The anion-binding properties of two tripodal-based hexaureas appended with the m-nitrophenyl (1) and pentafluorophenyl (2) groups have been studied both experimentally and theoretically, showing strong affinities for sulfate over other inorganic oxoanions such as hydrogen sulfate, dihydrogen phosphate, bicarbonate, nitrate, and perchlorate. The structural analysis of the sulfate complex with 1 reveals that the receptor organizes all urea-binding sites toward the cavity at precise orientations around a tetrahedral sulfate anion to form an ideal C3-symmetric sulfate complex that is stabilized by 12 hydrogen-bonding interactions. The receptor and the encapsulated sulfate are located on the threefold axis passing through the bridgehead nitrogen of 1 and the sulfur atom of the anionic guest. The high-level density functional theory calculations support the crystallographic results, demonstrating that the C3-symmetric conformation of the sulfate complex is achieved due to the complementary NH···O between the receptor and sulfate.
The anion-binding properties of two tripodal-based hexaureas appended with the m-nitrophenyl (1) and pentafluorophenyl (2) groups have been studied both experimentally and theoretically, showing strong affinities for sulfate over other inorganic oxoanions such as hydrogen sulfate, dihydrogen phosphate, bicarbonate, nitrate, and perchlorate. The structural analysis of the sulfatecomplex with 1 reveals that the receptor organizes all urea-binding sites toward the cavity at precise orientations around a tetrahedral sulfate anion to form an ideal C3-symmetricsulfatecomplex that is stabilized by 12 hydrogen-bonding interactions. The receptor and the encapsulated sulfate are located on the threefold axis passing through the bridgehead nitrogen of 1 and the sulfur atom of the anionic guest. The high-level density functional theory calculations support the crystallographic results, demonstrating that the C3-symmetricconformation of the sulfatecomplex is achieved due to the complementary NH···O between the receptor and sulfate.
Molecular recognition
of sulfate is important because of its significant
roles in biological and environmental processes.[1−14] In nature, sulfate is found within the hydrophobic pocket of a sulfate-binding
protein (SBP) derived from Salmonella typhimurium(15) and DNA helicase RepA.[16] The structure of the sulfatecomplex of the SBP reported
by Pflugrath and Quiocho in 1985 reveals that the sulfate is encapsulated
within the protein’s cleft through a total of seven hydrogen-bonding
interactions, where three oxygen atoms are bound with six NH···O
interactions and the forth oxygen atom is held with one OH···O
bond.[15] The structural identification of
the sulfatecomplex of DNA helicase RepA reported
by Xu et al. suggests that the sulfate is encapsulated via six hydrogen-bonding
interactions occupying the six ATPase active sites of RepA and one
OH···O interaction with a water molecule.[16] Similar binding arrangement is also observed
in a urea-based synthetic receptor complexed with hydrogen sulfate,
showing six NH···O bonds and one OH···O
hydrogen bond.[17] In the context of environmental
viewpoints, sulfate is an inorganiccontaminant in soil and water
and is associated with acid rain that may cause health-related problems
after a long-term exposure.[18,19] In industry, sulfate
is known to interfere with the vitrification process during nuclear
waste management;[20,21] thus, the separation of sulfate
from the nitrate-rich waste mixtures is critical before the clean-up
process.[21]Inspired from nature’s
rule, several types of neutral receptors
including amides,[22−24] thioamides,[25,26] ureas,[27−34] thioureas,[35−37] pyrroles,[38−43] and indoles[44−47] have been reported, which provide complementary hydrogen-bonding
interactions for sulfate anions. Among them, urea-/thiourea-based
receptors have been the focus of considerable interests because of
the presence of two directional hydrogen-bond donors in a single unit
and their potential applications in quantitative extractions[48,49] and transmembrane transport[50] of sulfate.
Previous theoretical calculations by Hay et al. predicted that a sulfate
anion can bind up to six urea groups to provide the optimal saturation
with 12 H-bonds.[51] This prediction was
later confirmed experimentally by Custelcean et al., showing a coordinatively
saturated sulfatecomplex formed by two C3-symmetric tripodal trisurea ligands bridged with silver(I) ions.[27] Increasing the binding sites with the urea groups
to a tren-based ligand, Wu et al. synthesized hexaurea ligands appended
with p-nitrophenyl or ferrocenyl groups that were
shown to encapsulate tetrahedral sulfates, while each oxygen atom
of the guest anion is coordinated with three H-bonds, thus achieving
the saturation of the coordination sphere of sulfates with six urea
groups.[52,53] However, to the best of our knowledge, a
sulfatecomplex bound to a synthetic receptor with a perfect C3 symmetry has not been reported so far.In an effort to synthesize C3-symmetricurea-based receptors with a higher order of binding sites, we recently
synthesized a pentafluoro-substituted hexaurea receptor 2 that was found to encapsulate one carbonate anion; however, we were
unsuccessful in obtaining the crystals of the sulfatecomplex with
this receptor.[54] To examine the influence
of attached groups on the binding strength and selectivity, we have
been further interested in functionalizing the core cavity and synthesized
the m-nitrophenyl-substituted hexaurea receptor 1. Herein, we report that the receptor 1 assembles
the urea groups at accurate positions around a tetrahedral sulfate
anion, thus forming an ideal C3-symmetricsulfatecomplex from the interactions of all NH-binding sites with
the anion and NH···π interactions. It is shown
by NMR studies that the receptors exhibit similar selectivities for
sulfate over other oxoanions. Theoretical calculations based on the
density functional theory (DFT) have been carried out to understand
and support the binding insights on our experimental results.
Results
and Discussion
Synthesis
The hexafunctional urea
receptors (Chart )
were synthesized
from the reaction of tris(2-aminophenyl)urea with 3 equiv of m-nitrophenyl isocyanate (for 1) or pentafluorophenyl
isocyanate (for 2) in a toluene–tetrahydrofuran
(THF) mixture to give about 90% yield. The crystals of a sulfatecomplex
[1(SO4)](n-Bu4N)2 were grown from slow evaporation of a dimethyl sulfoxide
(DMSO) solution of 1 in the presence of an excess n-tetrabutylammonium sulfate. Attempts to isolate X-ray
quality crystals of other anion complexes with the receptors were
unsuccessful.
Chart 1
Chemical Structures of the Receptors 1 and 2
Solution Binding Studies
Binding interactions between
the receptors and inorganic oxoanions were investigated using 1H NMR experiments in DMSO-d6 at
room temperature. The anions included in the titration studies were
SO42–, HSO4–, HCO3–, H2PO4–, ClO4–, and NO3– in the form of their tetrabutylammonium
(TBA) salts. The receptors, owing to their C3-symmetricconformations, exhibited four distinct NH resonances.
To make an initial evaluation of the receptor–anion interactions,
1 equiv of each oxoanion was added separately to the receptors (Figure a,b). As shown in Figure a, the free receptor 1 displays urea–NH resonances at 9.65 (H1), 8.18 (H2),
7.98 (H3), and 6.55 ppm (H4). These peaks were significantly shifted
downfield because of the addition of 1 equiv of SO42–, HSO4–, or H2PO4–. For HCO3–, a new set of NH signals appeared downfield along with the peaks
of the free ligand. This observation suggests a slow exchange reaction
on the NMR time scale. Similar shift changes were also observed for 2 upon the addition of 1 equiv of anions in DMSO-d6 (Figure b). On the other hand, the addition of ClO4– or NO3– ions showed a negligible change
in the NH chemical shifts of the receptors, thus indicating weaker
interactions of the receptor with these anions. For a quantitative
assessment of the host–guest interactions, the receptors were
titrated with varying amounts of anionic guests in DMSO-d6. The titration curves, as obtained from the changes
in the chemical shifts or integrated intensities, were fitted to a
1:1 stoichiometry, as evaluated by nonlinear regression analysis[55] and supported by Job plot analysis. The addition
of H2PO4– to the receptors
also resulted in the downfield shifts of the NH signals. However,
the binding constants could not be determined due to the broadening
of peaks. Inspecting the observed binding data, as summarized in Table , suggests that both receptors display a similar binding trend,
whereas 1, as compared to 2, shows comparatively
stronger affinity for the anions. It might be due to the aromatic
interactions between the peripheral substituents in 1 as supported by the X-ray structure as well as the theoretical calculations,
thereby increasing the overall anion-binding ability of the host.
Figure 1
Partial 1H NMR spectra of 1 (a) and 2 (b)
in the presence of 1 equiv of different anions in DMSO-d6 ([receptor]0 = 2 mM), showing changes
in the NH chemical shifts in DMSO-d6 (see, Chart for the assignment
of NH peaks). Overlapped NH peaks are not marked.
Table 1
Binding Constants (log K) of the
Receptors with Anionsa
anions
1
2
SO42–
5.78(3), 5.85(3)b
5.55(2)
HSO4–
3.51(2)
3.35(2)c
HCO3–
3.28(2)
3.25(2)c
H2PO4–
d, 3.08(2)b
d
NO3–
<1
<1
ClO4–
<1
<1
Determined by 1H NMR
titrations in DMSO-d6.
Determined by UV–vis titrations
in DMSO.
Binding constant
as taken from ref (54).
Binding constants could
not be determined
owing to the broadening of NH peaks.
Partial 1H NMR spectra of 1 (a) and 2 (b)
in the presence of 1 equiv of different anions in DMSO-d6 ([receptor]0 = 2 mM), showing changes
in the NH chemical shifts in DMSO-d6 (see, Chart for the assignment
of NH peaks). Overlapped NH peaks are not marked.Determined by pan class="Chemical">1H NMR
titrations in pan class="Chemical">DMSO-d6.
Determined by UV–vis titrations
in pan class="Chemical">DMSO.
Binding pan class="Chemical">constant
as taken from ref (54).
Binding pan class="Chemical">constants pan class="Chemical">could
not be determined
owing to the broadening of NH peaks.
Symmetry transformations used to
generate equivalent atoms: −y + 1, x – y, and z.Both receptors exhibit remarkable
selectivities for sulfate anions
among the other oxoanions included in this series. The strong affinity
for sulfate is attributed to the structural complementarity, with
the receptor’s cavity formed by six urea groups. This is also
supported by the crystal structure analysis of the sulfatecomplex
of 1 (discussed later), as well as from DFT calculations.
The 1H NMR titration experiments of 1 or 2 with SO42– anions show a distinct
slow exchange process in DMSO-d6. As illustrated
in Figure a, the NH
signals of free 1 were completely disappeared upon the
addition of 1 equiv of sulfate, whereas a new set of NH resonances
appeared downfield due to the formation of the sulfatecomplex. However,
unlike the case of a p-nitrophenyl-substituted hexaurea,
exhibiting a two-step binding mechanism with 1:1 and 1:2 complexes
(receptor/sulfate),[52] the receptor 1 reached complete saturation with 1 equiv of SO42–, suggesting a purely 1:1 binding mechanism.
This binding mode was further supported by the curve fitting isotherm
(Figure b)[55] that was obtained from the relative changes
in the integrated intensity of NH resonances for the complex and the
free 1, as a result of the incremental addition of SO42– to the receptor. The calculated binding
constants (in log K) for 1 and 2 are 5.78 and 5.55, respectively, which are higher than those
observed for the sulfatecomplexes of trisureas substituted with pentafluorophenyl
(log K = 4.72)[56] or p-cyanophenyl groups (log K = 4.7),[17] suggesting a chelate effect[2] due to the increased number of binding sites in hexaureas.
Figure 2
(a) Partial 1H NMR titration of 1 (2 mM)
showing changes in the NH chemical shifts with an increasing amount
of SO42– (20 mM) in DMSO-d6. Overlapped H4 peak is not marked in the complex. (b) 1H NMR titration plot of 1 (2 mM) with an increasing
amount of (TBA)2SO4 in DMSO-d6. The plot was obtained from the relative change in the
integration intensity ϕ (ϕ = INHc/[INHf + INHc]), where INHc is the intensity of NH1
signal in the sulfate complex, and INHf is the intensity of the corresponding NH signal in free 1.
(a) Partial 1H NMR titration of 1 (2 mM)
showing changes in the NH chemical shifts with an increasing amount
of SO42– (20 mM) in DMSO-d6. Overlapped H4 peak is not marked in the complex. (b) 1H NMR titration plot of 1 (2 mM) with an increasing
amount of (TBA)2SO4 in DMSO-d6. The plot was obtained from the relative change in the
integration intensity ϕ (ϕ = INHc/[INHf + INHc]), where INHc is the intensity of NH1
signal in the sulfatecomplex, and INHf is the intensity of the corresponding NH signal in free 1.In addition, ultraviolet–visible
(UV–vis) spectroscopy
was employed to investigate the host–guest interactions in
solution. Previous work demonstrated that the optical sensing of anions
could be achieved through the functionalization of nitrophenyl groups
to the urea-/thiourea-binding sites.[29,33] The nitrophenyl-functionalized
receptor 1 showed an absorption at λmax = 351 nm in DMSO, whereas no absorption was observed for the pentafluoro-substituted
receptor 2 because of the absence of an effective chromophore.
The addition of (TBA)2SO4 or TBAH2PO4 to the solution of 1 resulted in a change
in the absorption, suggesting the interactions between the host and
the anion. However, the receptor did not show any appreciable change
in the absorption when TBAHSO4, TBANO3, or TBAClO4 was added (see Supporting Information), which is in agreement with the results of 1H NMR experiments. Figure shows the UV–vis
titration spectra of 1, displaying a gradual bathochromic
shift of the absorption band at λmax = 351 nm because
of the incremental addition of TBAH2PO4, while
the absorption is decreased. This spectral change is also accompanied
by a visible color change from colorless to yellow (Figure S13), which could be the effect of the deprotonation
of the receptor’s NH by the relatively basicphosphate anion.[32] The relative change (I/I0) in the λmax of 1 (where I0 and I represent
the λmax of 1 before and after the addition
of TBAH2PO4, respectively) upon the gradual
addition of H2PO4– gave the
best fit for a 1:1 binding mode (Figure , inset), yielding the binding constant log K = 3.08. The host showed a similar spectral change when
it was titrated with sulfate anions; however, in this case, a sharp
saturation was achieved after the addition of 1 equiv of sulfate (Supporting Information), which is in agreement
with the 1H NMR titrations. From the UV–vis titrations,
the binding constant for sulfate was found to be 5.85 (in log K), as estimated from the nonlinear regression analysis
of a 1:1 binding model, which is fairly comparable to that obtained
from the 1H NMR titrations.
Figure 3
UV–vis titration
of 1 (1.5 × 10–4 M) with an increasing
amount of TBAH2PO4 (1.5
× 10–2 M) in DMSO (inset showing the titration
plot).
UV–vis titration
of 1 (1.5 × 10–4 M) with an increasing
amount of TBAH2PO4 (1.5
× 10–2 M) in DMSO (inset showing the titration
plot).
Crystal Structure Analysis
Single crystals of the sulfatecomplex of 1 were obtained by slow evaporation of a DMSO
solution of the receptor in the presence of an excess tetrabutylammoniumsulfate, (TBA)2SO4. The structural analysis
by single-crystal X-ray diffraction reveals that the complex crystallizes
as [1·SO4](TBA)2 in the trigonal
space group P3. The asymmetric unit of the crystal
contains three identical units (A, B, and C, Figure a), each sitting on a threefold rotation axis with an encapsulated
sulfate. All three arms of each unit adopt an ideal C3-symmetricconformation in a folded umbrella to organize
all urea-binding sites toward the cavity at precise positions around
a tetrahedral sulfate anion, thus generating the unique C3-symmetricsulfatecomplex that is stabilized by a total
of 12 H-bonds provided by six urea groups. Inspection of the structural
and bonding features of the sulfatecomplex, as shown in Figures b,c for unit A,
the receptor and the encapsulated sulfate are located on the threefold
axis along the tertiary amine (N1A) and the sulfur atom (S1A). The
distance from the terminal nitrogen to each of the three centroids
of o-phenylene rings is 7.370(1) Å, whereas
the three corresponding angles between the arms are the same (83.84(1)°),
thereby creating an ideal C3-symmetriccavity. In the sulfatecomplex, each oxygen atom is held via three
NH···O bonds, providing a total of 12 NH···O
hydrogen bonds (dN···O =
2.834(6)–3.082(7), dH···O = 1.96–2.37 Å, and ∠N–H···O
= 137.6–173.7°) that are comparable to those of the analogous
complex of p-nitrophenyl-appendedhexaurea (dN···O = 2.903–3.157 Å
and ∠N–H···O = 142.68–172.68°).[52]
Figure 4
Crystal structure of the sulfate complex, [1·SO4](TBA)2: (a) asymmetric unit showing
three identical
units of A, B, and C; (b) side view of the unit A showing 12 H-bonds
with six urea groups, where the symmetry-related atoms (N7A, N14A,
and N17A) are leveled as unprimed, single primed, and double primed;
(c) threefold axis view showing the perfect C3-symmetric sulfate complex (distances are shown in three significant
figures; exact H-bonding distances with standard deviations are listed
in Table ); (d) space-filling
model of the sulfate complex. Non-acidic hydrogen atoms on (b,c),
and TBA cations are omitted for clarity.
Crystal structure of the sulfatecomplex, [1·SO4](TBA)2: (a) asymmetric unit showing
three identical
units of A, B, and C; (b) side view of the unit A showing 12 H-bonds
with six urea groups, where the symmetry-related atoms (N7A, N14A,
and N17A) are leveled as unprimed, single primed, and double primed;
(c) threefold axis view showing the perfect C3-symmetricsulfatecomplex (distances are shown in three significant
figures; exact H-bonding distances with standard deviations are listed
in Table ); (d) space-filling
model of the sulfatecomplex. Non-acidichydrogen atoms on (b,c),
and TBAcations are omitted for clarity.
Table 2
H-Bonding Parameters (Å, °)
for the Crystal Structure of [1·SO4]2– Motif as Shown in Figure b
NH···O
H···O
D···O
∠DHO
arm 1
N4AH···O1A
2.08
2.960(6)
173.9
N7AH···O2A
2.37
3.082(7)
137.6
N14AH···O2A
1.96
2.834(6)
173.1
N17AH···O2Aia
2.06
2.888(7)
157.1
arm 2
N4AiH···O1A
2.08
2.960(6)
173.9
N7AiH···O2Aii
2.37
3.082(7)
137.6
N14AiH···O2Aii
1.96
2.834(6)
173.1
N17AiH···O2Aa
2.06
2.888(7)
157.1
arm 3
N4AiiH···O1A
2.08
2.960(6)
173.9
N7AiiH7···O2Ai
2.37
3.082(7)
137.6
N14AiiH···O2Ai
1.96
2.834(6)
173.1
N17AiiH···O2Aiia
2.06
2.888(7)
157.1
Symmetry transformations used to
generate equivalent atoms: −y + 1, x – y, and z.
Crystal structure of the sulfatecomplex of 1 showing
perfectly parallel planes formed by the three symmetry-related oxygen
atoms (O2A) of sulfate (red) and by the three symmetry-related nitrogen
atoms (light blue) of ureas (N7A, N14A, or N17A). The interplanar
distance between the corresponding plane of sulfate and the N7A plane
(formed by the three symmetry-related nitrogen atoms N7A) is 0.423
Å and is not shown for clarity.Owing to the C3-symmetricconformation,
one oxygen atom (O1A) of the sulfate pointing to the tertiary amine
lies on the threefold axis, forming three equidistant hydrogen bonds
(NH···O = 2.960(6) Å) with the inner NHs (N4)
from three different arms. The three arms of the receptor and the
three oxygen atoms of the sulfate that remain on the C3 rotation axis are symmetrically equivalent; thus, one-third
of the atoms of these groups is required to be specified. Each symmetry-related
oxygen atom (O2B) of the sulfate is coordinated with three urea–NHs:
two with o-phenylene-linked urea–NHs (N7A
and N14A) from one arm and another with one m-nitrophenyl-linked
urea–NH (N17A) from an adjacent arm [(N7H···O2A
= 3.082(7), N14H···O2A = 2.834(6), and N17AH···O2Ai = 2.888(7) Å)] (see Figure b).Along the rotation axis, three
symmetry-related oxygen atoms (O2A)
of the sulfate lies in an eclipsed conformation with respect to three
α-carbon atoms connecting with the tertiary nitrogen (N1A) at
a distance of 4.849 Å between N1A and S1A (Figure b). Because of the formation of an ideal C3-symmetric encapsulated sulfatecomplex, the
trigonal plane of three symmetry-related oxygen atoms of the sulfate lies parallel to each of the
four planes formed by the three symmetry-related nitrogen atoms of
ureas (N4A, N7A, N14A, and N17A), with interplanar distances of 3.599,
1.939, 0.423, and 1.178 Å, respectively (Figure ). No dihedral angle was observed between
these planes. Within the complex, each terminal m-nitrophenyl ring is folded toward the cavity and is almost perpendicularly
aligned to an adjacent phenylene ring showing a dihedral angle of
89.58°, where the m-nitro group remains at the opposite side
of the phenylene group to minimize the steric interactions between
the aromatic rings (Figure c,d). These aromatic rings are stacked via T-shaped CH···π
interactions (3.598–3.736 Å), thus further stabilizing
the complex. This orientation of the two rings is in agreement with
its p-nitrophenyl-substituted analogue with the sulfatecomplex,[52] but in contrast to its pentafluoro-substituted
analogue 2 with the carbonatecomplex in which the corresponding
two rings are parallel with respect to each other.[54] To the best of our knowledge, a perfect C3-symmetricsulfatecomplex with a synthetic receptor
has not been reported previously.
Figure 5
Crystal structure of the sulfate complex of 1 showing
perfectly parallel planes formed by the three symmetry-related oxygen
atoms (O2A) of sulfate (red) and by the three symmetry-related nitrogen
atoms (light blue) of ureas (N7A, N14A, or N17A). The interplanar
distance between the corresponding plane of sulfate and the N7A plane
(formed by the three symmetry-related nitrogen atoms N7A) is 0.423
Å and is not shown for clarity.
Computational Studies
To elucidate the geometries and
to understand the energies within the multifunctional cavities of 1 and 2, high-level DFT calculations were performed
on the interactions between the hosts and the sulfate anions. All
quantum mechanical calculations were carried out with the hybrid meta-exchange
correlation functional M06-2X,[57−59] in conjunction with 6-31G(d,p)
basis using the Gaussian 09 package of programs.[60] Prior calculations have shown that the M06-2X functional
accurately predicts the binding modes of organic hosts that organize
the binding sites to encapsulate the anions.[32,36,61−63] To establish a direct
correlation between the theoretical and experimental results, we have
used a 1:1 binding model, as observed in the solution-binding studies
as well as in the crystal structure of [1·SO4]2–. To this aim, the receptors were first
optimized at the M06-2X/6-31G(d,p) level of theory.[58]Using this optimized geometry, a sulfate anion was
incorporated at the center of each cavity and the complex was reoptimized
at the M06-2X/6-31G(d,p) level of theory. From the optimized structures,
the binding energies of 1 and 2 for sulfate
were calculated using the following equationThe binding energies for sulfate, as
calculated from the optimized
geometries, are −235 and −206 kcal/mol, agreeing with
the experimental results showing the higher binding constant for sulfate
with 1 than that with 2. We previously demonstrated
that a tris(3-aminopropyl)amine-based tripodal urea encapsulates the
sulfate with the binding energy of −173.0 kcal/mol in the gas
phase.[36] The higher stability of [1·SO4]2– than that of [2·SO4]2– may be due to the
geometrical complementarity between the receptor and the tetrahedral
sulfate as discussed below.The optimized structures of the
free receptors and their sulfatecomplexes are shown in Figures and 7, respectively. The hydrogen-bonding
parameters of the DFT-optimized sulfatecomplexes are listed in Table . From our calculations,
we found that 1 and 2 adopt different geometries,
whereas both of them are organized to maintain their C3 conformations. Specially, the terminal aromatic rings
of 1 are folded to form three pairs of T-shaped CH···π
interactions from the interactions of m-nitrophenyl
ring with an adjacent o-phenylene ring, thereby creating
a tetrahedral cavity in a folded cone shape. The cavity is further
stabilized by three intramolecular H-bonding interactions between
the urea–NH and the carbonyl O groups (see Figure a), as also observed previously
in a free p-cyanophenyl-based tripodal urea.[64] On the other hand, the free receptor 2 adopts a cone shape, exhibiting hydrogen-bonding interactions at
both inner and outer cavities (see Figure b). From these calculations, it may be suggested
that the geometry of 1 provides the best complementarity
to fit a tetrahedral sulfate within the host’s self-generated
cavity. The structures of 1 and 2 complexes
with the sulfate, as shown in Figure , suggest that each receptor encapsulates SO42– inside the cavity utilizing all six urea groups,
providing a total of 12 H-bonds in each case. This binding arrangement,
however, leads to the expansion of the cavity, as expected, whereas
the C3 symmetry is preserved in both complexes.
Figure 6
Optimized
structures (a) 1 and (b) 2 showing
perspective views, calculated at the M06-2X/6-31G(d,p) level of theory.
Figure 7
Optimized structures (a) [1(SO4)]2– and (b) [2(SO4)]2– showing
perspective views, calculated at the M06-2X/6-31G(d,p) level of theory.
Table 3
Hydrogen Parameters
(Å, °)
for the Sulfate Complexes of 1 and 2a
[1(SO4)]2–
[2(SO4)]2–
NH···O
NH···O
H···O
∠DHO
NH···O
H···O
∠DHO
1st arm
N2H···O7
2.991
1.973
176.5
2.907
1.886
177.5
N3H···O8
2.937
1.941
165.5
2.914
1.919
164.2
N8H···O8
2.888
1.881
169.3
2.932
2.113
136.5
N9H···O9
2.942
1.937
167.1
2.792
1.770
172.6
2nd arm
N4H···O7
2.991
1.973
176.5
2.895
1.874
177.1
N5H···O10
2.937
1.941
165.5
2.937
1.939
165.4
N10H···O10
2.888
1.881
169.3
2.891
1.934
155.8
N11H···O8
2.942
1.937
167.1
2.870
1.843
177.8
3rd arm
N6H···O7
2.991
1.973
176.5
2.928
1.908
176.3
N7H···O9
2.937
1.941
165.5
2.899
1.895
167.5
N12H···O9
2.888
1.881
169.3
2.877
1.901
159.8
N13H···O10
2.942
1.937
167.1
2.843
1.816
178.2
Calculated with DFT at M06-2X/6-31G(d,p).
Optimized
structures (a) 1 and (b) 2 showing
perspective views, calculated at the M06-2X/6-31G(d,p) level of theory.Optimized structures (a) [1(SO4)]2– and (b) [2(SO4)]2– showing
perspective views, calculated at the M06-2X/6-31G(d,p) level of theory.pan class="Chemical">Calpan class="Chemical">culated with DFT at M06-2X/6-31G(d,p).
Notably, as in the crystal
structure of [1·SO4]2–, a perfect C3 symmetry is again observed
in the DFT-optimized structure of the
former case (see Table ), where each arm forms four H-bonds (NH···O = 2.991,
2.937, 2.888, and 2.942 Å) with the encapsulated sulfate. The
optimized complex is further stabilized by three T-shaped CH···π
interactions (3.54 Å) between the terminal m-nitrophenyl rings and adjacent o-phenylene rings.
By contrast, the optimized [2·SO4]2– complex, as shown in Figure b, adopts a different geometry in which the
terminal aromatic groups are stacked through strong CF···π
interactions (2.72, 2.85, and 3.07 Å).[65] To corroborate the experimental binding constants, we also calculated
the binding energies for other oxoanions, showing the binding trend
SO42– > HSO4– > HCO3– > H2PO4– > NO3– > ClO4– (see Supporting Information, Table S1). These calculated data are
in agreement with the experimental
titration results, showing the highest binding energies for dinegatively
charged sulfates with both receptors, whereas the m-nitro analogue 1 exhibits stronger anion-binding affinity than its pentafluoro
analogue 2.
Conclusions
We have designed and
synthesized two tripodal-based hexaureas appended
with the m-nitrophenyl (1) and pentafluorophenyl
(2) groups. Their binding properties have been investigated
for inorganic oxoanions such as hydrogen sulfate, dihydrogen phosphate,
bicarbonate, nitrate, and perchlorate, showing high binding affinities
for the sulfate anion. We have isolated and structurally characterized
the sulfatecomplex of 1 by single-crystal X-ray analysis,
confirming the formation of the crystallographically perfect C3-symmetricsulfatecomplex of 1 in which all six urea groups excellently organize toward the center
of the cavity to encapsulate a sulfate anion with 12 NH···O
hydrogen bonds. Both the receptor and the anion are located on the
threefold axis passing through the tertiary nitrogen of the receptor
and the sulfur atom of the encapsulated sulfate. The computational
studies performed by the high-level DFT calculations demonstrate that
the C3-symmetricsulfatecomplex is achieved
because of the best complementarity between the receptor and the sulfate
anion. Although the complete saturation of the coordination sites
of a C3-symmetricsulfate was achieved
previously by six urea groups provided by two trisureas[27] or single hexaureas[52] providing the optimal 12 hydrogen bonds as predicted theoretically,[51] however, to the best of our knowledge, a perfect C3-symmetricsulfatecomplex with a synthetic
receptor has not been reported so far. The receptor 1 represents an exceptional example that encapsulates a sulfate anion
to form an ideal C3-symmetricsulfatecomplex.
Experimental Section
General
All reagents and solvents
were purchased from
Sigma-Aldrich and were used as received. The synthesized compounds
were characterized using the common laboratory techniques as described
before.[36]
Synthesis of the Receptors 1 and 2
The synthesis of 1 was carried out by the
reaction of tris(2-aminophenyl)urea[54] (0.60
g, 1.09 mmol) with 3 equiv of 3-nitrophenyl isocyanate (0.54 g, 3.38
mmol) in a solution of toluene and THF (2:1, 150 mL). The reaction
mixture was refluxed overnight at 100–110 °C under a nitrogen
atmosphere and was cooled at room temperature. The precipitate thus
formed was collected by filtration and washed with CH2Cl2. The compound was dried under vacuum to give 1 as a chalky yellow powder. Yield: 1.01 g (89%). mp: 220–222
°C, 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6, TSP): δ 9.66 (s, 3H, ArNH), 8.52 (s, 3H,
ArH), 8.18 (s, 3H, ArNH), 7.98 (s,
3H, ArNH), 7.86 (d, J = 9.0 Hz,
3H, ArH), 7.68 (d, J = 9.0 Hz, 3H,
ArH), 7.56 (m, 6H, ArH), 7.43 (s,
3H, ArH), 7.03 (t, J = 6.1 Hz, 6H,
ArH), 6.55 (s, 3H, NH), 3.20 (d, J = 6 Hz, 6H, NHCH2), 2.61 (t, J = 6.1 Hz, 6H, NCH2). 13C NMR (125 MHz, DMSO-d6): 156.7
(ArCO), 153.4 (NHCO), 148.5 (ArC), 141.7 (ArC), 132.3 (ArC), 131.3 (ArC), 130.4 (ArC), 124.7
(ArC), 124.5 (ArC), 116.5 (ArC),
112.4 (NHCH2), 54.4 (NHCH2CH2). Anal. Calcd for C48H48N16O12: C, 55.38; H, 4.65; N, 21.53. Found:
C, 55.22; H, 4.52; N, 21.56. ESI-MS (+ve) m/z: calcd for C48H49N16O12, 1041.36 [M + H]+; found, 1041.25. The receptor 2 was synthesized following the procedures as described before.[54]
Synthesis of the Sulfate Complex of 1 ([1·SO4](TBA)2)
The sulfatecomplex
of 1 was obtained from slow evaporation of a DMSO solution
of 1 (30 mg, 0.029 mmol) in the presence of excess (∼2.0
equiv) n-tetrabutylammonium sulfate in a vial at
room temperature in 5 days. Yield: 23 mg (70%). Anal. Calcd for C48H48N16O12: C, 59.24; H,
7.46; N, 15.54. Found: C, 59.28; H, 4.47; N, 15.56. ESI-MS (−ve) m/z: calcd for [C48H48N16O12SO4)/2], 568.16 [(M·SO4)/2]−; found, 568.18. The compound was further
characterized by a single-crystal X-ray diffraction analysis.
NMR Binding
Studies
The binding constants of the receptors
with different oxoanions (SO42–, HSO4–, H2PO4–, ClO4–, and NO3– in the form of their TBA salts) were obtained by the 1H NMR titrations in DMSO-d6 using a 500
MHz Bruker instrument at room temperature. The initial concentrations
of the receptors and anions were 2 and 20 mM, respectively. Sodium
salt of 3-(trimethylsilyl) propionic-2,2,3,3-d4 (TSP) acid in DMSO was used as an external reference in a
capillary tube. Each titration was performed by 12–14 measurements.
The association constants (K) were calculated using
a 1:1 binding model[55] from the changes
of chemical shifts of NH for the fast exchange reactions or relative
changes in the intensity of the NH resonance for complexes and free
receptors as described previously.[54]
UV–Vis Binding Studies
The receptor 1 showed an absorption at λmax = 351 nm in DMSO,
whereas no absorption was observed for 2 because of the
absence of an optically active chromophore. UV–vis titration
studies were performed by titrating 1 with different
oxoanions as their TBA salts in DMSO at room temperature. The initial
concentrations of the receptor and the anions were 1.5 × 10–4 and 1.5 × 10–2 M, respectively.
Each titration was performed by 15 measurements in the range of 0–35
equiv of anions, and the binding constant K was calculated
by fitting the relative UV–vis absorbance or wavelength with
a 1:1 binding model.[55]
X-ray Crystallography
The single-crystal structure
of 1 was analyzed using a diffractometer with a Bruker
APEXCCD area detector,[66] as described
before.[67] Details of the crystal data and
structure refinement are listed in Table . The structure was refined by a full-matrix
least-squares method using the SHELXL2013 program.[68]
Table 4
Crystal Data and Structure Refinement
for the Sulfate Complex of 1
Authors: Muhammet Işiklan; Musabbir A Saeed; Avijit Pramanik; Bryan M Wong; Frank R Fronczek; Alamgir Hossain Journal: Cryst Growth Des Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 4.076
Authors: Whitney A Quinn; Musabbir A Saeed; Douglas R Powell; Md Alamgir Hossain Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2010-05-04 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Hai Xu; Norbert Sträter; Werner Schröder; Christoph Böttcher; Kai Ludwig; Wolfram Saenger Journal: Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr Date: 2003-04-25
Authors: Maryam Emami Khansari; Mohammad H Hasan; Corey R Johnson; Nya A Williams; Bryan M Wong; Douglas R Powell; Ritesh Tandon; Md Alamgir Hossain Journal: ACS Omega Date: 2017-12-18