the excited state acidity of the phenolic function is significantly
enhanced, that of 12 more so than that of 11. Neither the XF 7 nor
8, on the other hand, shows dramatically enhanced photoacidity in
methanol–water mixtures with up to 50% vol. water,11 which
makes them comparable to the weak photoacid 2-naphthol with a
pKa* of 2.8.12
The absorption and emission spectra of 7 show a more complex
behavior in the presence of amines (Fig. 4). On the one hand,
except for 1,8-diaza[5.4.0]bicycloundecene (DBU, pKa y 12), the
absorption maxima show a shift of ca. 20 nm and are consistent
with a hydrogen-bonded complex.13 Upon addition of DBU a red-
shifted feature is observed, which we attribute to the fully bis-
deprotonated ground state species, as it is identical to that
observed in the KOH-promoted deprotonation of 7. On the other
hand, all of the amine complexes exhibit efficient emission from
the fully deprotonated (ion pair) state. From these observations we
conclude that in dichloromethane solutions the difference in pKa
(or DG of the proton transfer) between 7* and amines is sufficient
to produce solvent-separated ion pairs.14 In the ground state, the
observed DpKa results in the formation of hydrogen-bonded
complexes.
Fig. 5 Density of the frontier molecular orbitals (HOMO and LUMO)
of the bisphenolate anions of models of 7 and of 8 (tert-butyl groups are
omitted) as calculated by B3LYP-6-31G**//B3LYP-6-31G** using
SPARTAN.
The authors thank the National Science Foundation (grants
CHE-0548423 for UB and PM; CHE-0456892 for LMT and
KMS) for generous financial support. UB thanks Prof. Christoph
Fahrni for helpful discussions.
The observation of different, amine-dependent emission
characteristics is of potential importance since Lavigne et al.15
have shown that carboxylate-substituted polythiophenes can
discern biogenic amines when the absorption spectra of the
complexes are compared. Our approach is complementary as we
use more sensitive fluorescence spectroscopy.
Notes and references
1 J. N. Wilson and U. H. F. Bunz, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2005, 127,
4124–4125; J. N. Wilson, M. Josowicz, Y. Q. Wang and U. H. F. Bunz,
Chem. Commun., 2003, 2962–2963; A. J. Zucchero, J. N. Wilson and
U. H. F. Bunz, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006, 128, 11872–11881;
W. W. Gerhardt, A. J. Zucchero, J. N. Wilson, C. R. South,
U. H. F. Bunz and M. Weck, Chem. Commun., 2006, 2141–2142.
2 E. L. Spiteler, L. D. Shirtlcliff and M. M. Haley, J. Org. Chem., 2007,
72, 86–96; J. A. Marsden, J. J. Miller, L. D. Shirtcliff and M. M. Haley,
J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2005, 127, 2464–2476.
3 A. Zen, A. Bilge, F. Galbrecht, R. Alle, K. Meerholz, J. Grenzer,
D. Neher, U. Scherf and T. Farrell, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006, 128,
3914–3915; A. L. Thompson, T. S. Ahn, K. R. J. Thomas,
S. Thayumanavan, T. J. Martinez and C. J. Bardeen, J. Am. Chem.
Soc., 2005, 125, 16348–16349; H. Meier, B. Mu¨hling and H. Kolshorn,
Eur. J. Org. Chem., 2004, 1033–1042.
4 H. Kang, G. Evmenenko, P. Dutta, K. Clays, K. Song and T. J. Marks,
J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006, 128, 6194–6205; K. Hu, P. W. Zhu, Y. Yu,
A. Facchetti and T. J. Marks, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2004, 126,
15974–15975.
5 J. K. Sorensen, M. Vestergaard, A. Kadziola, K. Kilsa and
M. B. Nielsen, Org. Lett., 2006, 8, 1173–1176.
6 J. N. Wilson, P. M. Windscheif, U. Evans, M. L. Myrick and
U. H. F. Bunz, Macromolecules, 2002, 35, 8681–8683.
7 U. H. F. Bunz, Chem. Rev., 2000, 100, 1605–1644; K. Sonogashira,
J. Organomet. Chem., 2002, 653, 46–49; E. Negishi and L. Anastasia,
Chem. Rev., 2003, 103, 1979–2017.
What is the reason for the dramatic differences in the optical
properties of 7 and 8 upon interaction with bases, i.e. proton-
dissociation induced red shift vs. quenching? A DFT calculation
(Fig. 5) of the FMO-distribution of 7 and 8 sheds light on this
issue. In the dianion of 7, HOMO and LUMO show spatial
overlap in the central ring and both absorption and emission are
Franck–Condon allowed. In the case of 8 the situation is different.
Due to the disjoint orbital structure in which the HOMO is
localized only on the two phenolate rings, while the LUMO is strictly
localized on the bisarylethynyl axis, there is a vanishingly small
spatial overlap between the two frontier molecular orbitals, resulting
in a Franck–Condon forbidden transition. Without the quantum
chemical calculations, the different spectroscopic properties of
722and 822 would be very hard to rationalize. Since the 340 nm
transition is both invariant with respect to deprotonation and
strongly allowed, we conclude that this is a HOMO–LUMO
transition in 8 but a HOMO–LUMO + n-transition in the
deprotonated form of 8, while the weaker HOMO–LUMO
transition of the dianion of 8 is hidden in the baseline.3 The
allowed transition in the dianion must have a similar gap to the
HOMO–LUMO-transition in the neutral compound, explaining
the lack of change in the absorption spectra.
8 J. S. Yang, S. Y. Chiou and K. L. Liau, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2002, 124,
2518–2527.
9 Q. Zhou and T. M. Swager, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1995, 117, 12593–12602;
J. G. Mu¨ller, E. Atas, C. Tan, K. S. Schanze and V. D. Kleiman, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 2006, 128, 4007–4016.
In conclusion, we have prepared the two XFs 7 and 8 and
investigated their photophysical properties upon deprotonation or
exposure to amines. We see dramatic differences between the para
(7) and the meta (8) XF as a consequence of the different FMO
distribution. The dianion 8 suffers from a Franck–Condon
disallowed HOMO–LUMO-transition, which is responsible for
the observed fluorescence quenching. Potential applications of
such materials with separated FMOs include exciton collection and
splitting in photovoltaic devices and fluorescence sensors in cases
where the XFs are equipped with additional binding elements.
10 J. V. Caspar and T. J. Meyer, J. Phys. Chem., 1983, 87, 952–957;
L. M. Tolbert, S. M. Nesselroth, T. L. Netzel, N. Raya and
M. Stapleton, J. Phys. Chem., 1992, 96, 4492–4496.
11 F. D. Lewis and E. M. Crompton, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2003, 125,
4044–4045; F. D. Lewis, L. E. Sinks, W. Weigel, M. C. Sajimon and
E. M. Crompton, J. Phys. Chem. A, 2005, 109, 2443–2451.
12 L. M. Tolbert and K. M. Solntsev, Acc. Chem. Res., 2002, 35, 19–27.
13 H. Baba and S. J. Suzuki, Chem. Phys., 1961, 35, 1118–1127.
14 N. K. Zaitsev, A. B. Demyashkevich and M. G. Kuzmin, High Energy
Chem., 1980, 14, 116–120.
15 T. L. Nelson, C. O’Sullivan, N. T. Greene, M. S. Maynor and
J. J. Lavigne, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006, 128, 5640–5641.
This journal is ß The Royal Society of Chemistry 2007
Chem. Commun., 2007, 2127–2129 | 2129