Syntheses, structures, two-photon absorption cross-sections and computed second hyperpolarisabilities of quadrupolar A-π-A systems containing E-dimesitylborylethenyl acceptors

Article abstract of DOI:10.1039/b905719f

A series of bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)-substituted arenes, namely arene = 1,4-benzene, 1,4-tetrafluorobenzene, 2,5-thiophene, 1,4-naphthalene, 9,10-anthracene, 4,4′-biphenyl, 2,7-fluorene, 4,4′-E-stilbene, 4,4′-tolan, 5,5′-(2,2′-bithiophene), 1,4-bis(4-phenylethynyl) benzene, 1,4-bis(4-phenylethynyl)tetrafluorobenzene and 5,5″-(2,2′: 5′,2″-terthiophene), have been synthesised via hydroboration of the corresponding diethynylarenes with dimesitylborane. Their absorption and emission maxima, fluorescence lifetimes and quantum yields are reported along with the two-photon absorption (TPA) spectra and TPA cross-sections for the 5,5′-bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)-2,2′-bithiophene and 5,5′-bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)-2,2′:5′,2″- terthiophene derivatives. The TPA cross-section of the latter compound of ca. 1800 GM is the largest yet reported for a 3-coordinate boron compound and is in the range of the largest values measured for quadrupolar compounds with similar conjugation lengths. The X-ray crystal structures of 1,4-benzene, 2,5-thiophene, 4,4′-biphenyl and 5,5″-(2,2′:5′,2″-terthiophene) derivatives indicate π-conjugation along the BCC-arene-CCB chain. Theoretical studies show that the second molecular hyperpolarisabilities, γ, in each series of compounds are generally related to the HOMO energy, which itself increases with increasing donor strength of the spacer. A strong enhancement of γ is predicted as the number of thiophene rings in the spacer increases.

Full text of DOI:10.1039/b905719f

View Article Online / Journal Homepage / Table of Contents for this issue
PAPER
www.rsc.org/materials | Journal of Materials Chemistry
Syntheses, structures, two-photon absorption cross-sections and computed
second hyperpolarisabilities of quadrupolar A–p–A systems containing
E-dimesitylborylethenyl acceptors†‡
a
Christopher D. Entwistle, Jonathan C. Collings, Andreas Steffen, Lars-Olof Palsson, Andrew Beeby,
a
a
a
a
ꢀ
David Albesa-Jove, Jacquelyn M. Burke, Andrei S. Batsanov, Judith A. K. Howard, Jackie A. Mosely,
a
a
a
a
ꢁ a
b
b
c
c
c
*
*
Suk-Yue Poon, Wai-Yeung Wong, Fatima Ibersiene,x Sofiane Fathallah, Abdou Boucekkine,
c
Jean-Franc¸ois Halet and Todd B. Marder
a
*
*
Received 23rd March 2009, Accepted 12th May 2009
First published as an Advance Article on the web 26th June 2009
DOI: 10.1039/b905719f
A series of bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)-substituted arenes, namely arene ¼ 1,4-benzene,
1,4-tetrafluorobenzene, 2,5-thiophene, 1,4-naphthalene, 9,10-anthracene, 4,40-biphenyl, 2,7-fluorene,
4,40-E-stilbene, 4,40-tolan, 5,50-(2,20-bithiophene), 1,4-bis(4-phenylethynyl)benzene, 1,4-bis(4-
phenylethynyl)tetrafluorobenzene and 5,500-(2,20:50,200-terthiophene), have been synthesised via
hydroboration of the corresponding diethynylarenes with dimesitylborane. Their absorption and
emission maxima, fluorescence lifetimes and quantum yields are reported along with the two-photon
absorption (TPA) spectra and TPA cross-sections for the 5,50-bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)-2,20-
bithiophene and 5,50-bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)-2,20:50,200-terthiophene derivatives. The TPA cross-
section of the latter compound of ca. 1800 GM is the largest yet reported for a 3-coordinate boron
compound and is in the range of the largest values measured for quadrupolar compounds with similar
conjugation lengths. The X-ray crystal structures of 1,4-benzene, 2,5-thiophene, 4,40-biphenyl and 5,500-
(2,20:50,200-terthiophene) derivatives indicate p-conjugation along the BC]C–arene–C]CB chain.
Theoretical studies show that the second molecular hyperpolarisabilities, g, in each series of
compounds are generally related to the HOMO energy, which itself increases with increasing donor
strength of the spacer. A strong enhancement of g is predicted as the number of thiophene rings in the
spacer increases.
water, including that present as moisture in the atmosphere. This
can be circumvented through the use of bulky substituents, such
as mesityl (2,4,6-trimethylphenyl) groups, which provide steric
protection for the boron centre. Although it is usually assumed
that two mesityl substituents are necessary to provide air-
stability for extended periods,3 recent work on dibenzoborins
including main-group atoms suggested that only one mesityl
moiety on the boron is sufficient in certain cases,4 which appear
not to require the use of bulkier groups, such as triptyl (2,4,6-
triisopropylphenyl) or supermesityl (2,4,6-tri-tert-butylphenyl),
which have been employed in closely related systems.5,6
Introduction
Three-coordinate boron has many interesting properties, due to
its vacant p-orbital, and can be incorporated into organic
molecules, particularly p-conjugated ones, where it acts as
a p-acceptor, whilst remaining a s-donor.1,2 However, such
boron centres are susceptible to attack by nucleophiles, such as
aDepartment of Chemistry, Durham University, South Road, Durham, UK
DH1 3LE. E-mail: todd.marder@durham.ac.uk; Fax: +44 191 384 4737;
Tel: +44 191 334 2037
bDepartment of Chemistry and Centre for Advanced Luminescence
Materials, Hong Kong Baptist University, Waterloo Road, Kowloon
Tong, Hong Kong, P.R. China. E-mail: rwywong@hkbu.edu.hk
cLaboratoire des Sciences Chimiques de Rennes, UMR 6226 CNRS-
Universiteꢁ de Rennes 1, Avenue du Geꢁneꢁral Leclerc, F-35042, Rennes
cedex, France. E-mail: abdou.boucekkine@univ-rennes1.fr; halet@
univ-rennes1.fr
Early work focused largely on the electrochemistry of such
boron-containing materials, as examined by cyclic voltametry.7
However, in recent years, there has been considerable interest in
the optical properties of three-coordinate boron compounds.
Such materials have been shown to display significant emission
solvatochromism,8,9 as well as substantial second-10,11 and third-
order11d non-linear optical (NLO) coefficients, and inclusion into
coordination networks provides second-order coefficients up to
35 times that of urea.12 Recently, several conjugated molecules
with boron-containing side groups were shown to display very
large Stokes shifts and very high quantum yields, even in the solid
state, which was ascribed to the lack of intermolecular quench-
ing, due to the absence of close packing.13 A number of boron-
containing molecular materials have been shown to exhibit large
† This paper is part of a Journal of Materials Chemistry theme issue on
organic non-linear optical materials. Guest editor: Seth Marder.
‡ Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available: Measured
absorption and emission spectra, computed absorption spectra and
TD_DFT computed electronic transitions for compounds 1j and 1m.
CCDC reference numbers 724814–724818. For ESI and
crystallographic data in CIF or other electronic format see DOI:
10.1039/b905719f.
x On leave from the Laboratoire de Thermodynamique et de
ꢁ
Modelisation Moleculaire, Universite des Sciences et de la Technologie
Houari Boumediene, BP32, El Alia 16111 Bab Ezzouar, Alger, Algeria.
ꢁ
ꢁ
7532 | J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 7532–7544
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009

View Article Online
two-photon absorption (TPA) cross-sections.14,15 Recently, two
three-coordinate boron-containing pyridine systems have been
shown to undergo reversible B–C bond breaking/C–C bond
formation upon irradiation by UV light.16
Additional applications of conjugated three-coordinate
boron-containing materials include use in electron-transport
and/or emissive layers in organic light-emitting diodes
(OLEDs),17–20 or as dopants in non-emissive hosts,21 such as
a boron-substituted phenylpyridyl-based iridium complex which
was found to be an efficient red triplet emitter,21b and as col-
ourimetric or luminescent sensors for anions, most commonly
fluoride ions.22–27
For several years, we have been investigating the properties of
conjugated molecular materials containing dimesitylboryl
groups,1a,b,11,15,21b including those based on the E-dimesitylboryl-
ethenyl motif.11a,d–f These are readily synthesised by hydro-
boration of ethynylarenes with dimesitylborane, which we
recently showed to exhibit a monomer–dimer equilibrium in
solution.28 Whilst this hydroboration reaction usually proceeds
in an anti-Markovnikov manner, we recently observed one
instance of Markovnikov addition in the hydroboration of
2,5-diethynylpyridine.29
Herein, we present details of the synthesis, characterisation,
and optical properties of
a series of bis(E-dimesitylbor-
ylethenyl)arenes: viz., 1,4-bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)benzene
(1a), 1,4-bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)tetrafluorobenzene (1b),
2,5-bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)thiophene (1c), 1,4-bis(E-dime-
Scheme 1 The syntheses of 1a–m.
sitylborylethenyl)naphthalene
(1d),
9,10-bis(E-dimesitylbor-
equivalent of dimesitylborane dimer in dry THF, under an inert
atmosphere, at room temperature, in moderate to good yields as
shown in Scheme 1. Only syn-, anti-Markovnikov mono-
hydroboration occurred owing to the steric hindrance of the two
mesityl groups, as is usually the case. Some of these compounds
undergo discolouration over a period of months if left exposed
to the air. They can be re-purified by filtration through a silica
plug with an appropriate solvent system. The discolouration can
be prevented by storage under an inert atmosphere. We were not
able to obtain satisfactory elemental analyses for 1j and 1m, but
were able to obtain satisfactory accurate mass measurements.
ylethenyl)anthracene (1e), 4,40-bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)biphenyl (1f),
2,7-bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)fluorene (1g), 4,40-bis(E-dimesi-
tylborylethenyl)-E-stilbene (1h), 4,40-bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)tolan
(1i), 5,50-bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)-2,20-bithiophene (1j), 1,4-
bis(4-(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)phenylethynyl)benzene (1k), 1,4-
bis(4-(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)phenylethynyl)tetrafluorobenzene (1l)
and
5,500-bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)-2,20:50,200-terthiophene
(1m). The molecular structures of 1a, 1c, 1f and 1m in the solid
state have been determined via single-crystal X-ray diffraction.
We have previously reported third-order NLO coefficients for
compounds 1a and 1f,11d and the TPA behaviour of 1a, 1b, 1c, 1f,
1g and 1h15a as well as the synthesis and optical properties of the
related compound, 3,6-bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)-N-n-butyl-
carbazole (1n).15c In the current paper, we report a theoretical
study of second molecular hyperpolarisabilities of the series of
boron compounds as well as TPA spectra and cross-sections of 1j
and 1m, which allows a discussion of the increase in TPA as
a function of the number of thienyl units in the linker group.
Crystal structures
Single crystals of 1a were grown by cooling a solution in hexane–
DCM; however, they desolvated within seconds, whereas single
crystals formed overnight from an equimolar solution of 1a and
1,4-bis(N,N-dimethylamino)benzene in hexane–DCM contained
neither solvent nor diamine and were indefinitely air-stable.
Whilst it is clear that the diamine somehow induced crystal-
lisation, the nature of this involvement is unclear, and numerous
attempts to grow crystals of other symmetric bis(dimesitylbor-
ylethenyl)arenes in the presence of various diamines were
unsuccessful. Crystallisation of 1a from toluene produced the
toluene solvate 1a$3PhMe (1a0). Crystals of 1c and 1m were
grown from hexane–DCM solution (1c by refrigeration) and both
contained DCM of crystallisation. Though these crystals des-
olvated rapidly, they could be handled by the oil-drop technique.
Crystals of 1f, obtained by cooling a toluene solution, and con-
taining toluene of crystallisation, desolvated over 10–20 min. It
proved impossible to obtain suitable crystals of any of the other
Results and discussion
Synthesis
The bis(dimesitylborylethenyl)arenes 1a–m were prepared by
hydroboration of 1,4-diethynylbenzene, 1,4-diethynyltetra-
fluorobenzene, 2,5-diethynylthiophene, 1,4-diethynylnaphthalene,
9,10-diethynylanthracene, 4,40-diethynylbiphenyl, 2,7-diethynyl-
fluorene, 4,40-diethynyl-E-stilbene, 4,40-diethynyltolan, 5,50-diethy-
nyl-2,20-bithiophene,
1,4-bis(4-ethenylphenylethynyl)tetrafluorobenzene and 5,500-
diethynyl-2,20:50,200-terthiophene,
respectively, with one
1,4-bis(4-ethenylphenylethynyl)benzene,
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 7532–7544 | 7533

View Article Online
Table 1 Interplanar and torsion angles (ꢀ)a
bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)arenes despite repeated attempts;
cooling solutions resulted in the formation of powders, whereas
solvent evaporation resulted in amorphous films.
BC3/M1
BC3/M2
BC3/En
En/Ar
s
The crystal of solvent-free 1a has one independent molecule in
a general position. In 1a0 the diboryl molecule lies on a crystallo-
graphic inversion centre; of the two crystallographically non-
equivalent toluene molecules, one is disordered between two
overlapping inversion-related positions and the other between
two symmetrically unrelated orientations (also overlapping).
Thus, the asymmetric unit contains half of the host molecule and
3/2of a solvent molecule. The asymmetric unit of 1c comprises two
molecules (i and ii) with substantially different conformations,
and one dichloromethane molecule whose CH2 group is disor-
dered between two positions. Molecule 1f lies on a crystallo-
graphic inversion centre; the structure also contains two
symmetrically non-equivalent toluene molecules, one of which
hascrystallographic twofoldsymmetry andthe other is disordered
between two positions related by a twofold axis. The asymmetric
unit of 1m contains one host molecule, the packing of which leaves
1a
B(1)
B(2)
65.2(1)
66.5(1)
60.2(1)
63.6(1)
47.7(1)
48.4(1)
61.0(1)
65.5(1)
59.2(1)
58.4(1)
48.4(1)
54.9(1)
48.1(1)
52.2(1)
51.7(1)
62.0(1)
57.0(1)
50.8(1)
42.5(1)
53.7(1)
9.6(2)
21.9(2)
13.1(2)
14.6(4)
30.0(2)
24.6(3)
15.1(4)
9.1(3)
13.7(2)
14.1(2)
3.7(2)
2.7(1)
15.2(1)
0.1(2)
3.1(2)
0.8(2)
7.4(2)
4.2(2)
0.5(3)
5.1(2)
6.6(2)
1a0
1c, i
B(1)
B(2)
B(3)
B(4)
7.6(4)
10.2(1)
19.8(2)
1.1(4)
8.1(3)
12.5(1)
3.8(3)
1c, ii
1f
1m
B(1)
B(2)
28.8(1)
23.1(3)
a
s ¼|180ꢀ ꢁ torsion angle B–C]C–C(Ar)|; En ¼ ethene moiety
B–C]C–C(Ar).
˚
Table 2 Average bond distances (A)
B–C(Mes) B–C(En) C]C (En) C(En)–C(Ar)
1a 1.582(2) 1.547(2) 1.3445(18) 1.464(2)
1a0 1.576(2)
1c 1.576(3)
1f 1.584(4)
1m 1.574(3)
x
y
1.400(2) 1.380(2)
1.402(2) 1.379(2)
1.372(3) 1.412(3)
1.386(4) 1.380(4)
1.371(3) 1.415(3)
3
˚
elongated voids around inversion centres (one void of 396 A per
unit cell, which amounts to ca. 16% of the total crystal volume),
filled with chaotically disordered solvent. The estimated30 electron
density in each void totals ca. 112 electrons. From this, we
assumed the void to contain three dichloromethane molecules,
i.e. 3/2 molecule per formula (asymmetric unit), which were
approximated by a set of partially occupied Cl and C positions.
Molecular structures (Fig. 1; selected geometrical parameters
are listed in Table 1 and 2) are consistent with those of mono-
(dimesitylborylethenyl)arenes.11a,f All molecules have E,E-
configurations about the olefinic bonds. Borylethenyl groups
adopt transoid configurations in both pseudo-polymorphs of 1a,
in 1f and in molecule ii of 1c, whereas in molecule i of 1c and in
compound 1m, these groups are cisoid to each other and to the
sulfur atom (in 1c, i) or the adjacent sulfur atom (in 1m). Boron
atoms have trigonal planar geometries. The planes of the two
mesityl rings (M1 and M2, see Fig. 1) and the ethene B–C]C–C
moiety (En) are inclined to the boron trigonal plane (BC3 plane)
1.555(2)
1.552(3)
1.548(4)
1.556(3)
1.346(2) 1.463(2)
1.341(3) 1.447(3)
1.341(4) 1.461(4)
1.345(3) 1.451(3)
in a propeller-like fashion. The BC3/M angles are consistently
large (48–67ꢀ) which must be attributed to intramolecular steric
crowding. Such conformation precludes any efficient stacking
arrangements in the solid state and generally makes compounds
1 very awkward for crystal packing (see Fig. 2 and ref. 11d),
which explains why most of them crystallise as solvates or not at
Fig. 1 Molecular structures of 1a, 1a0 (toluene solvate omitted), 1c (two
independent molecules), 1f and 1m. Thermal ellipsoids are drawn at the
50% probability level. Primed atoms are generated by the inversion centre.
Fig. 2 Crystal packing of 1a0 (omitting the solvent disorder) and 1m,
showing the solvent-occupied cavity.
7534 | J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 7532–7544
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009

View Article Online
all. The link between (and including) the two boron atoms always
remains sufficiently planar for p-conjugation, albeit undergoing
various minor distortions which can be attributed to the
demands of crystal packing rather than any intramolecular
effects. Thus, the BC3/En angle varies widely (9–30ꢀ), even in the
same molecule. The twist between the central arene (Ar) and the
ethene moieties ranges from 3 to 20ꢀ. In some structures, there is
also a small but significant twist around the olefinic bond, which
is as high as 15.2ꢀ in 1a; incidentally, this is the only unsolvated
structure. In 1f, the biphenyl group is rigorously planar. In 1m,
the tri(thiophene) moiety adopts a conformation usual for oli-
gothiophenes:31 roughly planar, with opposite orientations of
adjacent rings (inter-ring dihedral angles T1/T2 6.2ꢀ, T2/T3
10.9ꢀ).
solution. This postulate is corroborated by noting the much
longer wavelength absorption of compound 1g, which contains
the rigidly planar fluorenylene group. The most intense absorp-
tion of compound 1h occurs at a longer wavelength than that of
1i, indicating that conjugation in the stilbenyl system is more
efficient than that in the tolan-based one. The BPEB-based
systems 1k and 1l do not have significantly longer wavelength
absorptions than 1i, again likely due to the distribution of
rotamers present in solution, a phenomenon we have discussed
previously.32 The extinction coefficients of the most intense
absorption maxima of compounds 1a–h are in the range 42 000–
89 000 Mꢁ1 cmꢁ1. They generally increase as the conjugated
system becomes longer.
The fluorescence maxima, upon excitation at 340 nm, are in
the range 406–565 nm. They generally follow a similar pattern to
the absorption maxima. The quantum yields, measured in
hydrocarbon solvents, range from below 0.005 for 1e to 0.38 for
1h. They are generally larger for the extended systems 1h–m, and
have similar values to those measured in DCM solutions. The
quantum yield of compound 1b is almost five times that of 1a,
which must result from its fluorination, and is 1.5 times greater
than in DCM. Compound 1c has a much lower fluorescence
quantum yield, which may be attributable to the presence of the
heavier sulfur atom in the thiophene ring, enhancing the inter-
system crossing rate. The quantum yield of 1e is the lowest, which
could be a result of it being unable to adopt a planar confor-
mation required for efficient fluorescence, due to steric interac-
tion between the vinylic hydrogen and the anthracenyl moiety,
and can be contrasted with the very large quantum yield of 9,10-
bis(dimesitylboryl)anthracene in toluene (0.68).11d The naphtha-
lene-based compound 1d has a quantum yield nearly eight times
larger than that of 1e probably because it is able to achieve
planarity in its cisoid configuration.
Their Stokes shifts range from 700 cmꢁ1 for 1g to 5200 cmꢁ1 for
1e. For some of the compounds which also had their optical
properties measured in DCM solution (1a–c and 1f–h),15a
significant variations in their Stokes shifts with solvent were
observed. For compounds 1a and 1g, this can be explained by
variation of the respective emission intensities and extinction
coefficients of their vibrational bands. Such an explanation
cannot be invoked to explain the solvent-dependent shift in
emission of 1b, in which only one broad band is observed, the
Bond distances do not change significantly with conformation.
As in mono-(dimesitylborylethenyl)arenes,11a,f the B–C(ethenyl)
bonds in 1 are slightly shorter than B–C(mes) (Table 3), which is
probably due to p-delocalisation along the chain, vide infra.
Indeed, the central arene ring in both 1a and 1a0 shows a slight
˚
quinoidal distortion with D ¼ <x> ꢁ <y> ¼ 0.02 A, although D
is insignificant in 1f. The ethenyl group forms a slightly shorter
C–C bond with a thiophene than with a benzene ring; the bonds
˚
between thiophene rings in 1m [1.450(3) and 1.455(3) A] are also
˚
shorter than that between the benzene rings in 1f [1.485(4) A];
however, the B–C and ethenyl (C]C) bond lengths remain
practically identical.
Optical properties
The absorption maxima, extinction coefficients, fluorescence
maxima and quantum yields were measured for compounds 1a–i
and 1k–l in cyclohexane solutions, and 1j and 1m in toluene
solutions. The data are given in Table 3, together with results for
some of the compounds for which spectra had been measured in
DCM solutions for comparison.15a The compounds exhibit
absorption maxima in the range 362–469 nm. The longest
wavelength absorptions are observed for compound 1m, which is
attributed to the better conjugation which occurs in the thienyl
systems. It is notable that compound 1f has a shorter wavelength
maximum than 1a, indicating that the biphenylene group is
effectively less conjugated than the phenylene group. This is
probably a consequence of the distribution of rotamers in
Table 3 Optical properties of 1a–m in cyclohexane solution (unless otherwise stated)a
Compound
lmax (abs)/nm
3/Mꢁ1 cmꢁ1
lmax (em)/nm
Stokes shift/cmꢁ1
F
1a
1b
1c
1d
1e
1f
372 (373)
362 (360)
411
396
436
365 (370)
406 (386)
397 (399)
377
449
380
42 000 (45 000)
47 000 (38 000)
48 000
67 000
70 000
58 000 (52 000)
75 000 (57 000)
83 000 (70 000)
64 000
48 000
89 000
406 (433)
440 (505)
452
454
565
408 (419)
417 (430)
434 (447)
410
506
412
2300 (3700)
4900 (8000)
2200
3200
5200
2900 (3200)
700 (2700)
2200 (2700)
2100
2500
2100
0.015 (0.032)
0.073 (0.045)
0.010
0.038
<0.005
0.054 (0.084)
0.098 (0.043)
0.38 (0.55)
0.22
0.13
0.16
0.21
0.20
1g
1h
1i
1jb
1k
1l
376
469
85 000
51 000
410
537
2200
2700
1mb
a
b
Values obtained in DCM solution given in parentheses (ref. 15a). Measured in toluene solution.
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 7532–7544 | 7535

View Article Online
maximum of which in cyclohexane solution is blue-shifted by
65 nm in the latter, compared to the values obtained in DCM
solution. The very large Stokes shift of 1b in DCM solution
(8000 cmꢁ1) was attributed to a highly reorganised excited state,
possibly a twisted intramolecular charge-transfer (TICT) state.15a
Therefore, it can be assumed that its reorganisation energy is
significantly lower in cyclohexane solution. (Note: the absorption
and emission spectra of 1c were remeasured in DCM and were
found to be very similar to those obtained in cyclohexane. It
would appear that there was an impurity present in the original
samples, leading to an erroneously high energy value previously
reported by us for lmax(abs).)15a In addition, the fluorescence
lifetimes of 1j and 1m were measured in toluene solution and
found to be 0.62 ns and 0.96 ns, respectively. These values are
similar to that of 1n measured in toluene,15c and to the values for
several of these compounds measured in DCM, which, with the
exception of 1b, were all below 1 ns.15a
Two-photon absorption measurements
Two-photon processes are rapidly becoming the focus of much
attention due to their potential applications in laser scanning
microscopy,33 3-D optical data storage,34 localised photody-
namic therapy,35 microfabrication and optical power limita-
tion.36 A comprehensive review of the two-photon properties of
conjugated molecular materials has recently been published.37
The two-photon absorption (TPA) cross-sections, s2, of 1j and
1m were measured in toluene solution, at 5 nm intervals from
750 nm to ca. 930 nm. A plot of TPA cross-section, vs. half of the
excitation wavelength for both 1j and 1m is shown in Fig. 3,
together with their linear absorption spectra for comparison. The
TPA maximum, s2max, of 1j occurs at <750 nm, and is likely to be
>800 GM, which is significantly greater than that reported for 1c
in DCM, which was found to be only ca. 20 GM (although, in
light of the discrepancies found for the previously reported
Fig. 3 Plotsofone-photonabsorptionvs. wavelength(solidlines,left-hand
side and bottom axes) and two-photon absorption cross-section vs. wave-
length (filled squares, right-hand side and top axes) for 1j and 1m in toluene.
absorption and emission spectra of 1c, vide supra, this value may
be inaccurate).15a The s2
3 / LUMO + 1), largely separated in energy from the intense
HOMO–LUMO transition which is computed to occur at 515 nm
in simulated toluene solvent using the PCM model (see Compu-
tational details), corresponding to the experimentally observed
max
of 1m was found to occur at ca.
800 nm and to be ca. 1800 GM. The fact that both of these maxima
occur at significantly shorter wavelengths than twice those of their
respective one-photon absorption maxima indicates excitation to
higher energy states than the S1 state, most likely to S2 which is
consistent with the selection rules for quadrupolar molecules such
as these.38 Indeed, the TD-DFT UV-vis computed spectra of 1j
and 1m (see Fig. S1 and Table S1 in ESI‡) show high energy one-
photon excitations, with lower oscillator strengths than that of the
excitation to the S1 state. The lowest energy absorption involves
mainly a HOMO / LUMO transition (leading to the S1 state)
computed to occur at 561 nm for 1m. This value is significantly
lower in energy than the experimental value of lmax at 469 nm, as
expected. Thus, the computed value is based on a gas-phase
optimised structure which is close to planar, whereas in solution
an ensemble of rotamers is present, vide supra.32 Several higher
energy transitions with low oscillator strengths are computed
around or below 400 nm; HOMO ꢁ 1 / LUMO and HOMO ꢁ 3
/ LUMO transitions at 410 nm (S0 / S2), and HOMO ꢁ 1 /
LUMO + 1 and HOMO ꢁ 2 / LUMO + 1 transitions at 336–331
nm arise for 1m. Similarly, in the case of 1j, high energy one-
photon transitions arise at 413 nm (HOMO ꢁ 2 / LUMO, S0 /
S2) and 316–310 nm (HOMO ꢁ 1 / LUMO + 1 and HOMO ꢁ
absorption band centred at 449 nm.
max
To the best of our knowledge, s2
for 1m represents the
highest value for a boron-containing molecule, significantly
exceeding that of the related compound, E,E-1,4-bis(20-[50-
(dimesitylboryl)thiophen-2-yl]ethenyl)benzene (1340 GM),14d as
well as several bis(dioxaborine) compounds.39 There are only
a few reports on the TPA of thiophene-containing molecules,
although several such molecules, shown in Fig. 4, have been found
to exhibit large s2 values.40,41 Compound A was found to have
max
a s2
value of 2560 GM at 740 nm,40a whereas the related
compounds B and C have s2 values of 3040 GM and 5480 GM,
respectively, at 705nm, and probably even higher values at shorter
wavelengths.40b Interestingly, the related compound D, which
contains terminal thienyl moieties instead of phenylene ones, has
a s2 value of only 850 GM at 705 nm (although again, probably
larger values at lower wavelengths). Compound E was found to
have a s2max value of ca. 3700 GM, which occurs at ca. 650 nm.41
The s2max/MW value for 1m is ca. 2.26 GM, and its s2max/Neff
value, where Neff is the effective number of conjugated elec-
trons,42 is ca. 90 GM, which is larger than the corresponding
7536 | J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 7532–7544
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009

View Article Online
Fig. 4 Structures of thiophene-containing compounds for which TPA
cross-sections have been reported.
values for all of the above compounds, except for C and E, which
have values of 137 GM and ca. 130 GM, respectively. However,
a better method of comparison is to use s2max/Neff2 values, as this
quotient has been found to be relatively constant in systems
composed of similar units, such as dendrimers, a result that is
predicted by a theoretical approach using the Thomas–Kuhn
sum rules.42b The s2max/Neff2 value of 1m is ca. 4.5 GM, which can
be compared with values of ca. 3.4 GM for C (for the largest s2
value observed) and ca. 4.5 GM for E. These results indicate that
the terminally substituted dimesitylborylethenyl-oligothiophene
motif is an excellent one for induction of large TPA cross-
sections, with extended analogues likely to show significantly
higher s2max values.
Fig. 5 Computed bond lengths for compounds 1a–c and 1f. Experi-
mental distances are given in parentheses for 1a, 1c (transoid form ii), 1f,
and 1m.
Computational studies on the molecular and electronic structures
and second hyperpolarisabilities
Semi-empirical calculations at the AM1 level and more sophis-
ticated density functional theory (DFT) calculations (see
Experimental section for computational details) were conducted
on the whole series of compounds 1a–n.
experimentally, some distortion of the aryl rings towards a qui-
˚
noidal structure is computed (D ꢂ 0.03 A).
Both dynamic and static second-order hyperpolarisabilities,
gstat and gTHG (Table 5), have been computed at the AM1 level
for the whole series of symmetrical compounds. Only two
experimental values43 are available, namely for 1a and 1f, which
are 155 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 and 229 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu, respectively, whereas the
computed values are 357 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 and 611 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu. The
agreement between the measured and the computed values is
qualitatively correct.
Their ground state geometries were first optimised at the DFT
level. Pertinent calculated bond lengths for a selected group of
compounds (1a–c, 1f and 1m) representative of the whole set of
compounds studied are given in Fig. 5 and are compared to their
corresponding crystallographically measured values where
available. A rather good agreement is observed between theory
and experiment, with overestimations not larger than a few
Because of their structural similarities, four series of
compounds are considered for discussion. The 1a–1e series of
compounds differs by the nature of the central ring: benzene (1a),
tetrafluorobenzene (1b), thiophene (1c), naphthyl (1d) and
anthryl (1e). The 1f–1i and 1n series includes compounds with
two phenyl rings linked by a single bond (biphenyl, 1f, 1g and
1n), a double bond (stilbene, 1h), and a triple bond (tolan, 1i). We
will add 1a with one phenyl group, and 1k and 1l with three
˚
hundredths of an A. This gives confidence in the computed bond
distances in molecules such as 1b for instance, for which no X-ray
diffraction data are available yet. The nature of the spacer barely
affects the B–C bond distances, which are very similar in all the
˚
compounds considered, ca. 1.56 A. Fluorine substitutions on the
˚
central phenyl do not affect the external C–C bonds (1.46 A
˚
and 1.37 A; compare 1a and 1b in Fig. 5). As observed
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 7532–7544 | 7537

View Article Online
Fig. 6 HOMO and LUMO plots for compounds 1a–n.
7538 | J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 7532–7544 This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009

View Article Online
Table
4
Static (gstat), dynamic (gTHG
)
second-order hyper-
HOMO and LUMO for the whole series, computed at the DFT
level, are shown in Fig. 6. Overall, the LUMOs are highly
delocalised over the boron atoms and the spacer, whereas the
HOMOs are mainly localised on the spacer, except for 1a, 1b and
1f where they are localised on the mesityl groups. HOMO /
LUMO transitions thus represent quadrupolar charge-transfer
from the centres to the ends of the molecules.
polarisabilities (10ꢁ36 esu), HOMO–LUMO gaps (DEHL, eV) and HOMO
energies (EH, eV) computed for the 1a–n series. Experimental values are
given in parentheses where available
Compound
gstat
gTHG
DEHL
EH
1a
1b
1c
1d
1e
1f
1g
1h
1i
1j
1k
1l
1m
1n
205
210
235
217
196
332
362
641
529
530
1031
1160
983
252
357 (155)
385
483
433
535
2.09
2.01
1.83
1.90
1.55
2.14
2.06
1.84
1.97
1.63
1.83
1.83
1.49
2.25
ꢁ5.22
ꢁ5.34
ꢁ5.09
ꢁ5.03
ꢁ4.72
ꢁ5.14
ꢁ5.06
ꢁ4.98
ꢁ5.12
ꢁ4.90
ꢁ5.14
ꢁ4.98
ꢁ4.76
ꢁ4.90
As can be seen in Table 4, HOMO–LUMO gaps are not very
different in the whole series. However, it is noteworthy that
overall HOMO–LUMO energy gaps (DEHL) vary inversely with
gTHG for each series, i.e., the latter becomes larger as DEHL
diminishes, but it is just a crude correlation, which is not strictly
respected in all series. Some deviations are observed. For
example, for the 1a, 1f, 1h, and 1i series, g values vary as g (1a) <
g (1f) < g (1i) < g (1h), whereas the HOMO–LUMO gaps change
as DEHL (1f) > DEHL (1a) > DEHL (1i) > DEHL (1h). The
inversion between 1a and 1f may be related to geometrical
factors. Indeed, 1f, with two phenyl groups, is not fully planar in
the gas-phase optimised structure, due to steric repulsion
between the ortho-hydrogen atoms of the two phenyl neighbours.
The loss of planarity leads to a larger calculated DEHL. It is thus
intriguing that in the experimental solid state structure, vide
supra, the two phenyl rings are coplanar.
611 (229)
757
1418
1053
1528
2231
2752
3812
448
phenyl rings (1k) and two phenyls and one tetrafluorobenzene
ring (1l) to this series. Another series, 1c, 1j and 1m, contains
compounds with one thiophene ring (1c), two thiophene rings
(1j) and three thiophene rings (1m). Indeed, in all of the
ꢂ
compounds, the spacer plays the role of the donor vis-a-vis the
two dimesitylborylethenyl fragments.
More interestingly, we note that the increase in g within each
series of compounds is somewhat related to the HOMO energy,
which itself depends upon the donor strength of the spacer.
Indeed, the higher the HOMO energy is (which increases with
increasing donating capabilities of the spacer), the larger the g
values are, in general.
The calculated second hyperpolarisabilities, gTHG, for the
hydrogenated and fluorinated species are almost equal; gTHG
¼
357 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu and 385 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu for 1a and 1b, respectively.
Replacement of a phenyl ring (1a) by a naphthyl (1d) or an
anthryl (1e) group leads to g values of the same order of
magnitude with a slight increase for gTHG from 1a (357 ꢃ 10ꢁ36
esu) to 1d (433 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu) to 1e (535 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu). Finally, with
thiophene (1c) instead of benzene (1a), a slightly higher gTHG
value is computed (483 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu).
For the 1a–1e series, g (1a) < g (1b) < g (1d) < g (1c) < g (1e)
whereas the energies of the HOMO (EH) vary as EH (tetra-
fluorobenzene, 1b) < EH (benzene, 1a) < EH (thiophene, 1c) ꢂ EH
(naphthyl, 1d) < EH (anthryl, 1e). This is less satisfactory than
that for the 1a, 1f, 1h, and 1i series, g (1a) < g (1f) < g (1i) < g (1h)
< g (1k) but EH (benzene, 1a) < EH (biphenyl, 1f) ¼ EH
(bisphenylethynylbenzene, 1k) ꢂ EH (tolan, 1i) < EH (stilbene,
1h). In the case of the 1c, 1j, and 1m series, we note that the
ranking g (1c) < g (1j) < g (1m) strictly matches that of EH, i.e. EH
(thiophene, 1c) < EH (bithiophene, 1j) < EH (terthiophene, 1m).
More importantly, the magnitude of g is more strongly
dependent on the length of the bridge. A comparison of 1a and 1f
shows that the incorporation of a second phenyl ring roughly
doubles gTHG (357 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 vs. 611 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu). Comparable
values for the related compounds 1g (fluorene) and 1n (carba-
zole) are obtained (757 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu and 448 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu,
respectively). Moreover, the addition of double (1h) or triple (1i)
C–C bonds between the phenyl rings greatly increases the
second-order hyperpolarisabilities (1418 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu and 1053 ꢃ
10ꢁ36 esu, respectively). Interestingly, the second-order hyper-
polarisabilities increase to over 2000 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu upon incorpo-
ration of three phenyl rings (1k) or two phenyl and one
tetrafluorobenzene ring (1l) separated by ethynyl groups (2231 ꢃ
10ꢁ36 esu and 2752 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu, respectively).
Conclusions
A series of bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)arenes have been syn-
thesised via hydroboration of the appropriate diethynylarenes
with dimesitylborane. Theoretical studies show that the increase
of g in each series of compounds is generally related to the
HOMO energy, which itself depends upon the donor strength of
the spacer. The higher the HOMO energy is the larger the g
values are, in general. A strong enhancement of g is predicted
and the TPA cross-sections increase dramatically as the number
of thiophene rings in the spacer increases. The terthiophene
compound, 1m, shows a very large TPA cross-section of ca.
1800 GM.
Increasing the number of thiophene rings in the bridge leads to
a very strong enhancement of gTHG, which rises from 483 ꢃ 10ꢁ36
esu with one ring (1c) to 1528 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu with two rings (1j) to
3812 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu with three rings (1m). We note that the rise is
more dramatic when thiophene units, rather than phenyl groups,
are added in the spacer. For example, gTHG changes from 357 ꢃ
10ꢁ36 esu for 1a (one phenyl) to 2231 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu for 1k (three
phenyls + two ethynyl groups), but goes from 483 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu for
1c (one thiophene) to 3812 ꢃ 10ꢁ36 esu for 1m (three thiophenes).
It is worth considering whether the characteristics of the
HOMO / LUMO excitation affect the g values of these
symmetrical molecules. Energy and nodal properties of the
Experimental
General manipulations and synthetic techniques
All reactions were carried out under an inert atmosphere in an
Innovative Technology System 1 glovebox. THF solvent was
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 7532–7544 | 7539

View Article Online
either distilled under nitrogen from sodium–benzophenone, or
dried and deoxygenated by passage through columns of activated
alumina and R311 catalyst under argon pressure using an
Innovative Technology SPS-400 solvent purification system.
All other solvents were GPR grade and used as
received. Dimesitylborane was prepared according to the
literature procedure.44 The starting materials 1,4-diethynyl-
benzene,45 1,4-diethynyltetrafluorobenzene,46 2,5-diethynylth-
iophene,47 1,4-diethynylnaphthlalene,48 9,10-diethynylanthracene,49
4,40-diethynylbiphenyl,50 2,7-diethynylfluorene,51 4,40-diethynyl-
E-stilbene,52 4,40-diethynyltolan,53 5,50-diethynyl-2,20-bithio-
reactivity of diethynyltetrafluorobenzene towards hydro-
boration. For this reason, an extended reaction time was
required for complete conversion. Similar to the preparation of
1a, a solution of 1,4-diethynyltetrafluorobenzene (0.18 g, 0.91
mmol) in THF (15 ml) was reacted with a solution of dimesi-
tylborane (0.5 g, 2.0 mmol) in THF (25 ml) for 3 d. The yellow
powder was recrystallised from DCM to give 1b (0.55 g, 87%).
(Found: C, 79.25; H, 7.02. Calc. for C46H48B2F4: C, 79.10; H,
6.93%); dH (400 MHz, CDCl3) 7.75 (2H, d, J 18), 7.03 (2H, d, J
18), 6.83 (8H, s), 2.29 (12H, s), 2.17 (24H, s); dC (100 MHz,
CDCl3) 147.8, 145.1 (d, J 260), 141.5, 140.7, 139.1, 135.6, 128.4,
117.4, 23.4, 21.2; dF (188 MHz, CDCl3) ꢁ143.8; m/z (EI) 698
(M+), 578 (ꢁmesitylene), 448.
phene,47
1,4-bis(4-ethynylphenylethynyl)benzene54
and
5,500-diethynyl-2,20:50,200-terthiophene47 were prepared according
to literature procedures. The synthesis of 1,4-bis(4-ethynylphe-
nylethynyl)tetrafluorobenzene will be reported in due course.
NMR experiments were performed in CDCl3, CD2Cl2 or d6-
benzene on a Varian Mercury-200, Inova-500 or Bruker Avance-
2,5-Bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)thiophene 1c. Similar to the
preparation of 1a, a solution of 2,5-diethynylthiophene (0.25 g,
1.9 mmol) in THF (10 ml) and ether (5 ml) was reacted with
a solution of dimesitylborane (1.0 g) in THF (25 ml). Over 12 h,
the solution evolved an intense yellow colour. After removal of
THF, the resulting orange oil was mixed with ether (10 ml), and
hexane (20 ml) was added to precipitate the product as a bright
yellow powder to give 1c (0.44 g, 35%).
1
400 instrument at the following frequencies: H: 200, 400, 500
MHz; 13C: 50, 100 MHz; 11B: 96 MHz and 19F: 188 MHz. Proton
and 13C NMR spectra were referenced to residual protons in the
solvent relative to external SiMe4. 19F NMR spectra were refer-
enced to CFCl3 as the external standard. 11B NMR spectra were
referenced to external BF3$Et2O. All coupling constants, J, are
given in Hz. All 13C NMR spectra are 1H decoupled. Due to the
exceptionally broad nature of peaks in the 11B NMR spectra of
these compounds, it often proved impossible to obtain suitable
spectra. Standard MS (EI) analyses were obtained on a Micro-
mass Autospec in EI operation, except for 1a and 1f, which were
obtained using negative CI with argon gas. Accurate mass
HRMS analyses were performed either by ESI+ on a 0.01 mg
mlꢁ1 solution in DCM–methanol (9 : 1 v/v) using a Thermo-
Finnigan LTQFT spectrometer (1j) or as a powder using an
ASAP probe attached to a Waters LCT spectrometer (1m).
Elemental analyses were carried out on an Exeter Analytical
CE-440 analyzer at Durham University.
(Found: C, 83.45; H, 8.04. Calc. for C44H50B2S: C, 83.55; H,
7.97%); dH (500 MHz, C6D6) 7.28 (4H, m), 6.80 (8H, s), 6.26
(2H, s), 2.29 (24H, s), 2.18 (12H, s); dC (50 MHz, C6D6) 146.7,
144.3, 142.4, 140.7, 139.4, 138.6, 131.2, 128.7, 23.4, 21.1; dB
(96 MHz, CDCl3) 55; m/z (EI) 632 (M+), 512 (ꢁmesitylene).
1,4-Bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)naphthalene 1d. To a solution
of freshly prepared 1,4-diethynylnaphthalene (0.10 g, 0.57 mmol)
in THF (20 ml) was added solid dimesitylborane (0.265 g,
0.57 mmol). The solution was stirred for 2 d before being
concentrated to dryness and washed with hexane (3 ꢃ 10 ml).
The resulting yellow powder was recrystallised from ether to give
1d (0.25 g, 64%).
(Found: C, 88.84; H, 8.10. Calc. for C50H54B2: C, 88.76; H,
8.04%); dH (500 MHz, C6D6) 8.26 (2H, d, J 17), 8.01 (2H, br s),
7.77 (2H, s), 7.64 (2H, d, J 17), 6.94 (2H, br s), 6.83 (8H, s), 2.36
(24H, s), 2.16 (12H, s); dC (100 MHz, C6D6) 148.8, 140.7, 138.6,
128.3, 128.0, 127.5, 127.0, 126.5, 125.7, 124.5, 123.9, 23.5, 21.3;
dB (96 MHz, C6D6) 70; m/z (EI) 676 (M+), 556 (ꢁmesitylene).
Preparation of bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)arenes
1,4-Bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)benzene 1a. To a solution of
1,4-diethynylbenzene (0.12 g, 0.95 mmol) in THF (15 ml) was
added dropwise with rapid stirring, at room temperature,
a solution of dimesitylborane (0.50 g, 2.0 mmol) in THF (25 ml).
The colourless mixture was stirred for 2 h, during which time
a pale yellow colour evolved. GC-MS analysis revealed no sign of
either diethynylbenzene or dimesitylborane. The solvent was
removed in vacuo and residual THF was removed by stirring in
ether followed by removal of solvent in vacuo (3 times), resulting
9,10-Bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)anthracene 1e. Similar to the
preparation of 1a, a solution of freshly recrystallised 9,10-
diethynylanthracene (0.226 g, 1.0 mmol) in THF (25 ml) was
reacted with a solution of dimesitylborane (0.5 g, 2.0 mmol) in
THF (25 ml) for 3 d. Removal of solvent and washing with
hexane (4 ꢃ 15 ml) gave a red–orange powder, which contained
various unidentified impurities (by 1H NMR spectroscopy).
Column chromatography (silica, eluted with 20 : 1 v/v hexane–
acetone) and removal of solvent resulted in an orange powder. It
proved impossible to recrystallise this powder in reasonable
yield.
1
in a pale yellow powder. After checking for purity by H NMR
spectroscopy, the powder was recrystallised from DCM–hexane
as the 1 : 1 DCM solvate to give 1a (0.51 g, 75%).
(Found: C, 79.89; H, 7.55. Calc. for C46H52B2$CH2Cl2: C,
79.40; H, 7.65%); dH (200 MHz, C6D6) 7.53 (2H, d, J 18), 7.34
(2H, d, J 18), 7.18 (4H, s), 6.85 (8H, s), 2.35 (24H, s), 2.20 (12H,
s); dC (50 MHz, C6D6) 152.4, 142.1, 140.7, 138.7, 138.2, 136.0,
128.8, 128.7, 23.5, 21.1; dB (96 MHz, CDCl3) 40; m/z (CIꢁ) 626
(M+), 506 (ꢁmesitylene), 275, 164.
(Found: C, 90.01; H, 8.24. Calc. for C54H56B2: C, 89.26; H,
7.77%); dH (400 MHz, C6D6) 8.16 (4H, m), 8.05(2H, d, J 18), 7.30
(2H, d, J 18), 7.36 (4H, m), 6.79 (8H, s), 2.27 (24H, s), 2.23 (12H,
s); dC (100 MHz, CDCl3) 149.4, 140.9, 138.9, 138.8, 134.3, 134.0,
127.8, 127.3, 127.2, 119.3, 22.4, 21.0; m/z (EI) 726 (M+), 606
(ꢁmesitylene).
1,4-Bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)tetrafluorobenzene 1b. The
electronegativity of the attached fluorine atoms results in a low
7540 | J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 7532–7544
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009

View Article Online
Table 5 Crystallographic data
Compound
1a
1a0
1c
1f
1m
Formula
Formula weight
T/K
C46H52B2
626.50
120
Monoclinic
P21/c (#14)
8.3031(7)
28.945(2)
15.803(1)
90
92.37(1)
90
3794.8(6)
4
C46H52B2$3PhMe
902.90
110
Monoclinic
P21/c (#14)
15.144(2)
11.4882(15)
16.240(2)
90
99.46(2)
90
2787.1(6)
2
C44H50B2S$½CH2Cl2
C52H56B2$2PhMe
886.86
120
Monoclinic
I2/a (#15)
15.354(1)
16.332(1)
21.522(2)
90
90.75(2)
90
5396.3(7)
4
C52H54B2S3$32CH2Cl2
674.98
120
Triclinic
924.14
120
Triclinic
Crystal system
Space group
ꢃ
ꢃ
P1 (#2)
P1 (#2)
˚
a/A
12.479(1)
17.769(2)
18.516(2)
79.05(2)
80.04(2)
78.07(3)
3905.5(7)
4
11.719(1)
12.093(1)
18.175(1)
84.011(3)
78.787(2)
81.317(2)
2490.2(3)
2
˚
b/A
˚
c/A
a/ꢀ
b/ꢀ
g/ꢀ
V/A
Z
3
˚
rcalcd/g cmꢁ3
m/mmꢁ1
2q max/ꢀ
1.097
0.06
60
1.076
0.06
55
1.148
0.18
58
1.092
0.06
55
1.232
0.35
61
Total reflections
Unique reflections
Parameters
Rint
R (F, I>2s(I))
wR (F2, all data)
78 404
11 080
463
28 754
6398
392
48 948
20 654
926
31 814
6191
309
34 061
15 077
607
0.056
0.047
0.141
0.054
0.052
0.142
0.070
0.060
0.168
0.078
0.077
0.228
0.030
0.058
0.175
4,40-Bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)biphenyl 1f. Similar to the
preparation of 1a, a solution of 4,40-diethynylbiphenyl (0.19 g,
0.94 mmol) in THF (15 ml) was reacted with a solution of
dimesitylborane (0.50 g, 2.0 mmol) in THF (25 ml). The pale
yellow powder was recrystallised from DCM–hexane to give 1f
(0.62 g, 90%).
137.6, 136.8, 136.5, 128.0, 127.8, 127.3, 126.1, 22.2, 20.1; m/z (EI)
728 (M+), 608 (ꢁmesitylene), 480, 248.
4,40-Bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)tolan 1i. Similar to the prep-
aration of 1a, a solution of 4,40-diethynyltolan (0.23 g, 1.0 mmol)
in THF (20 ml) was reacted with a solution of dimesitylborane
(0.5 g, 2.0 mmol). The bright yellow powder was recrystallised
from DCM–hexane to give 1i (0.55 g, 75%).
(Found: C, 88.95; H, 8.00. Calc. for C52H56B2: C, 88.89; H,
8.03%); dH (200 MHz, CDCl3) 7.63 (8H, s), 7.46 (2H, d, J 18),
7.18 (2H, d, J 18), 6.86 (8H, s), 2.33 (12H, s), 2.22 (24H, s); dC (50
MHz, C6D6) 151.4, 142.0, 141.4, 140.6, 138.4, 138.2, 137.0, 128.8,
128.5, 128.3, 23.3, 21.1; dB (96 MHz, CDCl3) 46; m/z (CIꢁ) 702
(M+), 582 (ꢁmesitylene), 386.
(Found: C, 89.54; H, 7.95. Calc. for C54H56B2: C, 89.26; H,
7.77%); dH (400 MHz, CDCl3) 7.51 (8H, s), 7.41 (2H, d, J 18),
7.11 (2H, d, J 18), 6.84 (8H, s), 2.31 (12H, s), 2.20 (24H, s); dC
(100 MHz, CDCl3) 151.3, 140.6, 138.6, 137.7, 131.9, 128.3, 128.0,
127.3, 126.9, 124.1, 91.2, 23.3, 21.2; m/z (EI) 726 (M+), 606
(ꢁmesitylene), 248.
2,7-Bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)fluorene 1g. Similar to the
preparation of 1a, a solution of 2,7-diethynylfluorene (0.20 g,
0.94 mmol) in THF (15 ml) was reacted with a solution of
dimesitylborane (0.50 g, 2.0 mmol) in THF (25 ml). The pale
yellow powder was recrystallised from diethyl ether (0.6 g, 86%).
(Found: C, 89.01; H, 8.02. Calc. for C53H56B2: C, 89.08; H,
7.90%); dH (400 MHz, CDCl3) 7.75 (4H, m), 7.57 (2H, m), 7.45
(2H, d, J 18), 7.24 (2H, d, J 18), 6.86 (8H, s), 3.91 (2H, s), 2.33
(12H, s), 2.23 (24H, s); dC (100 MHz, CDCl3) 152.8, 144.4, 142.8,
142.3, 140.6, 138.4, 137.3, 137.0, 128.2, 127.7, 127.0, 124.5, 120.4,
31.6, 23.3, 21.2; m/z (EI) 714 (M+), 594 (ꢁmesitylene), 468, 248.
5,50-Bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)-2,20-bithiophene 1j. A solu-
tion of 5,50-diethynyl-2,20-bithiophene (0.04 g, 0.2 mmol) in THF
(10 ml) was reacted with a solution of dimesitylborane (0.10 g,
0.4 mmol) in THF (25 ml) for 3 d. Removal of solvent with the
assistance of additional ether gave a bright orange powder which
was recrystallised from hexane–ether (2 : 1 v/v) to give 1j (0.04 g,
30%).
dH (400 MHz, CDCl3) 7.24–6.99 (8H, m), 6.82 (8H, s), 2.29
(12H, s), 2.19 (24H, s); dC (100 MHz, CDCl3) 144.2, 144.1, 140.6,
139.5, 138.9, 138.5, 138.0, 130.9, 128.2, 125.3, 23.2, 21.2; m/z
(ESI+) 712.37500 (M+). Calc. for C48H5210B2S2: 712.37637.
4,40-Bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)-E-stilbene 1h. Similar to the
preparation of 1a, a solution of trans-4,40-diethynylstilbene
(0.23 g, 1.0 mmol) in THF (25 ml) was reacted with a solution of
dimesitylborane (0.50 g, 2.0 mmol) in THF (25 ml). The bright
yellow powder was recrystallised from DCM–hexane to give 1h
(0.60 g, 82%).
1,4-Bis(4-(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)phenylethynyl)benzene 1k.
Similar to the preparation of 1a, a solution of 1,4-bis(4-ethy-
nylphenylethynyl)benzene (0.16 g, 0.5 mmol) in THF (15 ml) was
reacted with a solution of dimesitylborane (0.25 g, 1.0 mmol) in
THF (25 ml). The yellow powder was applied to a pad of silica,
and elution with hexane initially, then with DCM, to remove
impurities, and recrystallisation from DCM gave 1k (0.34 g,
84%).
(Found: C, 88.94; H, 7.99. Calc. for C54H58B2: C, 89.01; H,
8.02%); dH (200 MHz, CD2Cl2) 7.46 (8H, s), 7.33 (2H, d, J 18),
7.09 (2H, s), 7.04 (2H, d, J 18), 6.75 (8H, s), 2.21 (12H, s), 2.10
(24H, s); dC (50 MHz, CD2Cl2) 151.1, 141.4, 138.4, 138.2, 137.7,
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 7532–7544 | 7541

View Article Online
(Found: C, 89.86; H, 7.54. Calc. for C62H60B2: C, 90.07; H,
7.31%); dH (400 MHz, CDCl3) 7.51 (12H, s), 7.41 (2H, d, J 18),
7.011 (2H, d, J 18), 6.84 (8H, s), 2.31 (12H, s), 2.20 (24H, s); dC
(100 MHz, CDCl3) 151.2, 142.1, 140.6, 138.6, 137.8, 131.9, 131.6,
128.2, 128.0, 127.3, 124.0, 123.1, 91.4, 90.9, 23.3, 21.2; m/z (EI)
826 (M+), 606 (ꢁmesitylene), 248.
lifetimes were measured by time-correlated single photon
counting (TCSPC) using a 396 nm pulsed laser diode.
Two-photon absorption methodology
Two-photon absorption measurements were performed as
described previously.57 The TPA excitation spectra were calcu-
lated using fluorescein in 0.1 M NaOH as a reference using the
relation:
1,4-Bis(4-(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)phenylethynyl)tetrafluoro-
benzene 1l. Similar to the preparation of 1a, a solution of 1,4-
bis(4-ethynylphenylethynyl)tetrafluorobenzene (0.10 g, 0.5 mmol)
in THF (15 ml) was reacted with a solution of dimesitylborane
(0.25 g, 1.0 mmol) in THF (25 ml). After removal of solvent and
washing with ether, the yellow powder was applied to a pad of
silica, and elution with hexane initially, then with DCM, to
remove impurities, and recrystallisation from DCM gave 1l
(0.34 g, 84%).
sS2ðlexcÞfS
CRnSFSðlem
Þ
Þ
¼
sR2 ðlexcÞfR
CSnRFRðlem
where s2 is the TPA cross-section for sample and reference, f is
the photo-luminescence quantum yield (PLQY), C is the
concentration, n is the refractive index and F(lem) is the corrected
integrated PL spectrum. The TPA values for fluorescein at
various excitation wavelengths have been determined by Albota
et al.58 with the following modification. The TPA cross-section
curve of Albota et al. was extrapolated to 5 nm steps corre-
sponding to the measured spectra of this current work. Each
spectrum was averaged over 10 separate measurements to
accommodate for any fluctuations of the laser excitation source
or local heating in the sample and reference materials.
(Found: C, 83.04; H, 6.59. Calc. for C62H56B2F4: C, 82.86; H,
6.28%); dH (400 MHz, CDCl3) 7.57 (8H, m), 7.46 (2H, d, J 18),
7.12 (2H, d, J, 18), 6.85 (8H, s), 2.32 (12H, s), 2.21 (24H, s); dC
(100 Hz, CDCl3) 150.6, 140.6, 139.0, 132.3, 128.3, 128.0, 127.5,
127.3, 126.9, 122.4, 103.6, 23.3, 21.2; dF (188 MHz, CDCl3)
ꢁ137.4; m/z (EI) 898 (M+), 778 (ꢁmesitylene), 248.
5,500-Bis(E-dimesitylborylethenyl)-2,20:50,200-terthiophene 1m. A
solution of 5,500-diethynyl-2,20:50,200-terthiophene (0.04 g, 0.14
mmol) in THF (10 ml) was reacted with a solution of dimesi-
tylborane (0.07 g, 0.28 mmol) in THF (25 ml) for 3 d. Removal of
solvent with additional ether gave a dark red powder which was
recrystallised from hexane–ether (2 : 1 v/v) to give 1m (0.04 g,
37%).
Computational details
The computed molecular structures were optimised at the BP86/
6-31G* level using the GAUSSIAN 03 package.59 Second
hyperpolarisability calculations were carried out at the AM1
level60 using the linear-scaling semi-empirical program MOPAC
program.61 Dynamic hyperpolarisabilities were calculated at
1907 nm (Zu ¼ 0.65 eV). Representations of the molecular
orbitals were plotted using MOLEKEL4.3.62 Standard TD-DFT
PBE0/6-31G* calculations,63 including solvent effects (toluene)
via the PCM model, have been carried out using the GAUSSIAN
03 package.
dH (400 MHz, CDCl3) 7.13–6.99 (10H, m), 6.82 (8H, s), 2.29
(12H, s), 2.20 (24H, s); dC (100 MHz, CDCl3) 144.3, 143.7, 140.7,
139.4, 138.4, 136.7, 130.9, 128.2, 125.3, 124.7, 23.2, 21.2; m/z
(ASAP+) 794.3651 (M+). Calc. for C52H5410B2S3: 794.3646.
X-Ray crystallography
Acknowledgements
X-Ray diffraction experiments were carried out on Bruker
3-circle diffractometers with CCD area detectors SMART 6K
(1a, 1m) or SMART 1K (1a0, 1c, 1f), using graphite-mono-
T.B.M. thanks One NorthEast for funding under the Nano-
technology UIC program. C.D.E. thanks EPSRC for a student-
ship. W.-Y.W. thanks the Hong Kong Research Grants Council
(HKBU202106) and Hong Kong Baptist University (FRG/08-
09/I-20) for financial support. F.I. thanks the PNE Algerian
program for a doctoral fellowship. We thank Ms J. Dostal for
carrying out the elemental analyses, Dr M. Jones and Ms L.
Turner for performing MS analyses (except HRMS), and Mr L.
Brady of Waters Corporation, UK, for assistance with the LCT
mass spectrometer and ASAP probe. These studies were facili-
tated by travel grants from the Royal Society, UK (T.B.M.), the
CNRS, France (A.B., J.-F.H.) and the Algerian-French program
Tassili-07MDU700 (A.B., J.-F.H., F.I.).
˚
ꢃ
chromated Mo-Ka radiation (l ¼ 0.71073 A) and Cryostream
(Oxford Cryosystems) open-flow N2 cryostats. Crystallographic
data and other experimental parameters are listed in Table 5. The
structures were solved by direct methods and refined by full-
matrix least squares against F2 of all data, using SHELXTL
software,55 packing and solvent content were analysed using
SQUEEZE program of the PLATON software package.56
Optical measurements
UV-vis absorption spectra were obtained using a Hewlett-
Packard 8453 diode array spectrophotometer using standard
1 cm quartz cells. Fluorescence spectra and quantum yields were
obtained using a Fluoromax-3-22 spectrophotometer. Quantum
yields were measured against quinine sulfate in 0.1 M H2SO4
(F ¼ 0.54) and norharmane in 0.1 M H2SO4 (F ¼ 0.58) standards
for all compounds, except 1j and 1m, which were measured
against fluorescein in 0.1 M NaOH (F ¼ 0.9). Fluorescence
References
1 (a) C. D. Entwistle and T. B. Marder, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2002,
41, 2927; (b) C. D. Entwistle and T. B. Marder, Chem. Mater.,
2004, 16, 4574; (c) For the optical properties of benzodiazaboroles
and electronic structures of bis(boryl)bithiophenes, see: L. Weber,
V. Werner, M. A. Fox, T. B. Marder, S. Schwedler, A. Brockhinke,
H.-G. Stammler and B. Neumann, Dalton Trans., 2009, 1339.
7542 | J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 7532–7544
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009

View Article Online
2 S. Yamaguchi and A. Wakamiya, Pure Appl. Chem., 2006, 78, 1413.
€
3 K. Parab, K. Venkatasubbaiah and F. Jakle, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006,
128, 12879.
T. Noda and Y. Shirota, J. Lumin., 2000, 87–89, 116; (d)
Y. Shirota, M. Kinoshita, T. Noda, K. Okumuto and T. Ohara, J.
Am. Chem. Soc., 2000, 122, 11021; (e) M. Kinoshita, N. Fujii,
T. Tsukaki and Y. Shirota, Synth. Met., 2001, 121, 1571; (f)
H. Doi, M. Kinoshita, K. Okumoto and Y. Shirota, Chem. Mater.,
2003, 15, 1080.
4 (a) T. Agou, J. Kobayashi and T. Kawashima, Org. Lett., 2005, 7,
4373; (b) T. Agou, J. Kobayashi and T. Kawashima, Inorg. Chem.,
2006, 45, 9137; (c) T. Agou, J. Kobayashi and T. Kawashima, Org.
Lett., 2006, 8, 2241; (d) T. Agou, J. Kobayashi and T. Kawashima,
Chem.–Eur. J., 2007, 13, 8051; (e) T. Agou, J. Kobayashi and
T. Kawashima, Chem. Commun., 2007, 3024; (f) J. Kobayashi,
K. Kato, T. Agou and T. Kawashima, Chem. Asian J., 2009, 4, 42.
5 S. Kim, K.-H. Song, S. O. Kang and J. Ko, Chem. Commun., 2004, 68.
6 (a) S. Yamaguchi, T. Shirasaka, S. Akiyama and K. Tamao, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 2002, 124, 8816; (b) A. Wakamiya, K. Mishima,
K. Ekawa and S. Yamaguchi, Chem. Commun., 2008, 579.
18 (a) W.-L. Jia, D.-R. Bai, T. McCormick, Q.-D. Liu, M. Motala, R.-
Y. Wang, C. Seward, Y. Tao and S. Wang, Chem.–Eur. J., 2004,
10, 994; (b) W.-L. Jia, X.-D. Feng, D.-R. Bai, Z.-H. Lu, S. Wang
and G. Vamvounis, Chem. Mater., 2005, 17, 164; (c) W.-L. Jia,
M. J. Moran, Y.-Y. Yuan, Z.-H. Lu and S. Wang, J. Mater. Chem.,
2005, 15, 3326; (d) F. Li, W.-L. Jia, S. Wang, Y. Zhao and Z.-
H. Lu, J. Appl. Phys., 2008, 103, 034509.
19 M. Mazzeo, V. Vitale, F. Della Sala, M. Anni, G. Barbarella,
L. Favaretto, G. Sotgui, R. Cingolani and G. Gigli, Adv. Mater.,
2005, 17, 34.
7 (a) W. Kaim and A. Schultz, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl., 1984, 23,
615; (b) A. Schultz and W. Kaim, Chem. Ber., 1989, 122, 1863; (c)
ꢄ
J. Fielder, S. Zalis, A. Klein, F. M. Hornung and W. Kaim, Inorg.
Chem., 1996, 35, 3039.
20 S.-L. Lin, L.-H. Chan, R.-H. Lee, M.-Y. Yen, W.-J. Kuo, C.-T. Chen
and R.-J. Jeng, Adv. Mater., 2008, 20, 1.
8 S. Yamaguchi, T. Shirasaka and K. Tamao, Org. Lett., 2000, 2, 4129.
9 R. Stahl, C. Lambert, C. Kaiser, R. Wortmann and R. Jakober,
Chem.–Eur. J., 2006, 12, 2358.
21 (a) W.-Y. Wong, S.-Y. Poon, M.-F. Lin and W.-K. Wong, Aust.
J. Chem., 2007, 60, 915; (b) G.-J. Zhou, C.-L. Ho, W.-Y. Wong,
Q. Wang, D.-G. Ma, L.-X. Wang, Z. Lin, T. B. Marder and
A. Beeby, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2008, 18, 499.
22 (a) S. Yamaguchi, S. Akiyama and K. Tamao, J. Am. Chem. Soc.,
2001, 123, 11372; (b) S. Yamaguchi, T. Shirasaka, S. Akiyama and
K. Tamao, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2002, 124, 8816; (c) Y. Kubo,
M. Yamamoto, M. Ikeda, M. Takeuchi, S. Shinkai and
S. Yamaguchi, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2003, 42, 2036.
10 (a) M. Lequan, R. M. Lequan and K. Chane-Ching, J. Mater. Chem.,
1991, 1, 997; (b) M. Lequan, R. M. Lequan, K. Chane-Ching,
M. Barzoukas, A. Fort, H. Lahoucine, G. Bravic, D. Chasseau and
J. Gaultier, J. Mater. Chem., 1992, 2, 719; (c) M. Lequan,
R. M. Lequan, K. Chane-Ching, A.-C. Callier, M. Barzoukas and
A. Fort, Adv. Mater. Opt. Electron., 1992, 1, 243; (d) C. Branger,
M. Lequan, R. M. Lequan, M. Barzoukas and A. Fort, J. Mater.
Chem., 1996, 6, 555.
11 (a) Z. Yuan, N. J. Taylor, T. B. Marder, I. D. Williams, S. K. Kurtz
and L.-T. Cheng, J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun., 1990, 1489; (b)
Z. Yuan, N. J. Taylor, T. B. Marder, I. D. Williams, S. K. Kurtz
and L.-T. Cheng, in Organic Materials for Non-Linear Optics II, ed.
R. A. Hann and D. Bloor, RSC, Cambridge, 1991, p. 190; (c)
Z. Yuan, N. J. Taylor, Y. Sun, T. B. Marder, I. D. Williams and
L.-T. Cheng, J. Organomet. Chem., 1993, 449, 27; (d) Z. Yuan,
N. J. Taylor, R. Ramachandran and T. B. Marder, Appl.
Organomet. Chem., 1996, 10, 305; (e) Z. Yuan, J. C. Collings,
N. J. Taylor, T. B. Marder, C. Jardin and J.-F. Halet, J. Solid State
Chem., 2000, 154, 5; (f) Z. Yuan, C. D. Entwistle, J. C. Collings,
ꢁ
23 (a) S. Sole and F. P. Gabbai, Chem. Commun., 2004, 1284; (b)
M. Melaimi and F. P. Gabbai, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2005, 127, 9680;
(c) T. W. Hundall, M. Melaimi and F. P. Gabbai, Org. Lett., 2006,
8, 2747; (d) C. W. Chiu and F. P. Gabbai, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006,
128, 14248; (e) T. W. Hundall and F. P. Gabbai, J. Am. Chem.
Soc., 2007, 129, 11978; (f) M. H. Lee, T. Agou, J. Kobayashi,
T. Kawashima and F. P. Gabbai, Chem. Commun., 2007, 1133; (g)
C. L. Dorsey, P. Jewula, T. W. Hudnall, J. D. Hoefelmeyer,
T. J. Taylor, N. R. Honesty, C. W. Chiu, M. Schulte and
F. P. Gabbai, Dalton Trans., 2008, 4442; (h) C.-W. Chiu, Y. Kim
and F. P. Gabbai, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2009, 131, 60.
24 (a) X.-Y. Liu, D.-R. Bai and S. Wang, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2006,
45, 5475; (b) D.-R. Bai, X.-Y. Liu and S. Wang, Chem.–Eur. J., 2007,
13, 5713; (c) S.-B. Zhao, T. McCormick and S. Wang, Inorg. Chem.,
2007, 46, 10965; (d) S.-B. Zhao, P. Wucher, Z. M. Hudson,
T. M. McCormick, X.-Y. Liu, S. Wang, X.-D. Feng and Z.-H. Lu,
Organometallics, 2008, 27, 6446.
ꢁ
D. Albesa-Jove, A. S. Batsanov, J. A. K. Howard, H. M. Kaiser,
D. E. Kaufmann, S.-Y. Poon, W.-Y. Wong, C. Jardin, S. Fatallah,
A. Boucekkine, J.-F. Halet and T. B. Marder, Chem.–Eur. J., 2006,
12, 2758.
12 Y. Liu, X. Xu, F. Zheng and Y. Cui, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2008, 47,
4538.
13 (a) C.-H. Zhao, A. Wakamiya, Y. Inukai and S. Yamaguchi, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 2006, 128, 15934; (b) A. Wakamiya, K. Mori and
S. Yamaguchi, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2007, 46, 4273; (c) H. Li,
25 (a) M.-S. Yuan, Z.-Q. Liu and Q. Fang, J. Org. Chem., 2007, 72, 7915;
(b) D.-X. Cao, Z.-Q. Liu and G.-Z. Li, Sens. Actuators, B, 2008, 133,
489; (c) Q. Zhao, F.-Y. Li, S. Liu, M.-X. Yu, Z.-Q. Liu, T. Yi and C.-
H. Huang, Inorg. Chem., 2008, 47, 9256; (d) D.-X. Cao, Z.-Q. Liu, G.-
H. Zhang and G.-Z. Li, Dyes Pigm., 2009, 81, 193.
€
K. Sundaraman, K. Venkatasubbaiah and F. Jakle, J. Am. Chem.
26 E. Sakuda, A. Funahashi and N. Kitamura, Inorg. Chem., 2006, 45,
10670.
€
27 G. Zhou, M. Baumgarten and K. Mullen, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2008,
130, 12477.
28 C. D. Entwistle, T. B. Marder, P. S. Smith, J. A. K. Howard,
M. A. Fox and S. A. Mason, J. Organomet. Chem., 2003, 680, 5091.
29 C. D. Entwistle, A. S. Batsanov, J. A. K. Howard, M. A. Fox and
T. B. Marder, Chem. Commun., 2004, 702.
30 P. van der Sluis and A. L. Spek, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Fundam.
Crystallogr., 1990, 46, 194.
31 (a) S. Hotta, M. Goto, R. Azumi, M. Inoue, M. Ichikawa and
Y. Taniguchi, Chem. Mater., 2004, 16, 237; (b) J. Chisaka, M. Lu,
S. Nagamatsu, M. Chikamatsu, Y. Yoshida, M. Goto, R. Azumi,
M. Yamashita and K. Yase, Chem. Mater., 2007, 19, 2694.
32 (a) A. Beeby, K. S. Findlay, P. J. Low and T. B. Marder, J. Am. Chem.
Soc., 2002, 124, 8280; (b) A. Beeby, K. S. Findlay, P. J. Low,
T. B. Marder, P. Matousek, A. W. Parker, S. R. Rutter and
M. Towrie, Chem. Commun., 2003, 2406; (c) A. Beeby,
Soc., 2007, 129, 5792; (d) M. Elbing and G. C. Bazan, Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed., 2008, 47, 834.
14 (a) Z.-Q. Liu, Q. Fang, D. Wang, G. Xue, W.-T. Yu, Z.-S. Shao and
M.-H. Jiang, Chem. Commun., 2002, 2900; (b) Z.-Q. Liu, Q. Fang,
D. Wang, D.-X. Cao, G. Xue, W.-T. Yu and H. Lei, Chem.–Eur.
J., 2003, 9, 5074; (c) D.-X. Cao, Z.-Q. Liu, Q. Fang, G. Xu, G.-
Q. Liu and W.-T. Yu, J. Organomet. Chem., 2004, 689, 2201; (d) Z.-
Q. Liu, Q. Fang, D.-X. Cao, D. Wang and G.-B. Xu, Org. Lett.,
2004, 6, 2933; (e) Z.-Q. Liu, M. Shi, F.-Y. Li, Q. Fang, Z.-H. Chen,
T. Yi and C.-H. Huang, Org. Lett., 2005, 7, 5481; (f) D.-X. Cao,
Z.-Q. Liu, G.-Z. Li, G.-Q. Liu and G.-H. Zhang, J. Mol. Struct.,
2008, 874, 46.
ꢂ
15 (a) M. Charlot, L. Porres, C. D. Entwistle, A. Beeby, T. B. Marder
and M. Blanchard-Desce, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2005, 7, 600;
ꢂ
(b) L. Porres, M. Charlot, C. D. Entwistle, A. Beeby, T. B. Marder
and M. Blanchard-Desce, Proc. SPIE-Int. Soc. Opt. Eng., 2005,
5934, 92; (c) J. C. Collings, S.-Y. Poon, C. Le Droumaguet,
ꢀ
M. Charlot, C. Katan, L.-O. Palsson, A. Beeby, J. A. Mosely,
H. M. Kaiser, D. Kaufmann, W.-Y. Wong, M. Blanchard-Desce
ꢂ
K. S. Findlay, A. E. Goeta, L. Porres, S. R. Rutter and
A. L. Thompson, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2007, 6, 982; (d)
ꢂ
and T. B. Marder, Chem.–Eur. J., 2009, 15, 198.
16 Y.-L. Rao, H. Amarne, S.-B. Zhao, T. M. McCormick, S. Martic,
J. S. Siddle, R. M. Ward, J. C. Collings, S. R. Rutter, L. Porres,
ꢁ
L. Applegarth, A. Beeby, A. S. Batsanov, A. L. Thompson,
J. A. K. Howard, A. Boucekkine, K. Costuas, J.-F. Halet and
T. B. Marder, New J. Chem., 2007, 31, 841.
Y. Sun, R.-Y. Wang and S. Wang, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2008, 130,
12898.
17 (a) T. Noda and Y. Shirota, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1998, 120, 9714; (b)
T. Noda, H. Ogawa and Y. Shirota, Adv. Mater., 1999, 11, 283; (c)
33 W. R. Zipfel, R. M. Williams, R. Christie, A. Y. Nitkin, B. T. Hyman
and W. W. Web, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2003, 100, 7075.
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 7532–7544 | 7543

View Article Online
34 D. R. Larson, W. R. Zipfel, R. M. Williams, S. W. Clark,
M. P. Bruchez, F. W. Wise and W. W. Web, Science, 2003, 300, 1434.
35 J. D. Bhawalker, N. D. Kumar, C. F. Zhao and P. N. Prasad, J. Clin.
Laser Med. Surg., 1997, 15, 201.
36 W. Zhou, S. M. Kuebler, K. L. Braun, T. Yu, J. K. Cammack,
C. K. Ober, J. W. Perry and S. R. Marder, Science, 2002, 296, 1106.
37 G. S. He, L.-S. Tan, Q. Zheng and P. N. Prasad, Chem. Rev., 2008,
108, 1245.
50 L. Liu, S.-Y. Poon and W.-Y. Wong, J. Organomet. Chem., 2005, 690,
5036.
51 (a) J. Lewis, P. R. Raithby and W.-Y. Wong, J. Organomet. Chem.,
1998, 556, 219; (b) W.-Y. Wong, G.-L. Lu, K.-H. Choi and J.-
X. Shi, Macromolecules, 2002, 35, 3506.
52 N. T. Lucas, E. G. A. Notaras, M. P. Cifuentes and M. G. Humphrey,
Organometallics, 2003, 22, 284.
53 C. D. Simpson, J. D. Brand, A. J. Berresheim, L. Przybilla,
ꢁ
38 M. Albota, D. Beljonne, J.-L. Bredas, J. E. Ehrlich, J.-Y. Fu,
A. A. Heikal, S. E. Hess, T. Kogej, M. D. Levin, S. R. Marder,
€
€
H. J. Rader and K. Mullen, Chem.–Eur. J., 2002, 8, 1424.
54 M. S. Khan, A. K. Kakkar, N. J. Long, J. Lewis, P. Raithby,
P. Nguyen, T. B. Marder, F. Wittman and R. H. Friend, J. Mater.
Chem., 1994, 4, 1227.
€
D. McCord-Maughon, J. W. Perry, H. Rockel, M. Rumi,
G. Subramanian, W. W. Webb, X.-L. Wu and C. Xu, Science,
1998, 281, 1653.
39 M. Halik, W. Wenseleers,C.Grasso, F. Stellacci, E. Zojer, S. Barlow,J.-
55 G. M. Sheldrick, SHELXTL, version 6.14; Bruker-Nonius AXS,
Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 2003.
56 A. L. Spek, J. Appl. Crystallogr., 2003, 36, 7.
ꢁ
L. Bredas, J. W. Perry and S. R. Marder, Chem. Commun., 2003, 1490.
ꢀ
40 (a) L. Ventelon, S. Charier, L. Moreaux, J. Mertz and M. Blanchard-
Desce, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2001, 40, 2098; (b) O. Mongin,
57 L.-O. Palsson, R. Pal, B. S. Murray, D. Parker and A. Beeby, Dalton
Trans., 2007, 5726.
ꢂ
L. Porres, M. Charlot, C. Katan and M. Blanchard-Desce, Chem.–
Eur. J., 2007, 13, 1481.
58 M. A. Albota, C. Xu and W. W. Webb, Appl. Opt., 1998, 37, 7352.
59 M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria,
M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, J. A. Montgomery Jr., T. Vreven,
K. N. Kudin, J. C. Burant, J. M. Millam, S. S. Iyengar, J. Tomasi,
V. Barone, B. Mennucci, M. Cossi, G. Scalmani, N. Rega,
G. A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, M. Hada, M. Ehara, K. Toyota,
R. Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y. Honda,
O. Kitao, N. Nakai, M. Klene, X. Li, J. E. Knox, H. P. Hratchian,
J. B. Cross, C. Adamo, J. Jaramillo, R. Gomperts,
R. E. Stratmann, O. Yazyev, A. J. Austin, R. Cammi, C. Pomelli,
J. W. Ochterski, P. Y. Ayala, K. Morokuma, G. A. Voth,
P. Salvador, J. J. Dannenberg, V. G. Zakrzewski, S. Dapprich,
A. D. Daniels, M. C. Strain, O. Farkas, D. K. Malick,
A. D. Rabuck, K. Raghavachari, J. B. Foresman, J. V. Ortiz,
Q. Cui, A. G. Baboul, S. Clifford, J. Ciolowski, B. B. Stefanov,
G. Liu, A. Liahenko, P. Piskorz, I. Komaromi, R. L. Martin,
D. J. Fox, T. Keith, M. A. Al-Laham, C.-Y. Peng,
A. Nanayakkara, M. Challacombe, P. M. W. Gill, B. Johnson,
W. Chen, M. W. Wong, C. Gonzalez and J. A. Pople, GAUSSIAN
03, Revision B.4, Gaussian Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.
41 S. Zheng, L. Beverina, S. Barlow, E. Zojer, J. Fu, L. A. Padilha,
C. Fink, O. Kwon, Y. Yi, Z. Shuai, E. W. Van Stryland,
ꢁ
D. J. Hagan, J.-L. Bredas and S. R. Marder, Chem. Commun.,
2007, 1372.
42 (a) M. G. Kuzyk, J. Chem. Phys., 2003, 119, 8327; (b) J. P. Moreno
and M. G. Kuzyk, J. Chem. Phys., 2005, 123, 194101.
43 For details of the experimental procedures and data analysis which
was employed for the previous measurements11b of gTHG at 1.907
mm, in CHCl3, see: (a) L.-T. Cheng, W. Tam, S. H. Strevenson,
G. R. Meredith, G. Rikken and S. R. Marder, J. Phys. Chem.,
1991, 95, 10631; (b) L.-T. Cheng, W. Tam, S. R. Marder,
A. E. Stiegman, G. Rikken and C. W. Spangler, J. Phys. Chem.,
1991, 95, 10643.
44 A. Pelter, K. Smith and H. C. Brown, Borane Reagents, Academic
Press, London, 1988, p. 429.
45 M. J. Plater, J. P. Sinclair, S. Aiken, T. Gelbrich and
M. B. Hursthouse, Tetrahedron, 2004, 60, 6385.
46 T. X. Neenan and G. M. Whitesides, J. Org. Chem., 1988, 53, 2489.
47 (a) J. Lewis, N. J. Long, P. R. Raithby, G. P. Shields, W.-Y. Wong
and M. Younus, J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans., 1997, 4283; (b)
60 M. J. S. Dewar, E. G. Zoebisch, E. F. Healy and J. J. P. Stewart,
J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1985, 107, 3902.
€
N. Chawdhury, A. Kohler, R. H. Friend, W.-Y. Wong, J. Lewis,
61 (a) J. J. P. Stewart, Int. J. Quantum Chem., 1996, 58, 133; (b)
J. J. P. Stewart, Mopac1997 (Tokyo, Fujitsu Ltd.).
M. Younis, P. R. Raithby, T. C. Corcoran, M. R. A. Al-Mandhary
and M. S. Khan, J. Chem. Phys., 1999, 110, 4963.
48 M. S. Khan, M. R. A. Al-Mandhary, M. K. Al-Suti, F. R. Al-
Battashi, S. Al-Saadi, B. Ahrens, J. K. Bjernemose, M. F. Mahon,
€
€
62 P. Flukiger, H. P. Luthi, S. Portmann and J. Weber, MOLEKEL4.3,
Swiss Center for Scientific Computing, Manno, Switzerland, 2000–
2001. http://www.cscs.ch.
€
P. R. Raithby, M. Younus, N. Chawdhury, A. Kohler,
63 (a) J. P. Perdew, K. Burke and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1996,
77, 3865; (b) J. P. Perdew, K. Burke and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev.
Lett., 1997, 78, 1396; (c) J. P. Perdew, K. Burke and M. Ernzerhof,
Phys. Rev. Lett., 1998, 80, 891; (d) C. Adamo and V. Barone,
J. Chem. Phys., 1999, 110, 6158.
E. A. Marseglia, E. Tedesco, N. Feeder and S. J. Teat, Dalton
Trans., 2004, 2377.
49 W.-Y. Wong, A. W.-M. Lee, C.-K. Wong, G.-L. Lu, H. Zhang, T. Mo
and K.-T. Lam, New J. Chem., 2002, 26, 354.
7544 | J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 7532–7544
This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009