ꢀ
Clement et al.
JOCArticle
these semiconducting materials is closely related to the
electronic interactions between the polymer chains in the
solid state, which in turn depends on their supramolecular
organization.4 Indeed, the combination of well-ordered π-
conjugated structures and a homogeneous domain distribu-
tion is required for the formation of highly efficient electro-
nic devices at the macroscopic level. Thus, the rational design
of starting building blocks should impart a highly ordered
pattern to the functional macromolecular organization by a
bottom-up control. Consequently, this process should sig-
nificantly improve the physical properties of new organic
electronic materials. In this context, the supramolecular
concept offers new alternatives for the engineering of such
systems and their integration into cost-effective processes.
The advent of supramolecular chemistry has opened new
perspectives for the fabrication of such functional materials.5
A wide variety of intermolecular noncovalent interactions
(π-π stacking, hydrogen bonding, halogen bonding, or
metal-ligand coordination) has emerged in the supramole-
cular toolbox and represents diverse options at the chemist’s
disposal.6 Extension of these supramolecular concepts to
polymeric materials leads to their self-assembly into con-
trolled supramolecular architectures through recognition
processes.7 Block copolymers are well-known examples of
self-assembling systems, which rely upon microphase separa-
tion of chemically distinct blocks into nanoscale periodic
domains.8 The resulting arrangements depend on the relative
length and incompatibility of the polymer blocks, the con-
nectivity constraints, and the type of interactions.
In the quest for high performance organic materials, the
engineering of well-organized nanodevices is thereby under
development in numerous research groups. In this contribu-
tion, we present the synthesis of 2,5-dibromo-3-styrylthio-
phene and 1-20,50-dibromo-30-thienyl-2-pentafluorophenyl-
ethene and their organization at the molecular scale. π-π
interactions between aromatic rings exert a high level of
control over the crystalline arrangement, which is illustrated
by the conversion of (E)-1-20,50-dibromo-30-thienyl-2-penta-
fluorophenylethene into the corresponding cycloadduct by a
[2 þ 2] photocyclization reaction in the solid state. Subse-
quent polymerizations between the 3-hexylthiophene and
styrylthiophene derivatives have been carried out by the
Grignard metathesis (GRIM) methodology. GRIM is a syn-
thesis method for regioregular aromatic polymers recently
developed by McCullough et al.9 and further modified by
Yokozawa et al.10 One interesting feature of GRIM is its
quasi-living chain growth mechanism,11 which could lead to
the possibility of developing a regioregular block copolymer
with a narrow PDI in one pot. In this study, well-defined dib-
lock structures with self-complementary cores, i.e., poly(3-
hexylthiophene)-b-poly(3-styrylthiophene) (P3HT-b-P3ST)
and poly(3-hexylthiophene)-b-poly(3-20,30,40,50,60-pentafluo-
rostyrylthiophene) (P3HT-b-P3STF), were synthesized via
GRIM polymerization. The incorporation of poly(3-hexyl-
thiophene) (P3HT) blocks is motivated by its remarkable
physical properties, namely, a high hole-mobility supple-
mented by a high solubility in a variety of organic solvents.
These properties have been associated with their molecular
organization in the solid state. Recently, similar π-stacked
molecular assemblies have been reported for polythiophene
with acetylenic side chains or π central systems (fused
thiophene, pyridazine, etc.) leading to a hole mobility larger
than that of P3HT.12 On the basis of these findings, our block
oligomers with the pendant styryl moieties should exhibit a
strong tendency to form a π-stacked molecular arrangement.
This effective supramolecular organization of block oligo-
mers P3HT-b-P3ST and P3HT-b-P3STF by π-π stacking is
demonstrated by concomitant covalent bond formation
under UV irradiation in the solid state, this strategy provid-
ing an indirect evidence of well-ordered structures.
Results and Discussion
Synthesis of the Monomers. 3-Styrylthiophene monomers
2 and 3 were synthesized according to conventional synthetic
routes as illustrated in Scheme 1. A Wittig reaction between
2,5-dibromo-3-thiophenecarboxaldehyde 1 and benzyltri-
phenylphosphonium bromide in the presence of DBU pro-
vides 2,5-dibromo-3-styrylthiophene 2 as a mixture 1.5:1 of
E/Z isomers (Scheme 1).13
1
The amount of Z isomer was determined by H NMR
spectroscopy by integration of peaks at 6.69 and 6.33 ppm
(3JH-H = 12.0 Hz) assigned to the vinylic protons of the cis
isomer, with respect to the doublets at 7.00 and 6.89 ppm
(3JH-H = 16.5 Hz) for the trans double bond. Subsequent
treatment with iodine for 7 days at room temperature
allowed the isomerization into the (E)-2,5-dibromo-3-styryl-
thiophene 2. However, the presence of a residual amount of
Z isomer (95:5 conversion ratio of E/Z olefins 2) required a
further purification by chromatography to give the (E)-
isomer 2 in pure form (Figures S4 and S5 in Supporting
Information). For the fluorinated monomer 3, perfluoro-
benzyltriphenylphosphonium bromide was used as Wittig
(4) (a) Hsu, C.-P. Acc. Chem. Res. 2009, 42, 509–518. (b) Tan, Z.; Hou, J.;
He, Y.; Zhou, E.; Yang, C.; Li, Y. Macromolecules 2007, 40, 1868–1873.
(5) (a) Lehn, J.-M. Supramolecular Chemistry; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim,
1995. (b) Jones, W.; Rao, C. N. R. Supramolecular Organization and Materials
Design; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2002.
(6) (a) Brunsveld, L.; Folmer, B. J. B.; Meijer, E. W.; Sijbesma, R. P.
Chem. Rev. 2001, 101, 4071–4097. (b) Hoeben, F. J. M.; Jonkheijm, P.;
Meijer, E. W.; Schenning, A. P. H. J. Chem. Rev. 2005, 105, 1491–1546. and
references therein. (c) Takeshita, M.; Hayashi, M.; Kadota, S.; Mohammed,
K. H.; Yamato, T. Chem. Commun. 2005, 761–763. (d) Burnworth, M.;
Knapton, D.; Rowan, S. J.; Weder, C. J. Inorg. Organomet. Polym. Mater.
2007, 17, 91–103. (e) Kudernac, T.; Lei, S.; Elemans, J. A. A. W.; Feyter, S. D.
Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 38, 402–421.
(7) Lehn, J.-M. Polym. Int. 2002, 51, 825–839.
(8) Cheng, J. Y.; Ross, C. A.; Smith, H. I.; Thomas, E. L. Adv. Mater.
2006, 18, 2505–2521.
(9) (a) McCullough, R. D. Adv. Mater. 1998, 10, 93–116. (b) Loewe, R. S.;
Ewbank, P. C.; Liu, J.; Zhai, L.; McCullough, R. D. Macromolecules 2001,
34, 4324–4333. (c) Iovu, M. C.; Sheina, E. E.; Gil, R. R.; McCullough, R. D.
Macromolecules 2005, 38, 8649–8656.
(11) Miyakoshi, R.; Yokoyama, A.; Yokozawa, T. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2005, 127, 17542–17547.
(12) (a) Yamamoto, T.; Sato, T.; Lijima, T.; Abe, M.; Fukumuto, H.;
Koizumi, T.; Usui, M.; Nakamura, Y.; Yagi, T.; Tajima, H.; Okada, T.;
Sasaki, S.; Kishida, H.; Nakamura, A.; Fukuda, T.; Emoto, A.; Ushijima,
H.; Kurosaki, C.; Hirota, H. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 2009, 82, 896–909.
(b) McCulloch, I.; Heeney, M.; Bailey, C.; Genevicius, K.; MacDonald, I.;
Shkunov, M.; Sparrowe, D.; Tierney, S.; Wagner, R.; Zhang, W.; Chabinyc,
M. L.; Kline, R. J.; McGehee, M. D.; Toney, M. F. Nat. Mater. 2006, 5, 328–
333. (c) Yuen, J. D.; Dhoot, A. S.; Namdas, E. B.; Coates, N. E.; Heeney, M.;
McCulloch, I.; Moses, D.; Heeger, A. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 14367–
14371. (d) Hamadani, B. H.; Gundlach, D. J.; McCulloch, I.; Heeney, M.
Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 91, 243512. (e) Ohkita, H.; Cook, S.; Astuti, Y.;
Duffy, W.; Tierney, S.; Zhang, W.; Heeney, M.; McCulloch, I.; Nelson, J.;
Bradley, D. D. C.; Durrant, J. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 3030–3042.
(13) Wagner, P.; Ballantyne, A. M.; Jolley, K. W.; Officer, D. L. Tetra-
hedron 2006, 62, 2190–2199.
(10) Yokoyama, A.; Miyakoshi, R.; Yokozawa, T. Macromolecules 2004,
37, 1169–1171.
1562 J. Org. Chem. Vol. 75, No. 5, 2010