108
M.R. Yazdanbakhsh et al. / Journal of Molecular Liquids 151 (2010) 107–112
Scheme 1. Synthesis of dyes 1–7.
isoxazole and triazole derivatives. This bathocromic shift in absorption
maximum of thiazolyl dyes has been attributed to the existence of
sulfur, either alone or in combination with nitrogen atoms in the
2.2. UV–visible and solvatochromic studies of dyes
For the study electronic absorption spectra, we recorded wavelength
of synthesized dyes in 15 solvents with different polarity at a
concentration of 10−5–10−6 M in the range of 300 to 700 nm. The
results are given in Table 3. The absorption maximum of all dyes except
for dye 6 showed bathochromic shift (positive solvatochromic) in more
polarity solvents such as DMSO and DMF in comparison to solvents with
less polarity characteristics. This effect has been attributed to interaction
of basic solvents with non-bonding electron pair on nitrogen atom of N-
benzyl–N-ethyl–aniline as coupler component that causes extended
conjugation resonance system of dyes. All dyes, specially dye 3 with
electron-donating group on the benzothiazole ring showed a significant
bathocromic shift in acidic solvent (glacial acetic acid) relative to other
investigated solvents in this study. This shift in absorption maximum
can be attributed to the presence of these dyes in hydrazone form as
observed in our previous study on azobenzene dyes [13]. The spectral
shifts of compound 3 in various solvents are shown in Fig. 1. Maximum
wavelength of synthesized dyes showed a regular variation with the
polarity of solvents. As it is apparent in Table 3, all dyes except for dye 6
(r=0.367) exhibit an excellent correlation coefficient (r) for the linear
salvation energy relationship with π* values calculated by Kamlet et al.
in investigated solvents [16]. Therefore, these dyes can be considered as
solvent polarity indicator dyes.
Table 2
Spectral data for dyes (1–7).
Dye IR (cm−1
No.
)
1H NMR (ppm)a
1
2
2880–2980(Aro.–H),
1508(N=N)
1.33(3H, t, J=7.1 Hz, CH3) 3.63(2H, q, J=7.1 Hz,
CH2) 4.70(2H, s, CH2) 6.80(2H, d, J=9.22 Hz, Ar–
H) 7.25(2H, d, J=7.21 Hz, Ar–H) 7.28(1H, d,
J=3.38 Hz, Ar–H) 7.32(1H, t, J=7.31 Hz, Ar–H)
7.38(2H, t, J=7.28 Hz, Ar–H) 7.94(1H, d,
J=3.38 Hz, Ar–H) 7.95(2H, d, J=9.22 Hz, Ar–H)
1.34(3H, t, J=7.1 Hz, CH3) 3.65(2H, q, J=7.1 Hz,
CH2) 4.71(2H, s, CH2) 6.82(2H, d, J=9.25 Hz, Ar–
H) 7.24(2H, d, J=7.24 Hz, Ar–H) 7.32(1H, t,
J=7.28 Hz, Ar–H) 7.39(2H, t, J=7.63 Hz, Ar–H)
7.42(1H, t, J=7.25 Hz, Ar–H) 7.50(1H, t,
J=7.33 Hz, Ar–H) 7.87(1H, d, J=7.75 Hz, Ar–H)
8.0(2H, d, J=9.25 Hz, Ar–H) 8.12(1H, d,
J=7.99 Hz, Ar–H)
2900–2985(Aro.–H),
1510(N=N)
3
4
2885–2995 (Aro.–H),
1495(N=N)
1.34(3H, t, J=7.1 Hz, CH3) 3.64(2H, q, J=7.1 Hz,
CH2) 3.93(3H, s, CH3) 4.73(2H, s, CH2) 6.82(2H, d,
J=9.28 Hz, Ar–H) 7.11(1H, d, J=8.90 Hz, Ar–H)
7.25(2H, d, J=7.25 Hz, Ar–H) 7.30(1H, t,
J=7.26 Hz, Ar–H) 7.34(1H, d, J=8.90 Hz, Ar–H)
7.38(2H, t, J=7.60 Hz, Ar–H) 7.97(2H, d,
J=9.28 Hz, Ar–H) 8.00(1H, s, Ar–H)
1.38(3H, t, J=7.1 Hz, CH3) 3.68(2H, q, J=7.1 Hz,
CH2) 4.77(2H, s, CH2) 6.86(2H, d, J=9.15 Hz, Ar–
H) 7.25(2H, d, J=7.46 Hz, Ar–H) 7.34(1H, t,
J=7.31 Hz, Ar–H) 7.40(2H, t, J=7.20 Hz, Ar–H)
8.02(2H, d, J=9.15 Hz, Ar–H) 8.14(1H, d,
J=8.91 Hz, Ar–H) 8.35(1H, d, J=8.91 Hz, Ar–H)
8.78(1H, s, Ar–H)
In our previous works, we exactly evaluated the substituent effects
on absorption maxima of azobenzene dyes [12,13]. Here, we evaluated
the substituent and extension of resonance system effects on absorption
maximum of synthesized heterocyclic dyes (Table 3). Apparently, in the
series of synthesized heterocyclic azo dyes, thiazole derivatives showed
a higher maximum wavelength relative to the dyes produced from
2900–2995(Aro.–H),
1512(N=N)
5
6
7
2860–2980(Aro.–H),
1505(N=N)
1.20(3H, t, J=7.00 Hz, CH3) 2.45(3H, s, CH3) 3.62
(2H, q, J=7.00 Hz, CH2) 4.73(2H, s, CH2) 6.44(1H,
s, Ar–H) 6.86(2H, d, J=9.24 Hz, Ar–H) 7.24(2H, d,
J=7.25 Hz, Ar–H) 7.26(1H, t, J=7.32 Hz, Ar–H)
7.35(2H, t, J=7.6 Hz, Ar–H) 7.78(2H, d,
J=9.24 Hz, Ar–H)
Table 1
Yield, physical properties and UV–Vis absorption spectra of dyes 1–7.
a
Compounds Color
Mp
(°C)
λmax
υmax
Purification Yield
(nm)
(cm−1
)
(%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Red
134–
136
158–
160
154–
156
160–
162
142–
144
178–
180
126–
128
487
508
512
544
428
441
480
20,533 EtOH/H2O
19,685 EtOH
85
82
81
72
85
91
96
(NH), 1850–1930
1.32(3H, t, J=7.10 Hz, CH3) 3.63(2H, q,
(Aro.–H), 1508(N=N) J=7.10 Hz, CH2) 4.70(2H, s, CH2) 6.80(2H, d,
J=9.13 Hz, Ar–H) 7.25(2H, d, J=7.25 Hz, Ar–H)
7.32(1H, t, J=7.29 Hz, Ar–H) 7.39(2H, t,
Red
Red–violet
19,531 Acetone/
H2O
18,382 Acetone/
H2O
J=7.64 Hz, Ar–H) 7.96(2H, d, J=9.13 Hz, Ar–H)
8.25(1H, s, Ar–H) 13.74(1H, br, NH)
Violet–
green
Orange
2865–2990(Aro.–H),
1508(N=N)
1.35(3H, t, J=7.12 Hz, CH3) 3.65(2H, q,
J=7.12 Hz, CH2) 4.72(2H, s, CH2) 6.83(2H, d,
J=9.18 Hz, Ar–H) 7.26(2H, d, J=7.17 Hz, Ar–H)
7.32(1H, t, J=7.22 Hz, Ar–H) 7.39(2H, t,
J=7.13 Hz, Ar–H) 7.92(2H, d, J=9.18 Hz, Ar–H)
7.95(2H, d, J=9.02 Hz, Ar–H) 8.36(2H, d,
J=9.02 Hz, Ar–H)
23,364 EtOH
Orange
Red
22,675 EtOH
20,833 EtOH/H2O
a
Apparent multiplicity is given and the J coupling constant values have been determined
a
All the UV–Vis spectra were recorded in ethanol.
by first order analysis of the spectra.