Nielsen et al.
with the photon flux, excited state production can be
limited to a small volume defined by a focused laser
where a sufficiently high fluence is obtained.
charge transfer (CT) upon excitation (i.e., large transition
moments are desirable).1,20,23-25 As such, the judicious
introduction of electron donor and acceptor groups in the
molecule can significantly enhance the two-photon ab-
sorption probability. Longer conjugation lengths that
result in larger charge separation in the molecule are also
beneficial for obtaining large TPA cross sections.1,23,26
It is acknowledged that singlet molecular oxygen (a1∆g)
is an important reactive intermediate in many photo-
induced oxidations,10,11 including those involved in pho-
todynamic therapy.12 We have embarked on an extensive
program to develop methods by which singlet oxygen can
be generated in, and optically detected from, small
spatially resolved domains in heterogeneous samples.13-18
To this end, the two-photon photosensitized production
of singlet oxygen and the associated development of the
appropriate sensitizer molecules are important issues.19-22
A substantial amount of work has been done in the
recent past on the development of molecules that have
comparatively large two-photon absorption probabilities
(i.e., the so-called TPA cross section).1,8 Most of these
molecules, however, have been designed for fluorescence
experiments and are not suitable for use as singlet
oxygen sensitizers. Molecules used as singlet oxygen
sensitizers generally undergo efficient intersystem cross-
ing to produce the lowest triplet state, which in turn must
efficiently transfer its excitation energy to ground state
oxygen to yield singlet oxygen. As such, one design
strategy to make singlet oxygen sensitizers is to introduce
functional groups into the chromophore that facilitate
intersystem crossing (e.g., carbonyl groups or heavy
atoms such as bromine). Other features of a good singlet
oxygen sensitizer may include stability upon prolonged
irradiation and the lack of appreciable luminescence in
the near-infrared that could interfere with the optical
detection of the weak singlet oxygen phosphorescence
signal at 1270 nm.
We have shown that some OPV molecules can also
generate singlet oxygen.19-22 It has also been shown,
however, that the extent of CT character, both within a
given molecule and in a given molecule-oxygen complex,
can have a large effect on the efficiency with which
singlet oxygen is generated.27-30 In general, CT character
in a sensitizer-oxygen complex facilitates nonradiative
deactivation of the excited state at the expense of energy
transfer from the sensitizer to produce singlet oxygen.
As such, and in the present context of developing two-
photon sensitizers, CT character in a molecule is not
desired (in this argument, we assume that the extent of
intermolecular CT character in the sensitizer-oxygen
complex will be larger for a sensitizer with a proclivity
for intramolecular charge transfer). The extent to which
this CT effect is manifested also depends significantly
on the polarity of the solvent in which the system is
dissolved.22,28,29,31 Generally, CT character is enhanced in
more polar solvents such as water or acetonitrile, which,
in turn, results in comparatively low singlet oxygen
yields. It is with these points in mind that we have
investigated the extent to which singlet oxygen can be
produced in a two-photon photosensitized process in
aqueous systems.
We have demonstrated that the two-photon photosen-
sitized production of singlet oxygen in water can be a
complicated problem.22 Specifically, functional groups on
the sensitizer that impart water solubility and that give
rise to larger TPA cross sections are, in many cases, not
conducive to the production of singlet oxygen in high
yield. In part, this issue involves the competing influence
of charge transfer, not just in the sensitizer itself but in
the sensitizer-oxygen complex as well. As already men-
tioned, molecular features that increase CT character in
the chromophore facilitate two-photon absorption, whereas
these same features contribute to a low singlet oxygen
yield.
A host of oligo phenylene vinylenes (OPVs) with
comparatively large TPA cross sections have recently
been prepared.1,23 It has been ascertained that, with these
compounds, the two-photon transition probability in-
creases with an increase in the degree of intramolecular
(10) Foote, C. S. Acc. Chem. Res. 1968, 1, 104-110.
(11) Singlet Oxygen; Frimer, A. A., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton,
FL, 1985; Vols. I-IV.
(12) Dougherty, T. J.; Gomer, C. J.; Henderson, B. W.; Jori, G.;
Kessel, D.; Korbelik, M.; Moan, J.; Peng, Q. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1998,
90, 889-905.
(13) Skovsen, E.; Snyder, J. W.; Lambert, J. D. C.; Ogilby, P. R. J.
Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 8570-8573.
(14) Snyder, J. W.; Gao, Z.; Ogilby, P. R. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2005,
76, 013701.
In this present article, we continue our study of issues
pertinent to the development of water-soluble, two-
photon singlet oxygen sensitizers.22 In particular, we now
focus on the synthesis and characterization of some
phenylene-vinylene-based molecules.
(15) Snyder, J. W.; Zebger, I.; Gao, Z.; Poulsen, L.; Frederiksen, P.
K.; Skovsen, E.; McIlroy, S. P.; Klinger, M.; Andersen, L. K.; Ogilby,
P. R. Acc. Chem. Res. 2004, 37, 894-901.
(16) Zebger, I.; Snyder, J. W.; Andersen, L. K.; Poulsen, L.; Gao, Z.;
Lambert, J. D. C.; Kristiansen, U.; Ogilby, P. R. Photochem. Photobiol.
2004, 79, 319-322.
(17) Zebger, I.; Poulsen, L.; Gao, Z.; Andersen, L. K.; Ogilby, P. R.
Langmuir 2003, 19, 8927-8933.
(18) Andersen, L. K.; Gao, Z.; Ogilby, P. R.; Poulsen, L.; Zebger, I.
J. Phys. Chem. A 2002, 106, 8488-8490.
(24) Wang, C.-K.; Macak, P.; Luo, Y.; Ågren, H. J. Chem. Phys. 2001,
114, 9813-9820.
(19) Frederiksen, P. K.; Jørgensen, M.; Ogilby, P. R. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2001, 123, 1215-1221.
(25) Norman, P.; Luo, Y.; Ågren, H. J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 111, 7758-
7765.
(20) Poulsen, T. D.; Frederiksen, P. K.; Jørgensen, M.; Mikkelsen,
K. V.; Ogilby, P. R. J. Phys. Chem. A 2001, 105, 11488-11495.
(21) McIlroy, S. P.; Clo´, E.; Nikolajsen, L.; Frederiksen, P. K.;
Nielsen, C. B.; Mikkelsen, K. V.; Gothelf, K. V.; Ogilby, P. R. J. Org.
Chem. 2005, 70, 1134-1146.
(26) Drobizhev, M.; Karotki, A.; Rebane, A.; Spangler, C. W. Opt.
Lett. 2001, 26, 1081-1083.
(27) Schweitzer, C.; Schmidt, R. Chem. Rev. 2003, 103, 1685-1757.
(28) Kristiansen, M.; Scurlock, R. D.; Iu, K.-K.; Ogilby, P. R. J. Phys.
Chem. 1991, 95, 5190-5197.
(22) Frederiksen, P. K.; McIlroy, S. P.; Nielsen, C. B.; Nikolajsen,
L.; Skovsen, E.; Jørgensen, M.; Mikkelsen, K. V.; Ogilby, P. R. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 255-269.
(23) Pond, S. J. K.; Rumi, M.; Levin, M. D.; Parker, T. C.; Beljonne,
D.; Day, M. W.; Bre´das, J.-L.; Marder, S. R.; Perry, J. W. J. Phys. Chem.
A 2002, 106, 11470-11480.
(29) McGarvey, D. J.; Szekeres, P. G.; Wilkinson, F. Chem. Phys.
Lett. 1992, 199, 314-319.
(30) Schmidt, R.; Shafii, F.; Schweitzer, C.; Abdel-Shafi, A. A.;
Wilkinson, F. J. Phys. Chem. A 2001, 105, 1811-1817.
(31) Abdel-Shafi, A. A.; Wilkinson, F. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2002,
4, 248-254.
7066 J. Org. Chem., Vol. 70, No. 18, 2005