or aryl PDIs and/or by modification of the “bay” region
(1,6,7,12 positions).10 Most research groups increase solubi-
lity by addition of bulky groups at the imide and fine-tune the
electronic properties by functionalization of the bay region.
Synthetically, however, this methodology has challenges that
need to be addressed.
In 1997, BASF reported a procedure for the bromina-
tionof PTCD 1 atthe 1,7 positionsfollowed byimidization
to afford PDIs of type 3.11 Upon formation of soluble
PDIs, the bay bromines undergo a variety of substitution
and cross-coupling reactions.1a,12 Through this synthetic
route PDIs were incorporated into dendrimers, organo-
gels, and polymers, among others.13 Unfortunately, all
PDI publications prior to 2004 (and even some after) that
reference BASF’s bromination procedure for the synthesis
of 1,7À3 should be regarded as using inseparable mixtures
of 1,6 and 1,7 PDI derivatives.
synthetic handle for appending a myriad of supramolecular
motifs for further self-assembly.18 Following imidization and
bay functionalization, PDIs can be converted back to the
corresponding PTCDs, without losing solubility, for addi-
tional synthetic manipulation. In the quest to facilely obtain
large quantities of pure 1,7 and 1,6 substituted PDIs, we
investigated various neutral bay substituents to facilitate
chromatographic separation of the regioisomers.
The syntheses of all reported compounds began with
commercially available PTCD-1 and are outlined in
Schemes 1 and 2. Imidization of 1 with 3-aminopentane
in imidazole at 140 °C afforded diimide 2 in 88% isolated
yield. Bromination was achieved by heating diimide 2 with
an excess of Br2 (68 equiv) in CH2Cl2 for 48 h.19 Under
these conditions, the authors reported exclusive formation
of 1,7/1,6À3. In our hands, however, both the regioiso-
meric mixture (1,7/1,6À3) (70% yield) and monobromo
4 (28% yield) were formed (Scheme 1). The isolated yield
of 1,7/1,6À3 was increased to 85% and the formation of
monobromo 4 was reduced to 10% by prolonged reaction
times. Pure 1,7À3 was isolated from the mixture follow-
€
In 2004, Wurthner et al. drew attention toward the
regioisomeric impurity of dibromo PDIs (3) and by deduc-
tion, dibromo PTCD.14 Under the brominating conditions
reported by BASF, the two regioisomers are actually
synthesized in a ratio of ∼4:1. Unless the seminal 2004
€
ing Wurthner’s procedure of repetitive recrystallization
€
Wurthner et al. manuscript is referenced or there is pointed
(7 weeks, 24% isolated yield).
To facilitate chromatographic separation,20 we chose
the base stable bulky triphenyl propyne (TPP)21 group for
bay substitution. Standard Sonogashira coupling condi-
tions of 1,6 enriched 1,7/1,6À3 afforded the isomeric mix-
ture of 1,7/1,6À5a in 87% combined yield (Scheme 1).22
1,7À5a and 1,6À5a were easily separated by slow column
chromatography over 7 days in good yield. The first band
isolated was characterized as 1,6À5a (19% yield) and the
second band was characterized as 1,7À5a (58% yield).
Saponification of 1,7À5a or 1,6À5a afforded 1,7À6a or
1,6À6a in 73 or 75% respective yields (Scheme 2).23
It is .known that substitution at the bay region de-
forms the perylene core from planarity and can negatively
mention of removal of the 1,6-PDI impurity, it is difficult
to determine whether or not the regioisomeric “problem”
has been addressed.15
€
Although Wurthner’s method of separation is very
useful, it is also time-consuming (6À8 weeks for pure
1,7À3) and not amenable for separation of large quantities.
Additionally, 1,6À3 cannot be isolated in pure form via the
recrystallization process, and subsequently, little is known
about its individual spectroscopic properties. There are only a
few reports of isolation and characterization of both 1,6 and
1,7 bay substituted PDIs.16 Herein, we present our approach
for the synthesis, isolation and characterization of soluble 1,7
and 1,6 bay substituted derivatives of PDI and PTCD.17
The spectral properties of PDIs change upon bay func-
tionalization but, in solution, are only moderately affected
by imide functionalization.1c The imide is hence an attractive
Scheme 1
€
(11) Bohm, A.; Arms, H.; Henning, G.; Blaschka, P. (BASF AG)
German Pat. DE 19547209 A1, 1997; Chem. Abstr. 1997, 127, 96569g.
(12) (a) Zhao, Y. Tetrahedron Lett. 1999, 19. (b) Rohr, U.; Kohl, C.;
€
Mullen, K.; Van De Craats, A.; Warman, J. J. Mater. Chem. 2001, 11,
1789–1799. (c) Wescott, L. D.; Mattern, D. L. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 68,
10058–10066.
(13) (a) Sugiyasu, K.; Fujita, N.; Shinkai, S. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.
ꢀ
2004, 43, 1229–1233. (b) Serin, J. M.; Brousmiche, D. W.; Frechet,
J. M. J. Chem. Commun. 2002, 2605–2607. (c) Ego, C.; Marsitzky, D.;
€
Becker, S.; Zhang, J.; Grimsdale, A. C.; Mullen, K.; Mackenzie, J. D.;
Silva, C.; Friend, R. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 125, 437–443. (d)
€
Thelakkat, M.; Posch, P.; Schmidt, H.-W. Macromolecules 2001, 34,
€
7441–7447. (e) Wurthner, F.; Thalacker, C.; Diele, S.; Tschierske, C.
Chem.;Eur. J. 2001, 7, 2245–2253.
€
(14) Wurthner, F.; Stepanenko, V.; Chen, Z.; Saha-Moeller, C. R.;
Kocher, N.; Stalke, D. J. Org. Chem. 2004, 69, 7933–7939.
(15) Sivamurugan, V.; Kazlauskas, K.; Jursenas, S.; Gruodis, A.;
Simokaitiene, J.; Grazulevicius, J. V.; Valiyaveettil, S. J. Phys. Chem. B
2010, 114, 1782–1789.
(16) (a) Dubey, R. K.; Efimov, A.; Lemmetyinen, H. Chem. Mater.
2011, 23, 778–788. (b) Fan, L.; Xu, Y.; Tian, H. Tetrahedron Lett. 2005,
46, 4443–4447. (c) Goretzki, G.; Davies, E. S.; Argent, S. P.; Warren,
J. E.; Blake, A. J.; Champness, N. R. Inorg. Chem. 2009, 48, 10264–
10274.
(17) Yuan, Z.; Li, J.; Xiao, Y.; Li, Z.; Qian, X. J. Org. Chem. 2010, 75,
3007–3016.
Org. Lett., Vol. 13, No. 17, 2011
4725