Organometallic derivatives of cyclotriphosphazene as precursors of nanostructured metallic materials: a new solid state method

The cyclic phosphazene trimers [N3P3(OC6H5)5OC5H4N·Ti(Cp)2Cl][PF6] (3), [N3P3(OC6H4CH2CN·Ti(Cp)2Cl)6][PF6]6 (4), [N3P3(OC6H4-But)5(OC6H4CH2CN·Ti(Cp)2Cl)][PF6] (5), [N3P3(OC6H5)5C6H4CH2CN·Ru(Cp)(PPh3)2][PF6] (6), [N3P3(OC6H5)5C6H4CH2CN·Fe(Cp)(dppe)][PF6] (7) and N3P3(OC6H5)5OC5H4N·W(CO)5 (8) were prepared and characterized. As a model, the simple compounds [HOC5H5N·Ti(Cp)2Cl]PF6 (1) and [HOC6H4CH2CN·Ti(Cp)2Cl]PF6 (2) were also prepared and characterized. Pyrolysis of the organometallic cyclic trimers in air yields metallic nanostructured materials, which according to transmission and scanning electron microscopy (TEM/SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray microanalysis (EDX), and IR data, can be formulated as either a metal oxide, metal pyrophosphate or a mixture in some cases, depending on the nature and quantity of the metal, characteristics of the organic spacer and the auxiliary substituent attached to the phosphorus cycle. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) data indicate the formation of small island and striate nanostructures. A plausible formation mechanism which involves the formation of a cyclomatrix is proposed, and the pyrolysis of the organometallic cyclic phosphazene polymer as a new and general method for obtaining metallic nanostructured materials is discussed.

Ireland and the global economic crisis: one island, two different experiences

In this chapter, Ó hAdhmaill argues that responses to the global economic crisis which emerged in 2008 reflected a dominant ideological discourse, with ‘austerity’ being a tool in a wider agenda to reassert neoliberalist thinking in the global economy and welfare provision in the richer countries. In Ireland, North and South, however, the experience of, and responses to, the crisis and ‘austerity’ were different, reflecting different social, economic, and political contexts and influences, as well as different levels of democratic control. Ó hAdhmaill outlines some of these differences and argues that, while democratic control in smaller jurisdictions may be limited by the ‘real rulers’ of the world, global capital, people still have ‘agency’ and do not have to be mere passive observers of unfolding events.