Organic Letters
Letter
The differences in RPES for E-1 vs E-1• provide an
opportunity toward directional rotary operation gated by
electrical energy. When the temperature is lowered so that
−
•
−
Brownian rotation is very slow, a switching from E-1 to E-1
•−
could lead to a position near the TSc of E-1 (black vertical
arrow in Figure 3a), which would relax to the ground state of E-
•−
1
either through clockwise (red curved arrow in Figure 3b) or
counterclockwise (blue curved arrow in Figure 3b) rotation. A
•
−
reverse switching of E-1 back to E-1 finishes a clockwise
rotation of 180° for the clockwise relaxed portion (red vertical
arrow in Figure 3b), but it recovers the original status of E-1 for
the counterclockwise relaxed portion (blue vertical arrow in
Figure 3b). Figure 3c depicts such a pulsating ratchet mechanism,
in which the solid and dashed curves represent the RPES of E-1
•
−
and E-1 , respectively, and the red dots represent the position of
the rotors along the RPES. At low temperatures, a Brownian
rocking motion between the transition states TS and TS is
C
CC
expected to dominate the torsions (RPES I). When electrical
•
−
energy is applied and E-1 is formed, some molecules would end
•
−
up near the TS of E-1 (RPES II) and relax clockwise (RPES
C
•−
III). Oxidation of E-1 back to E-1 (RPES IV) followed by
relaxation led to a net clockwise rotation of 180° (RPES V).
Continued performance of double potential steps that repeat the
Figure 3. DFT-derived rotational potential energy surface (RPES) for
the pentiptycene rotor in (a) E-1 and (b) E-1•− about the external C−C
•
−
switching cycle of E-1 → E-1 → E-1 would continuously drive
the 180° clockwise rotation for the pentiptycene rotor as long as
the electrochemical switching is faster than the random
Brownian rotation, leading to directional or biased clockwise
rotation of the system. A schematic drawing of the electrical
energy-biased rotation is depicted in Figure 1c. It should be
bond in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions (see Figure 1c
for definition), and (c) schematic representation of the concept of
directional rotation triggered by electrochemical switching between E-1
•
−
and E-1 .
•
−
noted that at the moment of electron transfer, either E-1 → E-1
ground state, which is in excellent agreement with the
•
−
−1
−1
or E-1 → E-1, the unrelaxed product is 3−6 kcal mol higher
than the relaxed form (Figure S10). Nevertheless, this will not
affect the pulsating ratchet gating of the rotation.
experimental value of 13.9 kcal mol for the activation energy
of rotation. The transition states TS and TS encounter not
C
CC
only the steric repulsion between the protons on the
pentiptycene bridgehead and on the methinyl carbons but also
a distorted C−CC bond angle for the methinyl carbon from
In principle, the electrochemical switching time scale must be
shorter than the time scale for random Brownian rotation to bias
the rotation direction, and as the time scale difference increases,
so does the rotation directionality. At 298 K, each Brownian
128° in the ground state to ∼143° in the transition states (Table
S2).
The RPES for E-1•− (Figure 3b) was also constructed by DFT
−3
−5
•−
rotation takes 3.0 × 10 and 1.4 × 10 s for E-1 and E-1 ,
respectively. This indicates that the potential pulse time for the
double potential step switching must be shorter than 10 μs to bias
the rotation direction at 298 K. However, the Brownian rotation
rate could be largely reduced at lower temperatures. For example,
according to the activation parameters, the Brownian rotation
calculations at the same level of theory as that for E-1. The
ground state possesses a smaller twist angle α of −48.7° as
compared to the neutral form (−65.8°). The TS (α = −116.3°)
C
is reached with a clockwise rotation of the pentiptycene rotor by
∼
67°, and the TSCC (α = 70.7°) is formed with a counter-
•
−
clockwise rotation by ∼119°, again corresponding to an
time scale becomes ∼900 s for E-1 and ∼0.73 s for E-1 at 180 K
‡
−1
6
•−
asymmetric RPES. The calculated ΔG is 10.8 kcal mol for
E-1 at 298 K, which is 2.7 kcal mol lower than that for E-1.
and is ∼10 s for E-1 and ∼170 s for E-1 at 150 K. Therefore,
•
−
−1
the use of potential pulse times of 0.1 s would bias the rotation
direction to ∼70% at 180 K and to >99% at 150 K. Such an
operation temperature is considerably higher than that (<10 K)
•
−
17
The difference in RPES for E-1 vs E-1 could be understood by
the fact that adding an electron to the π* orbital of a conjugated
system reduces the bond order of a double bond and increases
that of a single bond, as indicated by the lengthened exocyclic
CC bond (1.38 vs 1.34 Å) and shortened exocyclic C−C bond
9
,10
for STM-based single molecule systems.
The robustness of electrochemical switching between E-1 and
•−
E-1 is evidenced by the persistent cyclic voltammograms
(Figure 4a) and by the stable chronocoulometric charge−time
curves (Figure 4b). The initial and final potentials were 1.40 and
−1.70 V relative to the ferrocene/ferrocenium redox couple (Fc/
(
1.45 vs 1.48 Å). The increased bond order for the exocyclic C−
C bond accounts for the decrease of α in the ground state. An
increase of structural planarity for π-conjugated systems upon
oxidation or reduction has also been experimentally demon-
+
Fc ), respectively. The pulse time for chronocoulometry was 0.2
1
6
strated. The decreased bond order for the exocyclic CC
bond makes the methinylindanone moiety less rigid and thus
shifts the positions of the transition states and reduces the
rotation barrier. It was also predicted that isomerization from E-
s, but a pulse time as short as 100 μs was also achievable (Figure
•
−
•−
S11). The stability of E-1 relative to the isomer Z-1 was also
investigated by HPLC analysis on the solution after 100 and 200
cycles of switching (Figure 4c). An authentic sample of Z-1 was
prepared by the irradiation of E-1 in DCM at 306 nm (see
Supporting Information). The results showed that the E/Z ratio
is 99:1 and 97:3 after 100 and 200 cycles of switching,
respectively. The latter is similar to that observed for the achiral
•
−
•−
1
to Z-1 is energetically unfavorable, because the latter is less
−1
stable than the former by 0.84 kcal mol (Figure S9). This value
is likely underestimated according to the results of HPLC
analysis on E-1 after electrochemical treatment (vide infra).
C
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ol502946v | Org. Lett. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX