Manganese (III) Compounds Derived from R-Salicylaldoxime and 9-Anthracenecarboxylate Ligands: A Study of Their Synthesis and Structural, Magnetic, and Luminescent Propertiesâ€
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript (magnetochemistry-3132869) by Casanovas et al, describes the synthesis, structures, and magnetic properties of 6 new Mn-based compounds. The paper should be accepted after the issues below are addressed.
Many of the sentences in the abstract begin with a number. This is grammatically incorrect. Please fix.
Many research groups would refer to these compounds as “inverse metallacrowns” as the compounds contain a M-N-O cyclic repeat unit and bind an anion in the central cavity. Some mention of this and references to appropriate review articles should be included in the introduction.
From the introduction, the following statements need references…
Furthermore, it was observed that these compounds exhibit single-molecule magnet (SMM) behavior.
Several systematic studies of hexanuclear compounds with R-salox2- ligands having different alkyl groups and carboxylate ligands varying in sizes, have corroborated that increasing the volume of the R group in the substituted salox2- anions the fundamental spin state can increase from S = 2 to S = 12, the maximum possible for this kind of hexanuclear systems. [also this sentence needs to be checked for grammatical errors]
Line 172: change “basal” to “equatorial” as this geometry is that of an octahedron and not a square pyramid.
For the sodium ion geometry of 1 and 2, did the authors conduct a SHAPE analysis to determine the geometry? If not this should be done and the results included in the SI. [https://www.ee.ub.edu/continuous-shape-and-symmetry-measures/]
A table in the magnetic discussion with a list of each compound with the torsion angle, expected type of coupling [ferro or antiferro], then the observed coupling, and the corresponding J value would be useful to readers.
The authors should address why they observed ferromagnetic coupling in compounds 5 and 6 when they expected antiferromagnetic coupling based on the torsion angle.
Did the authors study the ac magnetic susceptibility behavior of compound 3? The other Mn6 compounds showed SMM behavior. At least the authors should state why they decided not to study compound 3.
A safety warning should be added to the experimental regarding the use of perchlorates and organic ligands. While none of the synthesized coordination compounds contain perchlorate vigilance should be maintained.
CIF issues..
Ccdc no 2362264: the information for the level A alerts should be included in the CIF
Ccdc no 2362266: why do the calculated and reported formulas differ by four H atoms?
Ccdc no 2362269: why do the calculated and reported formulas differ by eighteen H atoms? Also the 3 reflections affected by the beamstop should be removed from the refinement before a final refinement is completed. Why to the F000 calculated and reported values differ so much?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are minor grammatical and typo errors present in the manuscript but nothing substantial.
Author Response
1. Many of the sentences in the abstract begin with a number. This is grammatically incorrect. Please fix.
1. We have corrected this way of starting sentences in the abstract as the referee suggested.
2. Many research groups would refer to these compounds as “inverse metallacrowns” as the compounds contain a M-N-O cyclic repeat unit and bind an anion in the central cavity. Some mention of this and references to appropriate review articles should be included in the introduction.
2. We have commented the referee's proposed idea and cited some references regarding the “inverse metallacrowns” compounds, we included these references:
Vlahopoulou et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inoche.2011.11.037
J. Stemmle et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/ic00113a005
C. Stamatatos et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/ic050208r
Afrati et al. https://doi.org/10.1021/ic8003257
3. From the introduction, the following statements need references…
Furthermore, it was observed that these compounds exhibit single-molecule magnet (SMM) behavior.
3. The statement indicated by the referee has been referenced.
4. Several systematic studies of hexanuclear compounds with R-salox2- ligands having different alkyl groups and carboxylate ligands varying in sizes, have corroborated that increasing the volume of the R group in the substituted salox2- anions the fundamental spin state can increase from S = 2 to S = 12, the maximum possible for this kind of hexanuclear systems. [also this sentence needs to be checked for grammatical errors]
4. We have revised the sentence and we have adapted it to a suitable one.
5. Line 172: change “basal” to “equatorial” as this geometry is that of an octahedron and not a square pyramid.
5. We modified “basal” by “equatorial”
6. For the sodium ion geometry of 1 and 2, did the authors conduct a SHAPE analysis to determine the geometry? If not this should be done and the results included in the SI. [https://www.ee.ub.edu/continuous-shape-and-symmetry-measures/]
6. We have performed Shape calculations for Na ions in compounds 1 and 2. The results have been reported in the manuscript, and we have adapted the Figure 2 showing the deviations from the ideal polyhedron for each Na ion. The output data of the performed Shape calculation have been collected in table S4 of the SI.
7. A table in the magnetic discussion with a list of each compound with the torsion angle, expected type of coupling [ferro or antiferro], then the observed coupling, and the corresponding J value would be useful to readers.
7. A new table with the parameters and values requested by the referee has been included in the dc magnetic studies paragraph.
8. The authors should address why they observed ferromagnetic coupling in compounds 5 and 6 when they expected antiferromagnetic coupling based on the torsion angle.
8. Compounds 5 and 6 are ferromagnetic because they show two torsion angles greater than 31º (34.7º and 41.9º for 5, and 37.3º and 47.3º for 6), according to the established correlation, these values imply a ferromagnetism behavior.
9. Did the authors study the ac magnetic susceptibility behavior of compound 3? The other Mn6 compounds showed SMM behavior. At least the authors should state why they decided not to study compound 3.
9. The response is no. Even though the XT values of compounds 1-4 do not reach zero value at temperatures (ST ≠ 0), it is important to note that many compounds exhibiting similar antiferromagnetic behaviors to 1-4, did not exhibit SMM behavior. The opposite situation is very rare. Therefore, we have not performed ac measurements for 1-4. However, we consistently conduct these ac measurements for ferromagnetic compounds.
10. A safety warning should be added to the experimental regarding the use of perchlorates and organic ligands. While none of the synthesized coordination compounds contain perchlorate vigilance should be maintained.
10. A warning comment concerning the use of perchlorates and organic ligands, as suggested by the referee, has been added in the 3.2 General Syntheses paragraph.
CIF issues..
11. Ccdc no 2362264: the information for the level A alerts should be included in the CIF
11. The correct cif was submitted again to ccdc database providing the missing information in the previous cif conserving the same code.
12. Ccdc no 2362266: why do the calculated and reported formulas differ by four H atoms?
12. The Structure contains two isolated O atoms as indicated by the moiety formula [C88.4H94.8Mn6N6O25, 1.8(C2H6O), 2(O), H2O], corresponding to solvent water molecules. To have a correct formula, four hydrogens are included in the reported formula, but not in the calculated, this explains the observed difference. This fact is indicated now in the cif file in the “_refine_special_details” as “We haven't calculated the hydrogens from waters O1W and O3W, even so the correspondent hydrogens are included at the chemical formula sum". A new cif was submitted again to the ccdc database conserving the same code.
13. Ccdc no 2362269: why do the calculated and reported formulas differ by eighteen H atoms? Also, the 3 reflections affected by the beamstop should be removed from the refinement before a final refinement is completed. Why to the F000 calculated and reported values differ so much?
13. The cif file with ccdc code 2362269 has been checked; (formula, new refinement has done without the 3 reflections affected by the beamstop and the F000 calculated is the same of the reported). The new cif was submitted again to the ccdc database conserving the same code.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
1. Another reference about manganese (III) cluster complexes derived from R- salicylaldoxime and 9-anthracenecarboxylate ligand, Dalton Trans., 2014, 43, 1965, should be cited.
1. We have added the reference proposed by the referee
2. Line 618, the caption ‘Scheme ’ should be ‘Scheme 4.’.
2. We corrected ‘Scheme 3.’ by ‘Scheme 4’ and we do it the same in the corresponding paragraph.
3. It is somewhat strange that the authors reported six Mn(III) clusters, but only two of the compounds (5 and 6) were reported for ac magnetic susceptibility.
3. We have not performed ac measurements for compounds 1-4, because 1-4 are antiferromagnetic, even though, the XT values of compounds 1-4 do not reach zero value at low temperatures (ST ≠ 0), it is important to note that many compounds exhibiting similar antiferromagnetic behaviors to 1-4, did not exhibit SMM behavior. The opposite situation is very rare. Therefore, we have not performed ac measurements for 1-4. However, we consistently conduct these ac measurements for ferromagnetic compounds.
4. There are too many diagrams, and some related figures or Schemes should be merged or transferred to EI.
4. As the referee suggested, we moved the figures 4 and 6 to the SI. The other ones are visual tools that facilitate the understanding of the written text, so we prefer to keep its in the manuscript.
5. Lines 523-529 should be transferred to 1.4. Compound [Mn6O2(Me-salox)6(9- AC)2(EtOH)4(H2O)2]·0.5H2O (5·0.5H2O) and [Mn6O2(Et-salox)6(9- AC)2(EtOH)4(H2O)2]·3EtOH (6·3EtOH).
5. We moved the paragraph from 523-529 as indicated by the referee, this has involved a small adjustment in the following small paragraph
6. Lines 530-542 be transferred to 2.1. dc magnetic Studies.
6. We moved the paragraph from 530-542 as indicated by the referee, this has involved a small adjustment in the following small paragraph
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author answered all my questions and I agree to accept this paper.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno comments.
