ChemComm
Communication
hydrazine through electron donor–acceptor complexation with
PTCDIs, followed by efficient long range electron transport through
the p–p delocalization (see Fig. S7 in ESI†).10 It is should be noted
that p–p overlap of vicinal PTCDI molecules also affects the electron
transport mobility, and evidence suggests that charge carrier
mobility is usually maximized along the direction of cofacial p–p
stacking of PTCDI molecules (i.e., the rotation angle between
vicinal perylene molecules is equal to zero).11 As revealed by DFT
calculations, DBAG molecules possess a smaller rotation angle
between vicinal perylene molecules compared to OBAG and HBAG.
The smaller rotation angle for DBAG (281 or À301) implies that a
larger p–p overlap of the vicinal perylene core is expected to
enhance electron mobility and lead to the most dramatic increase
Fig. 3 Current modulation (I/I0)–time (t) curves of OBAG, DBAG and
HBAG devices obtained from THF/H2O (20/80, V/V) in hydrazine vapor.
This provides theoretical support for our experimental observation in conductivity (about 5 orders). While a larger rotation angle for
of the left-handed aggregation for OBAG and HBAG in 40/60 THF/ OBAG (321 or À321) and HBAG (301 or À311) will reduce the p–p
H2O solution. Keeping the presented data in mind, we can now overlap of the vicinal perylene core so as to weaken electron
proceed to detailed analyses of remarkable differences in CD spectra transport mobility and ultimately lead to approximately 3 and
by the following arguments. As shown in Scheme 1, the amphiphiles 1.5 times smaller mobility for OBAG and HBAG with increasing
in our study are unique in that their amphiphilic structure consists magnitude of conductivity than that of DBAG.
of a perylene scaffold with a hydrophobic alkyl chain and a hydro-
In summary, we have shown that it is possible to modulate
philic galactosyl residue on either side. When dissolved in THF, the hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions to further adjust the
alkyl chain, with addition of H2O, will aggregate due to its hydro- supramolecular helicity by simply changing the length of the
phobic effect in the latter solvent. In contrast, the hydrophilic alkyl chain. These modulated supramolecular interactions have
interactions that root in multiple O–HÁÁÁO hydrogen bonds between been translated to and observed in electrical conductivity, and
the OH groups from the galactosyl residue and water molecules will provide new pathways to construct a high-performance nano-
be enhanced. Concerning the OBAG in 40/60 THF/H2O solution, the device based on designed supramolecular interactions.
hydrophilic interaction will be dominant due to a shorter alkyl chain
We gratefully acknowledge the National Natural Science Founda-
that cannot lead a strong hydrophobic effect. This is supported by tion of China (No. 21202036 and 21125420), China Postdoctoral
the UV-vis spectrum and it suggests that weak aggregation was Science Foundation (No. 2013M530335) and Henan University for
achieved in 40/60 THF/H2O solution. In contrast, the hydrophobic financial support.
effect may direct the aggregation of HBAG in 40/60 THF/H2O
solution because of the longer alkyl chain that was also consistent
with the corresponding UV-vis spectrum. Hence, it is inferred that a
single dominated driving force, namely the hydrophilic or hydro-
Notes and references
1 (a) E. Yashima, K. Maeda, H. Iida, Y. Furusho and K. Nagai, Chem. Rev.,
phobic effect, may induce the kinetically controlled aggregation
process of OBAG and HBAG in 40/60 THF/H2O solution and
ultimately lead to left-handed helical stacking. While the equili-
brium between hydrophobic and hydrophilic effects leads to a
thermodynamically controlled aggregation process of DBAG with
the right-handed helix in 40/60 THF/H2O solution. With the increas-
ing H2O content to 80 vol%, both hydrophobic and hydrophilic
effects can dramatically enhance, a new equilibrium is achieved and
a energetically preferred right-handed helical arrangement is
obtained for OBAG, DBAG and HBAG in 20/80 THF/H2O solution.
The conductivity of nanowire or nanofiber bundles formed
at 40/60 and 20/80 THF/H2O was also examined in hydrazine
vapor using a two-probe method in order to reveal the structure–
function relationship. As shown in Fig. 3, compared to the
conductivity in vacuum, an approximately 5-orders-of-magnitude
increase in current is observed for DBAG nanofiber bundles formed
in 20/80 THF/H2O solution upon exposure to hydrazine vapor
(10 ppm), which is 1.5 and 3 times higher than that of HBAG wire
and OBAG nanofiber bundles. Similar changes in current were also
found for OBAG, DBAG and HBAG nanostructures formed in 40/60
THF/H2O solution (Fig. S6 in ESI†). The large electrical modulation
thus observed is largely due to the electron donation from
2009, 109, 6102; (b) Y. Wang, J. Xu, Y. Wang and H. Chen, Chem. Soc. Rev.,
2013, 42, 2930; (c) Y. Huang and Z. Wei, Chin. Sci. Bull., 2012, 57, 4246.
2 (a) P. A. Korevaar, C. Schaefer, T. F. A. de Greef and E. W. Meijer, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 2012, 134, 13482; (b) Y. Nagata, T. Yamada, T. Adachi,
Y. Akai, T. Yamamoto and M. Suginome, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2013,
135, 10104; (c) H. Miyake, M. Ueda, S. Murota, H. Sugimotoza and
H. Tsukubeab, Chem. Commun., 2012, 48, 3721; (d) V. Percec, H.-J. Sun,
P. Leowanawat, M. Peterca, R. Graf, H. W. Spiess, X. Zeng, G. Ungar and
P. A. Heiney, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2013, 135, 4129.
3 T. Lei, J. Y. Wang and J. Pei, Chem. Mater., 2014, 26, 5944.
4 (a) J. Cui, J. Zhang and X. Wan, Chem. Commun., 2012, 48, 4341;
(b) N. Suzuki, M. Fujiki, R. Kimpinde-Kalunga and J. R. Koe, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 2013, 135, 13073.
5 T. Shimizu, M. Masuda and H. Minamikawa, Chem. Rev., 2005,
105, 1401.
6 (a) J. Hu, W. Kuang, K. Deng, W. Zou, Y. Huang, Z. Wei and
C. F. J. Faul, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2012, 22, 4149; (b) Y. Huang,
J. Hu, W. Kuang, Z. Wei and C. F. J. Faul, Chem. Commun., 2011,
47, 5554; (c) K. R. Wang, H. W. An, L. Wu, J. C. Zhang and X. L. Li,
Chem. Commun., 2011, 48, 5644.
7 F. Wu¨rthner, C. Thalacker, S. Diele and C. Tschierske, Chem. – Eur. J.,
2001, 7, 2245.
8 B. A. Jones, A. Faccehtti, M. R. Wasielewski and T. J. Marks, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 2007, 129, 15259.
9 V. Coropceanu, J. Cornil, D. A. da Silva Filho, Y. Olivier, R. Silbey and
J. L. Bredas, Chem. Rev., 2007, 107, 926.
10 L. Zang, Y. Che and J. S. Moore, Acc. Chem. Res., 2008, 41, 1596.
11 F. J. M. Hoeben, P. Jonkheijm, E. W. Meijer and A. P. H. J. Schenning,
Chem. Rev., 2005, 105, 1491.
This journal is ©The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014
Chem. Commun., 2014, 50, 8343--8345 | 8345