and 1-pentanol is indicative of their limited complexation in
the layer. The inversion of response between Mi and Mo films,
observed in the case of 1-pentanol, supports the nonspecific
origin of this fluorescence change, which can be attributed to
extra-cavity H-bonding. The high sensor selectivity was
demonstrated by comparing the responses of the Mi and
Mo films to high concentrations of ethanol, acetone, and
hydrocarbons: very low responses were obtained for both
films in the case of acetone, n-pentane, and n-heptane, and for
the Mo film in the case of ethanol (Supporting Information,
Figure S5,S6). Competition experiments between ethanol and
water showed that the low responses of the Mi layer to water
are totally suppressed in the presence of ethanol vapors
(Supporting Information, Figure S7).
In conclusion, this work demonstrates that it is possible to
achieve high selectivity in chemical vapor sensing by harness-
ing the binding specificity of a cavitand receptor. The key
requirement for transferring the molecular recognition prop-
erties from the solid-state to the gas–solid interface is the
selection of the transduction mechanism, which must be
turned on exclusively by the desired complexation mode with
the analyte. In our case, the H-bonding of the alcohol to the
[2] Sensors, A Comprehensive Survey, Vol. 2 (Eds.: W. Gꢀpel, J.
Hesse, J. N. Zemel), VCH, Weinheim, 1991.
613, and references therein.
[5] a) F. C. J. M. Van Veggel in Comprehensive Supramolecular
Chemistry, Vol. 10 (Eds.: J. L. Atwood, J. E. D. Davies, D. D.
MacNicol, F. Vꢀgtle, D. N. Reinhoudt), Pergamon, Oxford, 1996,
pp. 171 – 185; b) F. L. Dickert, U. P. A. Bꢁumler, H. Stathopulos,
[6] a) W. Grate, G. C. Frye in Sensors Update, Vol. 2 (Eds.: H.
Baltes, W. Gꢀpel, J. Hesse), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 1996,
pp. 37 – 83; b) M. Tonezzer, M. Melegari, G. Maggioni, R. Milan,
[7] For the nomenclature adopted for phosphonate cavitands see: R.
[8] R. Pinalli, F. F. Nachtigall, F. Ugozzoli, E. Dalcanale, Angew.
=
P O induces a detectable red-shift of the fluorescence
emission of the 2,6-ANS fluorophore directly linked to the
phosphonate acceptor. The source of selectivity can be
dissected into three components. First, the ubiquitous non-
specific layer adsorption, being luminescence-silent, does not
contribute to the overall response, as it did in QCM devices.[6b]
Second, in the layer the intracavity H-bonding in Mi is highly
favored over the extra-cavity form in Mo or 1, owing to the
cavity free-volume effect. Third, the synergy between CH–p
interactions and H-bonding in Mi leads to a strong bias
toward C1–C4 alcohol detection. The molecular level reso-
lution of this last contribution is outstanding, as it allows the
discrimination of alcohols on the basis of a single methylene
unit difference. In this way, the responses owing to nonspecific
interactions of the analytes and competitive binding by
interferents have been almost completely removed. Although
it is still necessary to improve the characteristics of the
fluorescence moiety to increase sensitivity and the signal-to-
noise ratio, we think that Mi is an important step forward to
the design of more efficient chemical vapor sensors.
As most organic and polymer-based sensors detect
analytes mainly on the basis of polarity,[6a] the approach
described herein is a viable solution to the general problem of
discriminating analytes by chemical class, rather than by
polarity, in vapor sensing. This approach can be extended to
many different classes of organic receptors, thus opening the
way for the rational design of sensor materials as function of
the analytes to be detected.
[9] M. Suman, M. Freddi, C. Massera, F. Ugozzoli, E. Dalcanale,
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 12068 – 12069.
[10] M. Melegari, M. Suman, L. Pirondini, D. Moiani, C. Massera, F.
Ugozzoli, E. Kalenius, P. Vainiotalo, J.-C. Mulatier, J.-P. Dutasta,
[11] a) A. P. de Silva, H. Q. N. Gunaratne, T. Gunnlaugsson, A. J. M.
Huxley, C. P. McCoy, J. T. Rademacher, T. E. Rice, Chem. Rev.
[12] For luminescent organometallic vapochromic sensors, see: C. E.
10011, and references therein.
[13] E. Biavardi, G. Battistini, M. Montalti, R. M. Yebeutchou, L.
=
[14] A Tiiii cavitand with a single P O group functionalized with the
fluorophore and three standard phenyl groups would have lead
to an undesired dilution of the H-bonding perturbation on four
sites, with three of them luminescence silent. On the other hand,
=
a Tiiii cavitand bearing the fluorophore on each P O unit would
have two counter-indications: a likely self-quenching in the solid
state, and a lower DI/I and thus a lower s/n ratio, as only 1/4 of
the signal would change upon complexation.
[15] a) M. Melegari, C. Massera, F. Ugozzoli, E. Dalcanale, Cryst-
EngComm 2010, 12, 2057 – 2059; b) C. Massera, M. Melegari, E.
[16] a) P. Timmerman, H. Boerrigter, W. Verboom, J. G. Van Hum-
Massera, F. Ugozzoli, D. Zuccaccia, A. Macchioni, E. Dalcanale,
Received: January 28, 2011
Published online: April 14, 2011
[17] P. Delangle, J.-C. Mulatier, B. Tinant, J.-P. Dutasta, Eur. J. Org.
Keywords: alcohols · cavitands · chemical vapor sensors ·
.
fluorescence sensors · molecular recognition
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 4654 –4657
ꢀ 2011 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
4657