“…The accessibility of 3 MC states opens several deactivation channels other than 3 MLCT photoluminescence, particularly nonradiative deactivation toward reactant and photodegradation through ligand loss processes . However, despite the fundamental importance of understanding their photoreactivity and the vast amount of experimental data collected in recent years, mechanistic details of photosubstitution processes remain unclear. − Such reactions are difficult to model quantitatively as they typically involve several intercrossing electronic states and different time scales, leading to a scarce number of theoretical mechanistic studies on the photoreactivity itself. − Among them, a large majority deals with the early stage of the photosubstitution reaction, i.e., the photolabilization of the departing ligand, while none of them have addressed the detailed mechanism of formation of the solvent-bound photoproduct. In the particular case of a series of [Ru(tpy)(N–N)(Hmte)] 2+ complexes (tpy = 2,2’:6′,2″-terpyridine, N–N = bpy (2,2′-bipyridine), biq (2,2′-biquinoline), dcbpy (6,6′-dichloro-2,2′-bipyridine),dmbpy (6,6′-dimethyl-2,2′-bipyridine), Hmte = 2-methylthioethanol), a recent static DFT study, which focused on the first steps of the mechanism leading to thioether photolabilization, has shown that the quantum yield of photosubstitution can be rationalized by the existence of two successive nearly degenerate triplet metal-centered ( 3 MC) isomers sharing the same electronic structure.…”