Molecular versus Silica-Supported Iridium Water Oxidation Catalysts

A stringent comparison between two pairs of molecular/immobilized water oxidation catalysts (Cp^*Ir(Me-pica)Cl], 1 , versus 1_SiO₂ , Me-pica=κ²-N-methyl-picolinamide; Cp^*Ir(pysa)NO₃], 2 , versus 2_SiO₂ , pysa=κ²-pyridine-2-sulfonamide]) reveals distinctive catalytic trends. While the molecular compound 1 exhibits a substantial higher activity than the analogous immobilized system 1_SiO₂ , under all the experimental conditions explored, the contrary is found with 2 that is far less active than its immobilized counterpart 2_SiO₂ . This is explained by the unique tendency of 2 to form dimeric complexes Cp^*Ir-(κ²-μ₂-Hpysa)(κ²-μ₂-pysa)IrCp^*], 2 a , in phosphate buffered solution at pH 7, and Cp^*Ir-(κ²-μ₂-Hpysa)₂IrCp^*], 2 b , in water. 2 a and 2 b have been completely characterized in solution by multinuclear and multidimensional NMR spectroscopy. They have been also isolated as single crystals and their structure in solid state determined by X-Ray diffractometry. 2 a and 2 b appear to be off-cycle species, whose formation is detrimental for water oxidation activity, as indicated by the observation of a long induction period when 2 a is used as catalytic precursor. In addition, TOF versus ΔE (E−E⁰=−RT/nF ln(IO₄⁻]/IO₃⁻]) trends for the first two runs do not overlap for catalyst 2 and TOF_max is remarkably higher in the second run upon the addition of fresh NaIO₄. In the immobilized system 2_SiO₂ the detrimental associative processes are likely inhibited leading to an activity higher than that of 2 .