and Tempol evaluated at pH 7.0,19,20 and the secondary
reactions of quercetin radicals, such as crossed reaction with
unreacted nitroxides. The difference between the two micelles
is due to a less efficient incorporation of this antioxidant in
the anionic micelle compared to the neutral one. The negative
headgroup of the SDS molecule and the enolate form present
at high pH are the subject of repulsive interactions.15 In fact,
in CTAC micelles the kinetics appear almost instantaneous;
here the enolate form acts as a micellar counterion, com-
plicating the determination of reliable kinetic parameters
(data not shown).
In the case of BHT, the relative rate constants are 1:45:
120 for methanol/SDS micelles/Triton micelles, respectively.
This is a clear consequence of BHT partition in the micelles
while gallic acid shows almost the same reactivity as in
methanol.
In methanol, no reaction between the probe and rutin was
observed while for quercetin a rate constant of 4.0 × 10-3
M-1 s-1 was obtained. This is a remarkable result in terms
of the selectivity of the nitroxyl moiety of the prefluorescent
probe, revealing that the more reactive center in quercetin
(among the 5 OH groups) is the 3′-hydroxyl group, which
in rutin is protected by a sugar residue. This result is in
agreement with theoretical results where Fukui indexes of
reactivity were employed.22 Further, the hydrogen transfer
selectivity shown by C343T is higher than that of related
species, such as nitronyl nitroxide radicals.23 Nitroxide
radicals exhibit a ratio between the rate of hydrogen transfer
for ascorbic acid (13.1 M-1 s-1)16 and quercetin (22.7 ×
10-3 M-1 s-1) of 570, whereas for nitronyl nitroxide radicals
the ratio is only 57, with rate constant values of 43 and 0.76
M-1 s-1 for ascorbic acid and quercetin, respectively.
It is worth mentioning that other methodologies involving
peroxyl radicals in competitive experiments in homogeneous
systems are not able to discriminate well between two highly
reactive phenols. A typical example is the TAR index, which
is based on the relative antioxidant protection of the target
molecule by the decrease on the stationary concentration of
peroxyl radicals (derived from 2,2′-azobis(2-amidinopropane)
dihydrochloride, AAPH) caused by the antioxidant. However,
as shown in Table 2, with this methodology, antioxidants
such as caffeic acid are not distinguishable from the reference
compound, Trolox. Whereas the analysis of the rate hydrogen
transfer toward the nitroxide probe shows a noticeable higher
reactivity for Trolox than caffeic acid (5 times) in phosphate
buffer, pH 7. Moreover, there is a clear tendency for higher
TAR values with the increase on number of phenol groups
in the molecules without relation to their actual reactivity.21
In fact, we have recently shown that most of the reactivity
parameters obtained in competitive experiments are strongly
influenced of stoichiometric factors and also by the reactivity
of the reference compound employed.24,25
In summary, we propose the use of persistent substituted
nitroxide radicals in micellar systems as a new and simple
tool to evaluate antioxidant efficiency; this approach takes
into account both the hydrophobicity of the antioxidant and
also the high selectivity of the nitroxide radicals toward very
reactive phenols such as flavonoids. Further, the use of
different chromophore units tethered to nitroxide moieties,
of different hydrophobicity,26–29 can be employed to control
the partition constant, and also the location of the nitroxide
prefluorescent probe within the micelles.
Acknowledgment. C.A. acknowledges the World Bank
CONICYT: Programa Bicentenario de Ciencia y Tecnolog´ıa
and DICYT-USACH. A.A. thanks FONDECYT (project
1050137), and J.C.S. and A.A. thank the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada for financial
support.
Supporting Information Available: Synthetic procedures
and full spectroscopy data for all new compounds, an
example of kinetic determination using fluorescence spec-
troscopy, and procedures for the determination of partition
constants. This material is available free of charge via the
OL800446C
(24) Lo´pez-Alarco´n, C.; Aspe´e, A.; Lissi, A Food Chem. 2007, 104,
1430–1435
.
(25) Lo´pez-Alarco´n, C.; Lissi, E. A. Free Rad. Res. 2005, 39, 729–
(19) Jovanovic, S. V.; Steenken, S.; Hara, Y.; Simic, M. G. J. Chem.
736
.
Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1996, 2497–2504
(20) Kato, Y.; Simizu, Y.; Yijing, L.; Unoura, K.; Utsumi, H.; Ogata,
T. Electrochim. Acta 1995, 40, 2799–2802
.
(26) Aspe´e, A.; Garc´ıa, O.; Maretti, L.; Sastre, R.; Scaiano, J. C.
Macromolecules 2003, 36, 3550–3556
(27) Blinco, J. P.; McMurtrie, J. C.; Bottle, S. E. Eur. J. Org. Chem.
2007, 4638–4641
(28) Micallef, A. S.; Blinco, J. P.; George, G. A.; Reid, D. A.; Rizzardo,
E.; Thang, S. H.; Bottle, S. E. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2005, 89, 427–435
(29) Fairfull-Smith, K. E.; Blinco, J. P.; Keddie, D. J.; George, G. A.;
Bottle, S. E Macromolecules 2008, 41, 1577–1580
.
.
(21) Pe´rez, D. D.; Leighton, F.; Aspe´e, A.; Aliaga, C.; Lissi, E. A. Biol.
Res. 2000, 33, 71–77.
.
(22) Aliaga, C.; Lissi, E. A. Can. J. Chem. 2004, 82, 1668–1673.
(23) Medvedeva, N.; Martin, V. V.; Weis, A. L.; Likhteinshten, G. I. J.
Photochem. Photobiol. A 2004, 163, 45–51.
.
.
2150
Org. Lett., Vol. 10, No. 11, 2008