A Dissolving Technique for Thin Platelet Preparation from Bulk Single Crystals

  • Andrew J. Fischinger


Dichroism studies1 of single crystals in electronic spectroscopy of transition metal complexes often require very thin parallel crystal platelets of usually less than 1 mm in thickness. This limitation on thickness arises from the often relatively high molar extinction coefficients, ∈ (ranging from 10 to 103 liter cm−1 mole−1), for spin-allowed Laporte forbidden bands in electronic spectra of transition metal complexes.2 The molar extinction coefficient for single crystals can be defined as ∈ = 2.303 O.D./bc where O.D. is the optical density, b is the thickness of the crystal in centimeters, and c is the concentration in moles per liter (usually in the order of 5 to 10 moles/liter for solid transition metal complexes). Thus to experimentally observe transmission bands in the normal optical density region of 2.0 or less, it is imperative either to dilute the compound by isomorphous doping in a nonabsorbing host crystal or, as is more often the case, to prepare very thin single crystal platelets from the bulk crystal.


Molar Extinction Coefficient Transition Metal Complex Crystal Face Optical Bench Bulk Single Crystal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Absorption of polarized light by a crystal that depends upon the orientation of the crystal with respect to the plane of polarization. cf. A.B.P. Lever, Inorganic Electronic Spectroscopy (Elsevier, New York, 1968), Chap. 6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. S. Hush and R. J. M. Hobbs, Prog. Inorg. Chem. 10, 259 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. L. Belford and J. W. Carmichael, Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 46, 4516 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. J. Fischinger, Doctoral dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, (1970).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Day, A. F. Orchard, A. J. Thompson, and R. J. P. Williams, J. Chem. Phys. 42, 1974 (1965).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. J. Stewart and N. Davidson, J. Chem. Phys. 32, 255 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O. G. Holmes and D. S. McClure, J. Chem. Phys. 26, 1686 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    This implies that the solvent must be of lesser specific gravity than the crystal, which is, indeed, very often the case or can be arranged as such.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. J. Fischinger, J. Chem. Educ. 46, 486 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. K. Prout, R. A. Armstrong, J. R. Carruthers, J. G. Forrest, P. Murray-Rust, and F. J. C. Rossotti, J. Chem. Soc. (A) 2791 (1968).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Care was taken to center the crystal face initially on the quartz disk to effect a level surface for the floating crystal.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Methylene chloride is a faster solvent than chlorobenzene for dissolving Lucite; however, its rapid evaporation cooling cracks the thermally sensitive Cu(methoxyacetate)2.2H2O.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew J. Fischinger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryVassar CollegePoughkeepsieUSA

Personalised recommendations