by a catalytic amount of fluoride and reacted with
perfluoroarenes,8a or the 2,6-positions of 2c-f were lithiated
with n-BuLi/TMEDA at -78 °C and quenched with per-
fluoroarenes. All BDCs 1 were isolated in analytically pure
form after flash chromatography or in several cases after
simple treatment with methanol.
shifts of 1f and 1h can only be possibly explained by greater
aggregation of the latter.
The effects of substituents and core chalcogen atoms on
LUMO energy levels of 1 were estimated from solution
electrochemical measurements (Table 1). The identity of the
chalcogen atom has little effect on LUMO level (1c/1d versus
1a/1b).12 However, the terminal and central substituents can
significantly affect the LUMO. Alkoxy substituents exert
little or no effect on LUMO levels, and therefore their effect
on Eg is indeed due to destabilization of the HOMO.
Replacement of terminal fluorine atoms (W ) CF) with more
electron-withdrawing CF3 groups consistently lowers the
LUMO level by 0.3-0.4 eV, in agreement with electro-
chemical studies of fluorinated heteroacenes.7a LUMO levels
are estimated to be -2.7, -3.0, and -3.1 eV for 1g, 1h,
and 1l, all bearing identical subsituents on their BDC cores.
Therefore, terminal perfluoropyridine rings (W ) N) exert
a stronger effect on the LUMO level than W ) CCF3.
Substitution of the BDC core with trialkylsilyl acetylenes
lowers LUMO levels by 0.3-0.4 eV compared to compounds
with Y ) H (1a versus 1i, 1b versus 1j and 1k). This and
the effect of terminal CF3 groups are additive here.
Room temperature absorption and photoluminescence
spectra of 1a-l are included in Supporting Information (see
Figure SI2), and relevant data are summarized in Table 1.
All absorption spectra are broad and nearly featureless,
indicating substantial freedom of rotation around the BDC-
πF bonds. As noted for the parent diphenyl BDCs, replace-
ment of S with Se causes a minor absorption red shift.12
Most of the remaining differences in absorption λmax and
optical energy gaps (Eg), estimated from the onset of
absorption, can be explained by tuning of the donor-acceptor
type interaction between electron-rich BDC cores and
electron-poor aryl termini. This behavior is exemplified by
the series 1g f 1h f 1l, bearing perfluorophenyl, perfluo-
rotolyl, and perfluoropyridyl termini with λmax values of 392,
422, and 435 nm. In agreement with a previous study of
fluorinated π-systems,7a replacement of terminal fluorines
with CF3 substituents reduces Eg through preferentially
lowering LUMO energy by 0.3 eV. Alkoxy substituents
destabilize the HOMO by resonance donation (mesomeric)
but have little effect on the Eg via induction, thus inducing
a red shift of 20-30 nm. Trialkylsilylacetylene substituents
decrease the Eg by 0.2-0.3 eV (e.g., 1i/1j vs 1a/1b), similar
to observed and calculated effects13 of these groups on
pentacene. Estimation of frontier orbital energy levels via
electrochemical measurements (see below) indicate that Eg
is modulated by preferential stabilizion of LUMO (trialkyl-
silyl acetylene, πF) or destabilizaion of HOMO (alkoxy) in
a predictable fashion.
One goal here is to force the ring systems of BDCs 1 into
coplanarity and enhance π-stacking, perhaps also leading to
greater dimensionality of the π-stacks. Single-crystal X-ray
analyses revealed that the ring systems of nearly all of the
BDC derivatives 1a-1l are coplanarized (Figure 1). The
exception is 1a, perturbed by intercalation of toluene solvent
molecules into the π-stacks, demanding torsion (51°) between
the BDC core and C6F5 rings to allow commensurate stacking
distances. BDCs 1d and 1k crystallized in motifs similar to
the others, but the diffraction data were of relatively low
quality for small molecules and therefore not included.
Suitable crystals could not be grown from 1c.
No detectable photoluminescence (PL) was observed for
selenophene-based 1c and 1d. This contrasts optical studies12
of the parent 2,6-diphenyl BDCs (X ) S, Se, Te) where it
was only the tellurophene derivative that exhibited no PL.
For the remaining BDCs 1, fairly systematic variation in
Stokes shifts and PL fine structure suggest photoinduced
intramolecular charge transfer states, modulated by electron-
richness of the BDC core (donor) and electron-poorness of
the πF termini (acceptor).14 BDCs 1a, i, j, k without electron-
donating alkoxy substituents exhibit PL with moderate fine
structure and Stokes shifts of 1750-2600 cm-1. BDC 1i with
the least electron-withdrawing πF termini (C6F5) and tri-
alkylsilylacetylene groups (inductively electron-withdrawing)
on the donor yields the smallest Stokes shift and the most
distinct fine structure. The Stokes shifts of BDCs with alkoxy
substituents (greater donor-acceptor character) are ap-
proximately doubled in magnitude, and their PL profiles are
nearly structureless. The discrepancy between the Stokes
Otherwise, all of the new BDCs 1 crystallize into face-to-
face π-stacks with variable degrees of “pitch and roll”15
translation. Face-to-face stacking is enforced by π-πF interac-
tions between overlapping perfluorarene termini and BDC cores
in all cases. All BDCs with CF3 termini, regardless of the steric
or electronic nature of Y, e.g., 1b, (Y ) H), 1f (OC12H25), 1h
(OCH3), and 1j (TIPSCC), pack in slipped stacks along only
one dimension. Their CF3 termini do not cause “large” increases
in the π-stacking distance. The average distances between
π-faces are 3.47 (1b), 3.37 (1f), 3.48 (1h), and 3.33 Å (1j).
Compound 1e without CF3 groups also formed 1-dimensional
slip stacks. Compound 1g with Y ) OCH3 and W ) CF is
one of only two new derivatives that forms slip π-stacks along
two dimensions. One π-stacking axis is defined by four close
contacts (C-S/C-C) per molecule and the other by four C-C
close contacts. The average face-to-face (atom-to-plane) distance
along one stacking axis is 3.33 Å and 3.47 Å along the other.
The packing motif of 1i might loosely be called a 2D π-stack.
One stacking axis is defined by 14 C-C close contacts per
molecule. Along the second axis, two carbons of the C6F5 rings
approach those of others by 3.45 Å, which is slightly greater
(12) Casado, J.; Oliva, M. M.; Delgado, M. C. R.; Ortiz, R. P.; Quirante,
J. J.; Lopez-Navarrete, J. T.; Takimiya, K.; Otsubo, T. J. Phys. Chem. A
2006, 110, 7422–7430.
(13) Maliakal, A.; Raghavachari, K.; Katz, H.; Chandross, E.; Siegrist,
T. Chem. Mater. 2004, 16, 4980–4986.
(14) (a) Fahrni, C. J.; Yang, L.; VanDerveer, D. G. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2003, 125, 3799–3812. (b) Zucchero, A. J.; Wilson, J. M.; Bunz, U. H. F.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 11872–11881.
(15) Curtis, M. D.; Cao, J.; Kampf, J. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126,
4318–4328.
Org. Lett., Vol. 10, No. 20, 2008
4423