Angewandte
Chemie
[1] D. Gust, T. A. Moore, A. L. Moore, Acc. Chem. Res. 2001, 34,
40.
[2] S. Fukuzumi, D. M. Guldi in Electron Transfer in Chemistry,
Vol. 2 (Ed.: V. Balzani), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2001,
pp. 270 337.
[3] H. Imahori, M. E. El-Khouly, M. Fujitsuka, O. Ito, Y. Sakata,
S. Fukuzumi, J. Phys. Chem. A 2001, 105, 325.
[4] a) N. Armaroli, F. Diederich, C. O. Dietrich-Buchecker, L.
Flamigni, G. Marconi, J.-F. Nierengarten, J.-P. Sauvage,
Chem. Eur. J. 1988, 4, 406; b) N. Armaroli, G. Marconi, L.
Echegoyen, J. P. Bourgeois, F. Diederich, Chem. Eur. J. 2000,
6, 1629; c) L. Flamigni, I. M. Dixon, J.-P. Collin, J.-P. Sauvage,
Chem. Commun. 2000, 2479.
Figure 4. Energy diagram for charge separation (CS) and charge recombi-
nation (CR) of 7 after photoexcitation in PhCN. ISC=intersystem crossing.
[5] F. D©Souza, G. R. Deviprasad, M. E. El-Khouly, M. Fujitsuka,
O. Ito, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 5277.
[6] M.-J. Blanco, M. C. Jimÿnez, J.-C. Chambron, V. Heitz, M.
Linke, J.-P. Sauvage, Chem. Soc. Rev. 1999, 28, 293.
[7] P. R. Ashton, R. Ballardini, V. Balzani, A. Credi, K. R. Dress, E.
Ishow, C. J. Kleverlaan, O. Kocian, J. A. Preece, N. Spencer, J. F.
Stoddart, M. Venturi, S. Wenger, Chem. Eur. J. 2000, 6, 3558.
[8] M. Andersson, M. Linke, J.-C. Chambron, J. Davidsson, V. Heitz,
J.-P. Sauvage, L. Hammarstrˆm, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122,
3526.
[9] N. Watanabe, N. Kihara, T. Takata, Org. Lett. 2001, 3, 3519.
[10] a) N. Kihara, T. Takata, J. Synth. Org. Chem. Jpn. 2001, 59, 206;
b) Y. Furusho, J. Shoji, N. Watanabe, N. Kihara, T. Adachi, T.
Takata, Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 2001, 74, 139; c) N. Watanabe, Y.
Furusho, N. Kihara, T. Takata, K. Kinbara, K. Saigo, Chem. Lett.
1999, 915; d) R. J‰ger, F. Vˆgtle, Angew. Chem. 1997, 109, 966;
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1997, 36, 930; e) F. Vˆgtle, T.
D¸nnwald, T. Schmidt, Acc. Chem. Res. 1996, 29, 451.
[11] H. Imahori, K. Hagiwara, M. Aoki, T. Akiyama, S. Taniguchi, T.
Okada, M. Shirakawa, Y. Sakata, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118,
11771.
than those reported for covalently connected dyad molecules;
for example, C60 dimethylaniline (< 1 ns),[14] C60 b-carotene
(< 1 ns),[15] and C60-TTF (2 ns).[16] Rotaxane 7 has a tRIP value
similar to that of covalently linked C60 ZnP (770 ns).[3]
The energy diagram for the charge separation and
recombination processes after photoexcitation is shown in
Figure 4. The ion-pair state was evaluated from the first
oxidation potential of the ZnP moiety (0.29 V vs ferrocene/
ferrocene+) and the first reduction potential of the C60 moiety
(À1.1 V vs ferrocene/ferrocene+) of rotaxane 7 in benzoni-
trile. The shortening of fluorescence lifetimes indicates that
charge separation takes place mainly from the excited singlet
state of the ZnP moiety to produce a radical ion pair. The rate
of this charge-separation process was as high as 1010 sÀ1. The
slow recombination rate suggests that this process lies in an
inverted region far more negative than the charge-separation
process.
[12] M. V. MartÌnez-DÌaz, N. S. Fender, M. S. RodrÌguez Morgade,
M. GÛmez-LÛpez, F. Diederich, L. Echegoyen, J. F. Stoddart, T.
Torres, J. Mater. Chem. 2002, 12, 2095.
The charge-recombination rates kCR showed slight tem-
perature dependence; from the semiempirical Marcus equa-
tion,[3] the free-energy of activation DGC°R was evaluated to be
57 meV, which is somewhat smaller than for conventional
dyad systems; for example, DG°CR of retinyl C60 is 160 meV.[17]
In general, a rather small DG°CR is expected for through-space
electron transfer, while a considerably higher DG°CR is
anticipated for through-bond electron transfer. Thus, the
small DG°CR observed for rotaxane 7 suggests that charge
recombination takes place by through-space electron transfer
with a superexchange mechanism.[7] The DGC°R value of
57 meV for 7 is slightly larger than that expected for the
complete through-space electron transfer system; hence, this
slight increase in DG°CR of 7 can be attributed to the flexibility
of the relative configuration of the ZnP and C60 moieties. The
electronic coupling constant V, evaluated with the semi-
empirical Marcus equation, is 0.77 cmÀ1, almost twice that of
the retinyl C60 dyad (V= 0.34 cmÀ1 in PhCN).[17] This differ-
ence in V value suggests that not only is the donor acceptor
distance smaller in 7 (center-to-center distance rcc ꢀ 10 ä)
than in retinyl C60 dyad (rcc = 11.4 ä), but also that 7 has a
more suitable orientation for electron transfer. Further
studies on electron transfer features are in progress.
[13] P. R. Ashton, F. Diederich, M. GÛmez-LÛpez, J.-F. Nierengarten,
J. A. Preece, F. M. Raymo, J. F. Stoddart, Angew. Chem. 1997,
109, 1611; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1997, 36, 1448.
[14] R. M. Williams, J. M. Zwier, J. W. Verhoeven, J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1995, 117, 4093.
[15] H. Imahori, S. Cardoso, D. Tatman, S. Lin, L. Noss, G. R. Seely,
L. Sereno, C. Silber, T. A. Moore, A. L. Moore, D. Gust,
Photochem. Photobiol. 1995, 62, 1009.
[16] N. MartÌn, L. Sµnchez, M. A. Herranz, D. M. Guldi, J. Phys.
Chem. A 2000, 104, 4648.
[17] M. Yamazaki, Y. Araki, M. Fujitsuka, O. Ito, J. Phys. Chem. A
2001, 105, 8615.
Received: August 5, 2002 [Z19881]
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, No. 6
¹ 2003 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
1433-7851/03/4206-0683 $ 20.00+.50/0
683