A R T I C L E S
Guldi et al.
1
Table 1. Partial H NMR Chemical Shifts (ppm) of 2 and 1 (300 MHz, in C2D2Cl4, 293 K)
a
Arpara-H (P4)
Armeta-H′ (P5)
Armeta-H (P3)
Arortho-H′ (P6)
Arortho-H (P2)
CH2CO2 (S3)
CCH2CH2 (S2a/b)
ArCCH2 (S1a/b)
2
1
4.04
4.10
2.98
3.13
2.41
2.57
-5.12
-4.87
-6.34
-6.09
-3.28
-3.43
-10.17/-9.79
-10.09/-9.74
-18.10/-17.60
-17.96/-17.43
a Ar refers to the phenyl group that is next to the bridgehead carbon in 2 and 1.
protons and carbons outside the C806- cage, on the other hand.13
Finally, the chemical shifts of all protons (2 and 1) depend, in
part, on their geometrical positions relative to the [Ce2]6+ cluster,
which is described by eq 1.14
lecular interactions. Figure 3b and Figure S7c (Supporting
Information) document that within the 6-12 ppm window a
total of 26 1H signals emerged. With the help of 2D-DQFCOSY,
NOESY, and HSQC experiments (i.e., 293 and/or 283 K), all
these 1H signals were unambiguously assigned to the porphyrin
protons (27H).10 The diagnostic NOE correlations between the
methylene protons (S6) and the phenyl protons (5b/5d) of ZnP
were taken as spectroscopic evidence for the linking of the
spacer to ZnP.10 It should be noted that the chemical shifts of
(i) the ꢀ-pyrrole protons, (ii) the ortho-, and (iii) the meta-phenyl
protons of ZnP appear separately. We conclude from the
aforementioned findings the hindered rotations of the ZnP phenyl
groups in the presence of Ce2@C80 and nonequivalent ꢀ-pyrrole
and phenyl protons. Only a close spatial Ce2@Ih-C80/ZnP
proximity, as it is known for several C60/ZnP conjugates,16
would support such a scenario. In this respect, the 2-oxyethyl
butyrate spacer is key to furnish close Ce2@Ih-C80/ZnP contacts.
Notably, C60/ZnP conjugates bearing long and flexible spacers
C(3cos2 θi - 1)
1
T2
δ ) δdia
+
(1)
∑
γi3
i)Ce(1),Ce(2)
Therefore, it is not unexpected that the presence of unpaired
f-electrons (i.e., [Ce2]6+ cluster) evokes distinguished upfield
shifts of the phenyl as well as the methylene protons (2 and 1).
Overall, significant similarities in the chemical shifts (see Table
1) reflect the structural similarity between 2 and 1. Notable is
the separation of the ortho- and meta-phenyl protons at 293 K:
∆δo-ArH ) 1.22 ppm and ∆δm-ArH ) 0.56 ppm (Figure S4 in the
Supporting Information and Figure 3a). The latter implies
rotations of the phenyl groups that are much slower than the
1H NMR time scale. The geminal methylene protons (S1a/b and
S2a/b) adjacent to the quaternary bridge carbon are also affected.
Their chemical shifts differ by ca. 0.5 and 0.4 ppm, respectively,
suggesting different magnetic environments. The overall dif-
ference vanishes, however, as the distance between the meth-
1
give rise to broad and degenerated H NMR signals of ZnP
protons due to their intramolecular flexibility.17 In spite of this
1
flexibility, the well-resolved H NMR spectra of 1 prompt a
rather rigid Ce2@Ih-C80/ZnP conformation. Considering the
previous precedents involving C60, it is safe to assume that the
giant π-system of C806- with highly delocalized negative charges
further augment such structural arrangements.
A molecular model of 1 (see Figure 3c) reveals (i) a folded
conformation, (ii) close C806-/ZnP proximity, and (iii) asym-
metric position of ZnP relative to the Ce-Ce axis.18 Such an
arrangement leads, indeed, to a magnetically and unequivalently
affected ZnP.
6-
ylene/methyl protons and C80 increases. Implicit is that both
the anisotropism of magnetic field imparted by the [Ce2]6+
cluster and the shielding from either the five- or six-membered
rings15 fall off sharply with distance.
Variable-temperature NMR experiments from 283 to 308 K
were performed to dissect possible Ce2@Ih-C80/ZnP intramo-
(13) (a) Wakahara, T.; Kobayashi, J.; Yamada, M.; Maeda, Y.; Tsuchiya,
T.; Okamura, M.; Akasaka, T.; Waelchi, M.; Kobayashi, K.; Nagase,
S.; Kato, T.; Kako, M.; Yamamoto, K.; Kadish, K. M. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2004, 126, 4883–4887. (b) Yamada, M.; Nakahodo, T.; Wakahara,
T.; Tsuchiya, T.; Maeda, Y.; Akasaka, T.; Kako, M.; Yoza, K.; Horn,
E.; Mizorogi, N.; Kobayashi, K.; Nagase, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005,
127, 14570–14571. (c) Yamada, M.; Wakahara, T.; Lian, Y.; Tsuchiya,
T.; Akasaka, T.; Waelchli, M.; Mizorogi, N.; Nagase, S.; Kadish, K. M.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 1400–1401. (d) Yamada, M.; Wakahara,
T.; Tsuchiya, T.; Maeda, Y.; Kako, M.; Akasaka, T.; Yoza, K.; Horn,
E.; Mizorogi, N.; Nagase, S. Chem. Commun. 2008, 558–560.
(14) (a) The chemical shift (δ) of a paramagnetic molecule in solution is
generally expressed as a sum of three contributions, namely, the
diamagnetic (δdia), Fermi contact (δfc), and pseudocontact (δpc) shifts.
Note that δfc makes much less contribution than δpc in the case of
metallofullerene derivatives. The chemical shift (δ) is briefly expressed
as eq 1, where r is the distance between Ce and the NMR-active
nucleus, θ the angle between the r vector and the vertical axis on
which the two Ce atoms are located, and C is a common constant. (b)
Bleaney, B. J. Magn. Reson. 1972, 8, 91–100. (c) Yamada, M.;
Okamura, M.; Sato, S.; Someya, C.; Mizorogi, N.; Tsuchiya, T.;
Akasaka, T.; Kato, T.; Nagase, S. Chem.sEur. J. 2009, 15, 10533–
10542.
Electronic Ce2@Ih-C80/ZnP interactions were also inferred
from the electronic absorption spectra. Although the Soret band
absorption in 1 (i.e., 426 nm) is quite close to that seen in the
corresponding C60-ZnP electron donor-acceptor system 3 (i.e.,
428 nm),10 remarkable changes evolve in range of the Q-band
absorptions of 1 (i.e., 555 and 594 nm) and 3 (i.e., 551 and 588
nm). Such shifts are particularly helpful because they emerge
as sensitive markers for determining the C806-/ZnP electronic
19
coupling of 400 ( 30 cm-1
.
Less pronounced are the differences in the electrochemical
assays. Overall, the redox potentials of Ce2@Ih-C80 1 and 2 are
quite similar (see Table 2). According to DFT calculations, the
LUMO (splitting at -4.50 and -4.01 eV) and HOMO (-5.38
eV) in Ce2@Ih-C80 involve [Ce2]6+ and C806-, respectively.8b
This places the first/second reduction potential at -0.36/-1.67
V (Ce2@Ih-C80) and -0.42/-1.75 V (2) on [Ce2]6+. Oxidation
(15) (a) Haddon, R. C. Nature 1995, 378, 249–255. (b) Saunder, S M.;
Cross, R. J.; Jime´nez-Va´zquez, H. A.; Shimshi, R.; Khong, A. Science
1996, 271, 1693–1697.
(17) (a) Dietel, E.; Hirsch, A.; Zhou, J.; Rieker, A. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin
Trans. 2 1998, 1357–1364. (b) MacMahon, S.; Wilson, S. R.; Schuster,
D. I. Proc. Elec. Chem. Soc. 2000, 8, 155–160. (c) MacMahon, S.;
Fong, R.; Baran, P. S.; Safonov, I.; Wilson, S. R.; Schuster, D. I. J.
Org. Chem. 2001, 66, 5449–5455.
(16) (a) Imahori, H.; Hagiwara, K.; Aoki, M.; Akiyama, T.; Taniguchi, S.;
Okada, T.; Shirakawa, M.; Sakata, Y. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118,
11771–11782. (b) Boyd, P. D. W.; Hodgson, M. C.; Rickard, C. E. F.;
Oliver, A. G.; Chaker, L.; Brothers, P. J.; Bolskar, R. D.; Tham, F. S.;
Reed, C. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 10487–10495. (c) Schuster,
D. I. Carbon 2000, 38, 1607–1614. (d) Schuster, D. I.; Jarowski, P. D.;
Kirschner, A. N.; Wilson, S. R. J. Mater. Chem. 2002, 12, 2041–
2047. (e) Pe´rez, E. M.; Mart´ın, N. Chem. Soc. ReV. 2008, 37, 1512–
1519. (f) Lembo, A.; Tagliatesta, P.; Cicero, D.; Leoni, A.; Salvatori,
A. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2009, 7, 1093–1096.
(18) Molecular model of 1 shows an energy minimized structure obtained
with simulated annealing plus geometry optimization using the Forcite
of MS modeling. The Ce2@Ih-C80 atomic positions are imported from
the X-ray structure of 2 and kept fixed during the modeling.
(19) Guldi, D. M.; Hirsch, A.; Scheloske, M.; Dietel, E.; Troisi, A.; Zerbetto,
F.; Prato, M. Chem.sEur. J. 2003, 9, 4968–4979.
9
9080 J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 132, NO. 26, 2010