Zn complexed trinsyl 2 in a 1:1 mixture is estimated to be
less than 33%. The binding constant of a 3° aliphatic amine
for a proton is much higher, on the order of 1010 (pKa of
10). In 1:1 mixture of protic acid and aliphatic amine at a
concentration of 10-5 M, approximately 99% of the amine
will be protonated. This agrees with our observations that
approximately 4 equiv of ZnCl2 are needed for complete
fluorescence enhancement versus 1 equiv of CF3CO2H.
Intramolecular quenching of the fluorescence of aromatic
chromophores by amines by photoinduced electron transfer
(PET) is well-precedented5 and has been demonstrated
recently in striking examples of metal-enhanced intensity of
fluorescence emission.6
The fluorescence enhancement accompanying proto-
nation or coordination of metal of the aliphatic amine (N2)
prevents quenching by the pendant amine. Interestingly
the position of this pendant amine was found to be impor-
tant. For example, the fluorescence emission intensity of
Figure 1. Dansyl derivatives and their fluorescence excitation and
emission maxima in acetonitrile (10-5 M).
N,N-dimethylaminoethyl sulfonamide derivative
3 is
essentially identical with that of dansyl benzylamine 1. Upon
addition of 1 equiv of CF3CO2H, the fluorescence emis-
sion intensity decreases 30%. Under similar conditions,
the fluorescence emission intensity of dansyl probe 1
also experiences a slight (3%) decrease. The >25-fold
increase in fluorescene emission intensity of trinsyl probe 2
upon treatment with 1 equiv of CF3CO2H arises from
protonation of the most basic nitrogen (N2), which
removes the amine as a source for intramolecular quenching.
Similar regiochemical effects of PET have been observed
by de Silva et al.7
CO2H are shown in Figure 2a. An analogous plot of
fluorescence intensity as a function of added Zn2+ (CH3-
CN) is shown in Figure 2b. In both cases, added electrophile
Indeed, their explanation for the regiochemical effect on
quenching is consistent with the results of this study. The
donor-acceptor substitution pattern on the naphthalene ring
produces a strong dipole moment (internal charge transfer,
ITC) in the excited state. In models proposed by both de
Silva and Lewis (Figure 3), PET requires overlap of the
ground-state dimethylamino lone pair (N2) with the positive
end of the molecular dipole at N1. This position corresponds
to the LUMO of the excited state. Overlap (and PET) occurs
with facility in 2 but in 3, because of poor overlap of the
N2 lone pair or repulsive interactions of N2 with the induced
electric field of the ITC, PET is not observed.7,8
Figure 2. (a) Emission fluorescence spectra of 10-5 trinsyl 2 in
CH3CN, titrated with CF3CO2H: 0, 0.25, 0.50, and 1 equiv. (b)
Emission fluorescence spectra of 10-5 trinsyl 2 in CH3CN, titrated
with ZnCl2: 0, 1, 2, and 4 equiv (λex ) 332 nm).
Addition of CF3CO2H also produces a blue shift from 339
to 318 nm in the UV spectrum of trinsyl probe 2. This
produces a >25-fold increase in fluorescence emission
intensity. The intensity maximum is achieved at 1 equiv in
the case of protic acid and with 4 equiv in that of Zn2+. The
difference in stoichiometry needed for each electrophile can
be attributed to their respective binding constants to the
dimethylaminoethyl group. The binding constant of ethyl-
enediamine with ZnCl2 is on the order of 105.3 The binding
constant of ZnCl2 for trinsyl 2 is expected to be lower
because of the reduced basicity of N1 due to conjugation
with an electron poor aromatic ring.4
(5) (a) Callan, J. F.; de Silva, A. P.; Ferguson, J.; Huxley, A. J. M.;
O’Brien, A. M. Tetrahedron 2004, 60, 11125-11131. (b) Pischel, U.; Abad,
S.; Miranda, M. A. Chem. Commun. (Cambridge, U.K.) 2003, 1088-1089.
(c) Griesbeck, A. G.; Schieffer, S. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2003, 2, 113-
117. (d) Lewis, F. D.; Wagner-Brennan, J. M.; Denari, J. M. J. Phys. Chem.
A 1998, 102, 519-525. (e) Huston, M. E.; Haider, E. W.; Czarnik, A. W.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110, 4460-4462. (f) de Silva, A. P.; Nimal
Gunaratne, H. Q. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1985, 23, 1669-1670.
(g) Chandross, E. A.; Thomas, H. T. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1971, 9, 393-397.
(6) (a) Lewis, F. D.; Kultgen, S. G. J. Photochem. Photobiol., A 1998,
112, 159-164. (b) Kimura, E.; Koike, T. Chem. Soc. ReV. 1998, 27, 179-
184.
(7) de Silva, A. P.; Nimal Gunaratne, H. Q.; Habib-Jiwan, J.; McCoy,
C. P.; Rice, T. E.; Soumillion, J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1995, 34,
1728-1731.
(8) (a) Lewis, F. D.; Li, L.; Kurth, T. L.; Kalgutkar, R. S. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2000, 122, 8573-8574. (b) Lewis, F. D.; Ahrens, A.; Kurth, T. L.
Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2004, 3, 341-347. (c) Lewis, F. D.; Kalgutkar,
R. S.; Kurth, T. L. J. Phys. Chem. A 2004, 108, 1425-1434.
By using this binding constant and a trinsyl 2 concentration
of 10-5 M, calculation of the equilibrium concentration of
(3) McIntyre, G. H. J.; Block, B. P.; Fernelius, W. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1959, 81, 529-535.
(4) Whidby, J. F.; Leyden, D. E.; Himel, C. M.; Mayer, R. T. J. Phys.
Chem. 1971, 75, 4056-4059.
1582
Org. Lett., Vol. 8, No. 8, 2006