm−1 bands gradually gained intensity, indicating that this species is indeed formed during the course of ORR.
Examining the lower energy region of the SERRS data helps identify metal–oxygen stretching frequencies that can be confirmed using labeled 18O2. In air-saturated pH 7 buffer, a new band at 785 cm−1 increases in intensity as the potential of the working electrode is lowered (Fig. 7A). When the buffer is saturated with 18O2, this band shifts to 754 cm−1 (Fig. 7B). The observed isotopic shift of 31 cm−1 with 18O substitution is in good agreement with the calculated value for a diatomic Fe–O oscillator for an Feiv = O species, confirming its accumulation on the electrode during catalytic O2 reduction. This implies that reduction of Feiv = O is the rate-determining step in catalytic O2 reduction. Note that the accumulation of the Feiv = O species during catalysis indicates that the reduction of Feiv = O to Feiii–OH is a PCET process, which is consistent with the KIE observed.
The rate of ORR and its selectivity for 4e−/4H+ of Fe–biguanide is the highest among all iron porphyrin complexes reported in a pH 7 buffered solution. These porphyrins differ in their rate-determining step, and it is difficult to compare rates for iron porphyrins having different rate-determining steps (Table 3). The only clear comparison can be with Fe-MARG, which has a guanidine group instead of a biguanide group in Fe-biguanide. Both of these show the accumulation of Fe(iv) = O species during catalytic steady state as indicated by the SERRS-RDE data. The guanidine group should also be protonated at pH 7 and, in that way, is similar to biguanide. However, the guanidine groups will not be able to hold on to as many water molecules in the distal cavity as biguanide as the latter has more tethering points for hydrogen bonding with water molecules.57 In organic solvents, Fe-MARG does not show ORR in the presence of H2O in the solvent, unlike Fe–biguanide (Fig. S23). This again reflects the inability of guanidine to stabilize H2O molecules in the 2nd sphere. This is the reason for more facile ORR in Fe–biguanide relative to Fe-MARG in organic as well as aqueous media.
Table 3. The ORR kinetics and selectivity of Fe–biguanide and some related iron porphyrins in a pH 7 buffered solution. An extensive list is included in Table S2.
Conclusion
The Fe–biguanide porphyrin represents a rare and mechanistically distinct case where water molecules can mediate the ORR in a non-aqueous solvent. The key enabling factor is the distal biguanide group, which holds water molecules in the 2nd sphere, modulates the redox potential through microsolvation, and enables catalytic O2 reduction at relatively low overpotentials, with TOFs exceeding those of conventional iron porphyrins by more than an order of magnitude and low H/D KIE. This work further underscores the importance of secondary-sphere effects in molecular electrocatalysis, where substituents can create local solvation environments that fundamentally alter proton availability and catalytic pathways. The results point toward broader opportunities in catalyst design where weak acids, such as water in organic solvents, can be rendered chemically active through tailored second-sphere interactions as demonstrated here.
Experimental section
Materials
All reagents were of the highest grade commercially available. Cyanoguanidine and AlCl3 were purchased from Sisco Research Laboratories (SRL). 2,4,6-Collidine, FeBr2, Zn(OAc)2, chloroform-d3, tetrabutylammonium perchlorate (TBAP) and ferrocene (Fc) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Sodium chloride and ammonium chloride were purchased from Spectrochem Ltd Unless otherwise mentioned, all reactions were performed at room temperature. Column chromatography was performed with silica gel (mesh size: 100−200) purchased from Spectrochem Ltd Neutral alumina was purchased from Merck. Tetrahydrofuran (THF), ethylacetate and acetonitrile (CH3CN) were purchased from FINAR Ltd THF was used after drying over Na metal with the addition of benzophenone indicator, and CH3CN was dried over CaCl2 and CaH2.
Instrumental details
All electrochemical experiments were performed using CH instruments (CH 700 E electrochemical analyser). Glassy carbon, platinum, and standard double-junction Ag/AgCl reference electrode (standard double-junction silver/silver chloride filled with 4 M KNO3 solution) were purchased from Pine Instruments. All the NMR spectra were recorded with a Bruker DPX-300, Bruker DPX-400, or DPX-500 spectrometer at room temperature. The mass spectra were recorded with a QTOF Micro YA263 instrument. Steady-state absorption spectra were measured using an Evolution 201 (ThermoFisher) UV-visible spectrophotometer. The slit width was kept at 2 nm, and the experiments were carried out at room temperature. Fluorescence measurements were carried out using a Fluoromax 4 (HORIBA Scientific) at room temperature. The slit width was fixed at 2 nm. The lifetime of complexes in different conditions was estimated by measuring the emission decays of the samples using the TCSPC setup of Deltaflex (HORIBA). A laser source of 405 nm with a full width at half-maximum (FWHM) of 900 ps was used for the TCSPC experiments. The emission decays were collected at the magic angle polarization and detected using a photomultiplier tube. EzTime software was used to fit the decay traces. All electrochemical experiments were conducted using CH Instruments (model CHI700E, CHI720D Electrochemical Analyzer). The bipotentiostat, reference electrodes, and Teflon plate material evaluating cell (ALS Japan) were purchased from CH Instruments. The RRDE setup from Pine Research Instrumentation (E6 series Change Disk tips with AFE6M rotor) was used to obtain RRDE data. SERRS-RDE data were collected using a Trivista 555 spectrograph (Princeton Instruments) and 413.1 nm excitation from a Kr+ laser (Coherent Innova Saber SBRCDBW-K), rotating the electrode at 200 rpm unless noted otherwise. The region of interest in the Raman spectrum was calibrated against naphthalene resonance Raman spectra during each instance of data collection. Single-crystal X-ray data were collected using a Bruker D8VENTURE Microfocus diffractometer equipped with a PHOTON II detector, with Mo Kα radiation (λ = 0.710 73 Å), controlled by the APEX3 software package. 87 Raw data were integrated and corrected for Lorentz and polarization effects using the Bruker APEX III program suite. Absorption corrections were performed using SADABS. Space groups were assigned by analysis of metric symmetry and systematic absences (determined by XPREP) and were further checked by PLATON 88,89 for additional symmetry. All of the structures were solved by direct methods and were refined against all data in the reported 2θ ranges by full-matrix least-squares on F2 with the SHELXL program suite using the OLEX 2 91 interface. Hydrogen atoms at idealized positions were included during the final refinements of each structure. The OLEX 2 interface was used for structure visualization, analysis of bond distances, angles, and drawing ORTEP plots.
Homogeneous electrochemical experiments
Cyclic voltammograms were recorded with a potentiostat (CHI 700 E or CHI720 D) using glassy carbon as a working electrode. All CV data were collected in a sealed electrochemical cell. Five milliliters of 0.5 mM compound solution in ACN/THF (9 : 1) was taken in the presence of 100 mM TBAP as the supporting electrolyte. The glassy carbon electrode was taken as the working electrode, standard double-junction silver/silver chloride as the reference electrode, and Pt as the counter electrode. Ferrocene (Fc) was used as an internal reference, and the potential scale was normalized with respect to the potential of the Fc+/0 couple. The solution was deaerated by bubbling N2 or O2 before recording the CV measurements as required. All the electrochemical experiments were performed at room temperature.
Heterogeneous electrochemical experiments
All electrochemical experiments were conducted in pH 7 buffer (unless otherwise mentioned) containing 100 mM Na2HPO4·2H2O and 100 mM KPF6 (supporting electrolyte), using a Pt wire as the counter electrode and a double-layer Ag/AgCl electrode as the reference electrode. All electrochemical data were plotted following the polarographic convention. A 3-neck glass cell fitted with PTFE stoppers from Pine Research was used for all electrochemical experiments unless otherwise mentioned. Separation of the WE compartment from the CE compartment did not result in any difference in the data output. All experiments were conducted at 25 °C. Applied voltages were corrected for IR compensation by running the IR compensation test in the electrochemical workstation. For anaerobic experiments, the electrolyte was purged with UHP-grade argon gas at a 10 mL min−1 flow rate. The starting point of the scan was fixed at 0.2 V, and the initial direction of the scan was cathodic. Electrochemical stability and purity of the catalyst at the electrode surface during electrochemical experiments were verified by taking CV for several cycles, where no visible changes were encountered in the Feiii/ii potential and current density.
Attachment of catalysts on SAM-modified Ag and Au electrodes
The SAM-modified Au and roughened Ag disks were taken out of the depositing solutions, rinsed with ethanol and a copious amount of water, and then mounted on the RRDE setup. The solutions of the catalysts were prepared in chloroform, followed by drop-casting onto the electrode for 30 minutes to ensure complete loading. After each respective loading, the surfaces were thoroughly rinsed with chloroform, ethanol, and triply distilled water before carrying out electrochemical or SERRS/SERRS-RDE experiments.
UV-visible absorption data collection
Absorption spectra of the pure complexes were collected in ACN : THF (9 : 1) (2 mL; 5 µM). The background was corrected before the experiments, using an identical amount of solvent mixture.
1H NMR data collection
1H NMR spectra were recorded with a 300 MHz NMR spectrometer. A 60 mM solution of the ligand was prepared in 400 µL of DMSO-d6 containing a 10 mM internal standard, followed by the addition of H2O. Two scans were collected to obtain spectra with clarity, and the change in chemical shift value of the 2H's of H2O was monitored after each addition.
Fluorescence data collection
The samples were excited with the respective excitation wavelength as obtained from absorption data. The emission spectra of the pure complexes were collected in ACN : THF (9 : 1) (2 mL; 5 µM).
TCSPC data collection
The lifetime experiments of the pure complexes were conducted in ACN : THF (9 : 1) (2 mL; 5 µM). The decay traces were fitted using EzTime software and the quality of the fitting was judged by weighted residuals (close to 1). All the traces were described by a single exponential function. The quality of fitting was evaluated from the weighted residual distribution and the autocorrelation function of the weighted residuals. A satisfactory fit was confirmed when the weighted residuals were randomly distributed around zero, the autocorrelation function became close to the zero line, and the reduced chi-square value was close to unity.
Synthetic details
H2MAPP (1)
MAPP was synthesized following the reported protocol from Collman and co-workers.58 ESI-MS (positive-ion mode, CH2Cl2): 630.2630 (100%, [M + H]+) (Fig. S1). 1H NMR (CDCl3): δ (ppm) −2.66 (bs, 2H), 3.36 (s, 2H), 6.8–8.3 (m, 19H), 8.6–9.1 (m, 8H) (Figure S2).
H2–biguanide (2)
MAPP (1) (1 eq., 400 mg, 0.634 mmol) was dissolved in 40 mL of dry THF. To this solution, dicyandiamide (1.5 eq., 80 mg, 0.952 mmol) and AlCl3 (2 eq., 170 mg, 1.268 mmol) were added under reflux conditions while maintaining an inert atmosphere. After 1 day, 4 eq. of dicyanodiamide and 3 eq. of AlCl3 were added, the reaction mixture was refluxed for another 2 days. The organic layer in DCM was washed with saturated NH4Cl and NaCl solution, collected and dried over anhydrous Na2SO4. The solvent was evaporated under reduced pressure and was purified through column chromatography using neutral alumina and 30% methanol-DCM solvent mixture. Hexagonal purple crystals were obtained by slow vapour diffusion of the ether in DCM (Fig. 1b). Yield (410 mg, 90.5%). 1H NMR (300 MHz, DMSO-d6) δ 8.99 (d, J = 4.8 Hz, 2H), 8.89–8.74 (m, 6H), 8.34–8.19 (m, 6H), 7.96 (dd, J = 7.5, 1.5 Hz, 1H), 7.82 (dq, J = 9.5, 5.3 Hz, 9H), 7.76–7.65 (m, 1H), 7.42 (d, J = 8.1 Hz, 1H), 7.31 (t, J = 7.4 Hz, 1H), 5.10 (s, 2H), −2.80 (s, 2H) (Fig. S3). 13C NMR (101 MHz, DMSO-d6) {1H} δ 158.55, 156.87, 141.91, 141.85, 137.13, 135.43, 135.10, 134.75, 134.63, 130.80, 129.98, 128.92, 128.47, 128.24, 127.44, 127.17, 122.95, 120.04, 119.99 (Fig. S4). ESI-MS (positive ion mode, CH2Cl2): 714 ([M]+) (Fig. S5). UV-visible (THF λ/nm = 414, 512, 546, 587, 647) (Fig. S6).
Fe–biguanide (3)
H2–biguanide (2) (200 mg, 0.280 mmol, 1 eq.) was dissolved in 20 mL of dry, degassed THF. To this solution, 2,4,6-collidine (74 µL, 0.560 mmol, 2 eq.) was added to deprotonate the pyrrolic protons, followed by the addition of FeBr2 (240 mg, 1.12 mmol, 4 eq.). The resulting mixture was stirred under an inert atmosphere for 48 hours. After completion, the reaction was quenched with water. The organic layer in DCM was washed with brine solution and 4 N HCl, collected and dried over anhydrous Na2SO4. The solvent was evaporated under reduced pressure. The product was purified through column chromatography using neutral alumina and 40% methanol-DCM solvent mixture. Yield (235 mg, 91%). Anal. Calcd for C46H34ClFe N9·2CH3OH·CH2Cl2: C = 61.81%, H = 4.55%, Cl = 11.17%, Fe = 5.87%, N = 13.24%, O = 3.36%. Found: C = 60.62%, H = 4.88%, Cl = 11.58%, Fe = 5.67%, N = 13.75%, O = 3.24%. ESI-MS (positive ion mode, CH2Cl): 768 ([M]+) (Fig. S7). UV-visible (THF λ/nm = 415, 510, 583, 645, 690) (Fig. S6).
Zn–biguanide (4)
H2–biguanide (2) (1 eq., 100 mg, 0.140 mmol) was dissolved in 15 mL of dry THF. To this solution, Zn(OAc)2 (4 eq., 123 mg, 0.560 mg) was added and stirred for 2 hours. No external base was added as the counter anion of Zn(ii) salt used, i.e. acetate, can deprotonate the pyrrolic protons. The organic layer in DCM was washed with a brine solution, collected and dried over anhydrous Na2SO4. The solvent was evaporated under reduced pressure. The product was purified through column chromatography using neutral alumina and 30% methanol-DCM solvent mixture. Yield (115 mg, 90%). ESI-MS (positive ion mode, CH2Cl2): 776 ([M + H]+) (Fig. S8).
H2–triazine (5)
H2–biguanide (2) (1 eq., 100 mg, 0.140 mmol) was dissolved in 5 mL methanol and 20 mL ethylacetate. To it NaOMe (10 eq., 76 mg, 1.40 mmol) dissolved in methanol was added and kept in refluxing condition for 2 days. The organic layer in DCM was washed with NH4Cl and NaCl, collected and dried over anhydrous Na2SO4. The solvent was evaporated under reduced pressure and was purified through column chromatography using a mesh size of 100–200 silica gel and 3% methanol-DCM solvent mixture. Yield (120 mg, 89%). ESI-MS (positive ion mode, CH2Cl2): 738 ([M]+) (Fig. S9). UV-visible (THF λ/nm = 414, 511, 546, 587, 647) (Fig. S6).
Fe–triazine (6)
H2–triazine (5) (100 mg, 0.136 mmol, 1 eq.) was dissolved in 20 mL of dry, degassed THF. To this solution, 2,4,6-collidine (36 µL, 0.271 mmol, 2 eq.) was added to deprotonate the pyrrolic protons, followed by the addition of FeBr2 (160 mg, 0.544 mmol, 4 eq.). The resulting mixture was stirred under an inert atmosphere for 48 hours. After completion, the reaction was quenched with water. The organic layer in DCM was washed with brine solution and 4 N HCl, collected and dried over anhydrous Na2SO4. The solvent was evaporated under reduced pressure. The product was purified through column chromatography using mesh size 100–200 silica gel and 10% methanol-DCM solvent mixture. Yield (110 mg, 87.3%). Anal. Calcd for C48H35ClFeN9·CH3OH·2CH2Cl2: C = 59.41%, H = 4.20%, Cl = 17.19%, Fe = 5.42%, N = 12.23%, O = 1.55%. Found: C = 60.01%, H = 4.35%, Cl = 16.86%, Fe = 5.51%, N = 12.74%, O = 1.74%. ESI-MS (positive ion mode, CH2Cl2): 791 ([M]+) (Fig. S10). UV-visible (THF λ/nm = 415, 510, 583, 647, 691) (Fig. S6).
Zn–triazine (7)
H2–biguanide (2) (1 eq., 50 mg, 0.063 mmol) was dissolved in 15 mL of dry THF. To this solution, Zn(OAc)2 (4 eq., 55 mg, 0.252 mg) was added and stirred for 2 hours. No external base was added as the counter anion of Zn(ii) salt used, i.e. acetate, can deprotonate the pyrrolic protons. The organic layer in DCM was washed with a brine solution, collected and dried over anhydrous Na2SO4. The solvent was evaporated under reduced pressure. The product was purified through column chromatography using mesh size 100–200 silica gel and 5% methanol-DCM solvent mixture. Yield (55 mg, 88.14%). ESI-MS (positive ion mode, CH2Cl2): 800 ([M + H]+) (Fig. S11).
Author contributions
Suman Patra: conceptualization, investigation, methodology, formal analysis, data curation, visualization, writing. Soumili Ghosh: investigation, methodology, formal analysis, data curation, visualization, writing. Soumya Samanta: methodology, data curation, writing. Nisha Maurya: investigation, methodology, data curation. Somnath Das: methodology. Abhishek Dey: conceptualization, funding acquisition, project administration, resources, supervision, and writing.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Department of Science and Technology, JC Bose grant (ANRF/JBG/2025/000017/CS). S.P. and S.G. acknowledge CSIR-India for the Senior Research Fellowship (SRF). S.S. acknowledges CSIR SPM-SRF fellowship. N.M. and S.D. acknowledge IACS Institute-JRF and SRF respectively.
Data availability
CCDC 2540588 contains the supplementary crystallographic data for this paper.59
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary information (SI). Supplementary information: additional UV-visible, HRMS, 1H-NMR, electrochemistry data and rR data. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d6sc03084j.
References
- Liang Z. Lei H. Zheng H. Wang H.-Y. Zhang W. Cao R. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2025;54:5248–5291. doi: 10.1039/D4CS01199F. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chatterjee S. Sengupta K. Mondal B. Dey S. Dey A. Acc. Chem. Res. 2017;50:1744–1753. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.7b00192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pegis M. L. Wise C. F. Martin D. J. Mayer J. M. Chem. Rev. 2018;118:2340–2391. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nam W. Acc. Chem. Res. 2015;48:2415–2423. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.5b00218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shao M. Chang Q. Dodelet J.-P. Chenitz R. Chem. Rev. 2016;116:3594–3657. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00462. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liu M. Zhao Y. Chang Q. Zhou H. Gennari M. Duboc C. Wang L. Inorg. Chem. Front. 2026;13:3485–3494. doi: 10.1039/D5QI02259B. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Bhunia S. Ghatak A. Dey A. Chem. Rev. 2022;122:12370–12426. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c01021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dey S. Mondal B. Chatterjee S. Rana A. Amanullah S. Dey A. Nat. Rev. Chem. 2017;1:98. doi: 10.1038/s41570-017-0098. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Sinha S. Ghosh M. Warren J. J. ACS Catal. 2019;9:2685–2691. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.8b04757. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Bailey W. D. Dhar D. Cramblitt A. C. Tolman W. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019;141:5470–5480. doi: 10.1021/jacs.9b00466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pegis M. L. Martin D. J. Wise C. F. Brezny A. C. Johnson S. I. Johnson L. E. Kumar N. Raugei S. Mayer J. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019;141:8315–8326. doi: 10.1021/jacs.9b02640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Santra A. Das A. Kaur S. Jain P. Ingole P. P. Paria S. Chem. Sci. 2024;15:4095–4105. doi: 10.1039/D3SC06753J. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Singha A. Mondal A. Nayek A. Dey S. G. Dey A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020;142:21810–21828. doi: 10.1021/jacs.0c10385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Singha A. Dey A. Chem. Commun. 2019;55:5591–5594. doi: 10.1039/C9CC01423C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira R. Zouari W. Herrero C. Banse F. Schöllhorn B. Fave C. Anxolabéhère-Mallart E. Inorg. Chem. 2016;55:12204–12210. doi: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.6b01804. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ricard D. L'Her M. Richard P. Boitrel B. Chem. – Eur. J. 2001;7:3291–3297. doi: 10.1002/1521-3765(20010803)7:15<3291::AID-CHEM3291>3.0.CO;2-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang X. Zhan J. Qin H. Deng J. Liu J. Li M. Cao R. Shao Y. Chem. Sci. 2025;16:5512–5517. doi: 10.1039/D5SC00102A. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- George S. L. Zhao L. Wang Z. Xue Z. Zhao L. Molecules. 2024;29(23):5655. doi: 10.3390/molecules29235655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Xie L. Zhang X.-P. Zhao B. Li P. Qi J. Guo X. Wang B. Lei H. Zhang W. Apfel U.-P. Cao R. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2021;60:7576–7581. doi: 10.1002/anie.202015478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dinda S. Roy T. Sengupta S. Baidya P. Dey A. JACS Au. 2025;5:6275–6286. doi: 10.1021/jacsau.5c01252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ghatak A. Bhunia S. Dey A. ACS Catal. 2020;10:13136–13148. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.0c02836. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ghatak A. Bhakta S. Bhunia S. Dey A. Chem. Sci. 2019;10:9692–9698. doi: 10.1039/C9SC02711D. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chatterjee S. Sengupta K. Samanta S. Das P. K. Dey A. Inorg. Chem. 2013;52:9897–9907. doi: 10.1021/ic401022z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sengupta K. Chatterjee S. Samanta S. Bandyopadhyay S. Dey A. Inorg. Chem. 2013;52:2000–2014. doi: 10.1021/ic302369v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chattopadhyay S. Samanta S. Sarkar A. Bhattacharya A. Patra S. Dey A. J. Chem. Phys. 2023;158:44201. doi: 10.1063/5.0136333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mittra K. Chatterjee S. Samanta S. Dey A. Inorg. Chem. 2013;52:14317–14325. doi: 10.1021/ic402297f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chatterjee S. Sengupta K. Samanta S. Das P. K. Dey A. Inorg. Chem. 2015;54:2383–2392. doi: 10.1021/ic5029959. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Qin H. Wang Y. Liu T. Xu Y. Lei H. Li X. Zhang W. Fukuzumi S. Nam W. Cao R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2026;148:933–943. doi: 10.1021/jacs.5c16648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Amanullah S. Saha P. Dey A. Faraday Discuss. 2022;234:143–158. doi: 10.1039/D1FD00076D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pegis M. L. McKeown B. A. Kumar N. Lang K. Wasylenko D. J. Zhang X. P. Raugei S. Mayer J. M. ACS Cent. Sci. 2016;2:850–856. doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.6b00261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chatterjee S. Sengupta K. Hematian S. Karlin K. D. Dey A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015;137:12897–12905. doi: 10.1021/jacs.5b06513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brezny A. C. Johnson S. I. Raugei S. Mayer J. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020;142:4108–4113. doi: 10.1021/jacs.9b13654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Huang X. Groves J. T. Chem. Rev. 2018;118:2491–2553. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bhunia S. Rana A. Roy P. Martin D. J. Pegis M. L. Roy B. Dey A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018;140:9444–9457. doi: 10.1021/jacs.8b02983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bhunia S. Ghatak A. Rana A. Dey A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2023;145:3812–3825. doi: 10.1021/jacs.2c13552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Carver C. T. Matson B. D. Mayer J. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012;134:5444–5447. doi: 10.1021/ja211987f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ghatak A. Samanta S. Nayek A. Mukherjee S. Dey S. G. Dey A. Inorg. Chem. 2022;61:12931–12947. doi: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.2c02170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mukherjee S. Nayek A. Bhunia S. Dey S. G. Dey A. Inorg. Chem. 2020;59:14564–14576. doi: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.0c02408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ghosh S. Patra S. Bisoi A. Ghosh S. Maurya N. Das A. Singh P. C. Dey A. ACS Catal. 2025;15:3595–3610. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.5c00170. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Langmaier J. Pižl M. Samec Z. Záliš S. J. Phys. Chem. A. 2016;120:7344–7350. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpca.6b04786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Javitt L. F. Weissbuch I. Ehre D. Lubomirsky I. Lahav M. Cryst. Growth Des. 2022;22:43–47. doi: 10.1021/acs.cgd.1c01025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Stoyanov E. S. V Stoyanova I. Reed C. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010;132:1484–1485. doi: 10.1021/ja9101826. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grytsai O. Ronco C. Benhida R. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2021;17:1001–1040. doi: 10.3762/bjoc.17.82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Collman J. P. Boulatov R. Sunderland C. J. Fu L. Chem. Rev. 2004;104:561–588. doi: 10.1021/cr0206059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Samanta S. Sengupta S. Biswas S. Ghosh S. Barman S. Dey A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2023;145:26477–26486. doi: 10.1021/jacs.3c10980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Davis K. L. Drews B. J. Yue H. Waldeck D. H. Knorr K. Clark R. A. J. Phys. Chem. C. 2008;112:6571–6576. doi: 10.1021/jp711834t. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hosseini A. Collman J. P. Devadoss A. Williams G. Y. Barile C. J. Eberspacher T. A. Langmuir. 2010;26:17674–17678. doi: 10.1021/la1029118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shein J. B. Lai L. M. H. Eggers P. K. Paddon-Row M. N. Gooding J. J. Langmuir. 2009;25:11121–11128. doi: 10.1021/la901421m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Collman J. P. Devaraj N. K. Decréau R. A. Yang Y. Yan Y.-L. Ebina W. Eberspacher T. A. Chidsey C. E. D. Science. 2007;315:1565–1568. doi: 10.1126/science.1135844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sengupta K. Chatterjee S. Samanta S. Dey A. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013;110:8431–8436. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1300808110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sengupta K. Chatterjee S. Dey A. ACS Catal. 2016;6:6838–6852. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.6b01122. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Spiro T. G. Acc. Chem. Res. 1974;7:339–344. doi: 10.1021/ar50082a004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Spiro T. G. Strekas T. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1974;96:338–345. doi: 10.1021/ja00809a004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Burke J. M. Kincaid J. R. Peters S. Gagne R. R. Collman J. P. Spiro T. G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1978;100:6083–6088. doi: 10.1021/ja00487a018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Mittra K. Sengupta K. Singha A. Bandyopadhyay S. Chatterjee S. Rana A. Samanta S. Dey A. J. Inorg. Biochem. 2016;155:82–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2015.11.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ogura T. Takahashi S. Hirota S. Shinzawa-Itoh K. Yoshikawa S. Appelman E. H. Kitagawa T. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993;115:8527–8536. doi: 10.1021/ja00072a002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Jiang W. Zhou M. Chen K. Xiao X. Shi J. Zhang H. Xie J. Chen S. Chen M. Cong Z. Liu L. Wu Y. Liu R. Nat. Commun. 2025;17:336. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-67044-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Collman J. P. Brauman J. I. Doxsee K. M. Halbert T. R. Bunnenberg E. Linder R. E. LaMar G. N. Del Gaudio J. Lang G. Spartalian K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1980;102:4182–4192. doi: 10.1021/ja00532a033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- CCDC 2540588: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination, 2026, 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2r8pg6 [DOI]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Citations
- CCDC 2540588: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination, 2026, 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2r8pg6 [DOI]
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
CCDC 2540588 contains the supplementary crystallographic data for this paper.59
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary information (SI). Supplementary information: additional UV-visible, HRMS, 1H-NMR, electrochemistry data and rR data. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d6sc03084j.









