2184
A. R. Jennings, D. Y. Son / Tetrahedron Letters 53 (2012) 2181–2184
Table 2
thiourea groups could be achieved with acetate, resulting in com-
plex formation through the thioureido anion and the neutral acid.
After forming a hydrogen bond complex with fluoride, complete
deprotonation was achieved which resulted in the formation of
the stable HFÀ2 self complex. The 1H NMR titrations showed that
2 interacted with chloride, dihydrogen phosphate, and acetate
through hydrogen bonding. Deprotonation of 2 with dihydrogen
phosphate and acetate was also observed.
Binding constants for 2 determined from 1H NMR spectroscopic data
a
b
Anion
LogK11
LogK12
Dihydrogen phosphate
Acetate
Chloride
3.00
2.20
1.40
NAc
5.62
4.61
Fluoride
a
b
c
Refers to a 1:1 host:guest binding mode.
Refers to a 1:2 host:guest binding mode.
1H NMR spectroscopy could not be used to determine the binding constant.
Acknowledgment
Upon addition of more than 1 equiv of fluoride, the –NH– resonances of 2 are
undetectable.
The authors thank the Southern Methodist University for sup-
port of this work.
as more equivalents of the anion are added.7,22,26 Similar trends
were seen for the titration of 2 with dihydrogen phosphate and
acetate; however these changes were more dramatic (see Supple-
mentary data). Upon the addition of more than two equivalents
of anion in the titration of 2 with dihydrogen phosphate and ace-
tate, the resonance for the more acidic –NH–, –NHB–, is only
detectable when the spectrum is magnified. Moreover, this reso-
nance no longer integrates for the three protons, implying that
deprotonation is occurring in the 1H NMR experiment.6,20,26
Using the data obtained from the 1H NMR spectral titrations,
binding constants were determined using HypNMR2008 (Table 2).25
There is a difference between the binding constants that were
determined for dihydrogen phosphate and acetate using the UV–
vis and 1H NMR data. This could be attributed to a number of factors
including, oligomerization, self aggregation, and self complex
formation.5,6 Having ruled out the possibility of intermolecular
hydrogen bonding for 2, the variations in the constants are believed
to be due to self complex formation, HXÀ2 .5 The 1H NMR experi-
ments are performed at concentrations two orders of magnitude
greater than the UV–vis titrations. With a higher concentration of
anion present, self complex formation would occur more readily
than in the UV–vis experiments. There would thus be less anion
available to bind with 2, yielding lower binding constants. This
would also explain why the deprotonation of 2 by dihydrogen
phosphate was observed in the 1H NMR experiment and not in
the UV–vis titration.
Supplementary data
Supplementary data (complete experimental and characteriza-
tion details for compound 2; 1H and 13C NMR spectra and elemen-
tal analysis) associated with this article can be found, in the online
References and notes
1. Wenzel, M.; Hiscock, J. R.; Gale, P. A. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41, 480.
2. Martínez-García, H.; Morales, D.; Pérez, J.; Coady, D. J.; Bielawski, C. W.; Gross,
D. E.; Cuesta, L.; Marquez, M.; Sessler, J. L. Organometallics 2007, 26, 6511.
3. Carroll, C. N.; Naleway, J. J.; Haley, M. M.; Johnson, D. W. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2010,
39, 3875.
4. Ertul, Sß.; Bayrakcı, M.; Yilmaz, M. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 181, 1059.
5. Hisaki, I.; Sasaki, S-i.; Hirose, K.; Tobe, Y. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2007, 2007, 607.
6. Lowe, A. J.; Dyson, G. A.; Pfeffer, F. M. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2008, 2008, 1559.
7. Boiocchi, M.; Del Boca, L.; Esteban-Gómez, D.; Fabbrizzi, L.; Licchelli, M.;
Monzani, E. Chem. Eur. J. 2005, 11, 3097.
8. Boiocchi, M.; Del Boca, L.; Gómez, D. E.; Fabbrizzi, L.; Licchelli, M.; Monzani, E. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 16507.
9. Tobe, Y.; Sasaki, S.; Mizuno, M.; Naemura, K. Chem. Inform. 1998, 29.
10. Gupta, V. K.; Ludwig, R.; Agarwal, S. Anal. Chim. Acta 2005, 538, 213.
11. Turner, D. R.; Paterson, M. J.; Steed, J. W. J. Org. Chem. 2006, 71, 1598.
12. Bordwell, F. G. Acc. Chem. Res. 1988, 21, 456.
13. Rim, C.; Lahey, L.; Patel, V.; Zhang, H.; Son, D. Tetrahedron Lett. 2009, 50, 745.
14. Choi, C. S.; Santoro, A.; Marinkas, P. L. Acta Crystallogr., B 1975, 31, 2934.
15. Ogawa, K.; Yoshimura, S.; Takeuchi, Y.; Katritzky, A.; Murugan, R. Acta
Crystallogr., C 1992, 48, 1071.
16. Ladhar, F.; BenSalah, A.; Declercq, J. P. Bull. Soc. Chim. Belg. 1996, 105, 463.
17. Seong, H. R.; Kim, D-S.; Kim, S-G.; Choi, H-J.; Ahn, K. H. Tetrahedron Lett. 2004,
45, 723.
18. Sasaki, S-i.; Citterio, D.; Ozawa, S.; Suzuki, K. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 2001,
2309.
Conclusion
19. Fielding, L. Tetrahedron 2000, 56, 6151.
In summary, we have designed an efficient synthesis for a col-
orimetric preorganized tripodal thiourea anion receptor. This com-
pound shows a selective coloration upon binding with dihydrogen
phosphate, acetate, and fluoride ions. Moreover, 2 binds non-
spherical ions with a 1:2 binding stoichiometry, but can bind
spherical ions cooperatively with all three arms. Based on UV–vis
spectroscopic studies, 2 was found to interact with dihydrogen
phosphate through hydrogen bonding. Deprotonation of the
20. Misra, A.; Shahid, M.; Dwivedi, P. Talanta 2009, 80, 532.
21. Dang, N. T.; Park, J-J.; Jang, S-M.; Kang, J-M. Bull. Korean Chem. Soc. 2010, 31,
1204.
22. Bonizzoni, M.; Fabbrizzi, L.; Taglietti, A.; Tiengo, F. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2006, 2006,
3567.
23. Esteban-Gómez, D.; Fabbrizzi, L.; Licchelli, M. J. Org. Chem. 2005, 70, 5717.
24. Gómez, D. E.; Fabbrizzi, L.; Licchelli, M.; Monzani, E. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2005, 3,
1495.
26. Odago, M. O.; Colabello, D. M.; Lees, A. J. Tetrahedron 2010, 66, 7465.