SꢂꢃꢄꢅESES, EꢆECꢄꢀOCꢅEMISꢄꢀꢂ ꢁꢃD PꢅOꢄOPꢅꢂSICꢁꢆ PꢀOPEꢀꢄIES
977
First synthesis. Freshly distilled pyrrole (5.6 mL,
0 mmol) was added to a solution of pentafluorobenzal-
was not precipitated in ethanol. However, when the pre-
cipitation was carried out, there was a considerable loss,
because the porphyrin was slightly soluble in this solvent.
However, this precipitation is advantageous because the
sludge is retained, so the purification becomes faster and
8
dehyde (4.7mL, 38mmol), and 4-pyridinecarboxal-
dehyde (4.0mL, 42mmol) in 200 mL of 99% propionic
acid, placed in a 500mL round bottom flask, fol-
lowed by reflux for 90min at 150 °C. The pyrrole/
pentafluorobenzaldehyde/4-pyridinecarboxaldehyde
molar ratio used was 4:1.9:2.1. The crude product was
initially purified by column chromatography on silica gel
using dichloromethane as eluent, followed by addition of
acetone until a ratio of 10/90 acetone/dichloromethane
was achieved. At the end of the elution, four violet spots
were detected and later purified separately.
1
viable. Elemental analyses, UV-vis and assigned H NMR
spectra are given as follows:
H (ꢁFpp) (midꢄentꢆry). UV-vis (CH Cl ): λmax, nm
2
2
2
(log ε) 412 (5.4), 506 (4.2), 541 (3.3), 583 (3.7), 649 (3.0).
H (mpyꢁFpp).Anal. calcd. for C F N H : C, 58.32;
2
43 15
5
14
H, 1.54; N, 7.91%. Found: C, 58.42; H, 1.55; N, 7.88%.
1
H NMR (500 MHz; CDCl ; Me Si): δ , ppm -2.90 (2H,
3
4
Η
s, pyrrole-NH), 8.87 (2H, m, pyrrole-H2,18), 8.92 (6H, s,
pyrrole-H3,7,8,12,13,17), 8.17 (2H, d, Pha), 9.07 (2H, d, Phb).
trans-H (BpyBFpp). Anal. calcd. for C F N H : C,
Separation of the first synthesis. The separation of
four violet components corresponding respectively to
H (TFPP) (R = 0.98), H (MPyTFPP) (R = 0.34), trans-
2
42 10
6
18
63.31; H, 2.28; N, 10.55%. Found: C, 63.67; H, 2.21; N,
2
f
2
f
1
H (BPyBFPP) (R = 0.15), [cis-H (BPyBFPP)]; (R = 0.08)
10.44%. H NMR (500 MHz; CDCl ; Me Si): δ , ppm
2
f
2
f
3
4
Η
were isolated. Each fraction was collected and chromato-
graphed once again to assure the purity of each of the
pyridylpentafluorophenylporphyrins, with the exception of
-2.92 (2H, s, pyrrole-NH), 8.86 (4H, m, pyrrole-H2,8,12,18),
8.92 (4H, m, pyrrole-H3,7,13,17), 8.19 (2H, d, Pha), 9.08
(2H, d, Phb).
thefractioncorrespondingtoH (TFPP).Theyieldofporphy-
cis-H (BpyBFpp) [32]. Anal. calcd. for C F N H :
2
2
42 10
6
18
rins was 1.3% H (MPyTFPP), 1.04% trans-H (BPyBFPP)
C, 63.33; H, 2.27; N, 10.55%. Found: C, 63.10; H, 2.37;
2
2
1
and 2.74% cis-H (BPyBFPP). In this first synthesis there
N, 10.10. H NMR (500 MHz; CDCl ; Me Si): δ , ppm
2
3
4
Η
was no formation of H (TPyMFPP) or H (TPyP). There-
-2.88 (2H, s, pyrrole-NH), 8.87 (2H, m, pyrrole-H2,13),
8.90 (2H, m, pyrrole-H3,12), 8.92 (2H, m, pyrrole-H7,8),
8.85 (2H, m, pyrrole-H17,18), 8.17 (2H, d, Pha), 9.08 (2H,
d, Phb).
2
2
fore, it was necessary to accomplish another synthesis.
Second synthesis. The second synthesis was carried
out by adding freshly distilled pyrrole (5.6mL, 80 mmol)
to a solution of pentafluorobenzaldehyde (3.7mL,
H (ꢁpymFpp)·2H o. Anal. calcd. for C F N H :
2
2
41
5
7
22
5
4
0 mmol) and of 4-pyridinecarboxaldehyde (4.8mL,
2 mmol) in 200mL of 99% propionic acid, placed in
C, 66.20 H, 3.53; N, 13.18%. Found: C, 65.56; H, 3.54;
1
N, 12.94%. H NMR (500 MHz; CDCl ; Me Si): δ ,
3
4
Η
a 500 mL round bottom flask, followed by reflux for
ppm -2.90 (2H, s, pyrrole-NH), 8.87 (6H, m, pyrrole-
9
4
0 min at 150 °C. The pyrrole/pentafluorobenzaldehyde/
-pyridinecarboxaldehyde molar ratio was: 4:1.5:2.5.
H2,8,12,13,17,18), 8.93 (2H, m, pyrrole-H ), 8.17 (2H, d, Pha),
9.08 (2H, d, Phb).
3,7
This time purification was accomplished in a different
way, by using a modification of the method described by
Engelmann et al. [31] for the purification of porphyrins.
Then, the solvent was almost completely removed in
the rotary evaporator and 200 mL of ethanol was added.
This was filtered and the solid was washed with the same
solvent until the filtrate became almost colorless. Wash-
ing with diethylether yielded 1.7 g of a violet solid.
Separation of the second synthesis. The separation of
H (ꢁpyp)(Aꢃdriꢄh). UV-vis(CH Cl ):λmax, nm(logε)
416 (5.4), 512 (4.2), 546 (3.6), 587 (3.7), 648 (3.2).
2
2
2
methꢅds
The UV-vis spectra were obtained in a HP-8453
diode-array spectrophotometer with 1 nm resolutions, in
the 190 to 1100 nm range, in dichloromethane. Samples
were run at room temperature in 1 cm quartz cuvettes.
1
H NMR were recorded on a Bruker Advanced DRX-500
the porphyrins was done as described above. The R value
f
MHz spectrometer using CDCL as the solvent and TMS
3
of the other porphyrins are: H (TPyMFPP) (R = 0.04),
2
f
as the internal standard.
H (TPyP) (R = 0.01), obtained in the same conditions
2
f
Electrochemistry was carried out in N, N′-dimethyl-
above.Theyieldofporphyrinswas0.5%trans-H (BPyBFPP)
2
®
formamide, using a AUTOLAB potentiostat/galva-
and 1.1% cis-H (BPyBFPP) and 2.2% H (TPyMFPP). The
2
2
nostat model PGSTAT 30, coupled with a compatible
microcomputer. A conventional cell consisting of a
platinum disk was used as working electrode. Potentials
were referenced to Ag/AgCl. The supporting electrolyte
was 0.1 M tetrabutylammonium hexafluorophosphate
main difference of this second syntheses was that there was
formation of H (TPyMFPP) and H (TPyP), and there was
2
2
no formation of H (TFPP) and H (MPyTFPP). The porphy-
2
2
rins H (TFPP) and H (TPyP) were not isolated because they
2
2
were not the objective of this work investigation.
(
TBAPF ) in N, N′-dimethylformamide. Ferrocene was
6
used as internal standard (0.548 V vs. SHE). All the
potentials were converted to SHE (standard hydrogen
electrode) scale by the addition of 0.222 V to the exper-
imental data obtained for all porphyrins, the experi-
mental value obtained for ferrocene in the system was
charaꢄterizatiꢅn
The first synthesis led to a larger overall porphyrin
yield than the second. This is because there was a differ-
ence in the purification process. In the first, the porphyrin
Copyright © 2010 World Scientific Publishing Company
J. Porphyrins Phthalocyanines 2010; 14: 977–984