Ya Yin1, Zhao Chen1, Congbin Fan1, Gang Liu1, Shouzhi Pu1. 1. Jiangxi Key Laboratory of Organic Chemistry, Jiangxi Science and Technology Normal University, Nanchang 330013, PR China.
Abstract
Six 1,8-naphthalimide-based tetraphenylethene derivatives were reported. These highly solid-state emissive compounds showed aggregation-induced emission enhancement or aggregate fluorescence change characteristics. Furthermore, these aggregation-induced green light-emitting or aggregation-induced yellow light-emitting luminophors also exhibited various mechanofluorochromism behaviors involving different fluorescent color changes. To determine the mechanochromic mechanism of these six mechanical stimulus-responsive luminogens, the powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) and X-ray single-crystal measurements were carried out. The powder XRD test results indicated that their interesting mechanofluorochromic behaviors were attributed to the interconversion between crystalline and amorphous states. Meanwhile, the X-ray single-crystal analyses results implied that the twisted molecular conformation and the absence of an intense intermolecular acting force led to a loose packing motif, and the alteration of molecular packing was responsible for the observed mechanofluorochromic effect.
Six 1,8-naphthalimide-based tetraphenylethene derivatives were reported. These highly solid-state emissive compounds showed aggregation-induced emission enhancement or aggregate fluorescence change characteristics. Furthermore, these aggregation-induced green light-emitting or aggregation-induced yellow light-emitting luminophors also exhibited various mechanofluorochromism behaviors involving different fluorescent color changes. To determine the mechanochromic mechanism of these six mechanical stimulus-responsive luminogens, the powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) and X-ray single-crystal measurements were carried out. The powder XRD test results indicated that their interesting mechanofluorochromic behaviors were attributed to the interconversion between crystalline and amorphous states. Meanwhile, the X-ray single-crystal analyses results implied that the twisted molecular conformation and the absence of an intense intermolecular acting force led to a loose packing motif, and the alteration of molecular packing was responsible for the observed mechanofluorochromic effect.
Over the past decades,
organic fluorescent materials have attracted
increasing attention on account of their fundamental importance and
potential applications in photoelectronic devices and fluorescent
sensors.[1−11] Smart materials with mechanical stimulus-responsive luminescence
changing feature are of particular interest. Indeed, considerable
effort has been devoted to the exploitation of mechanochromic materials.[12−25] To realize the high-contrast mechanochromic phenomenon before and
after stimulating, strong solid-state emission is highly desired.[26,27] However, emissions of a majority of luminophors are weakened or
even quenched when they are in solid or aggregation states, which
is caused by the aggregation-caused quenching (ACQ) effect.[28] Such a notorious and thorny ACQ problem has
greatly limited the effective application of mechanochromic materials.
Fortunately, in 2001, an unusual and opposite aggregation-induced
emission (AIE) phenomenon was observed by Tang’s group.[29] Subsequently, in 2002, Park et al. reported
the interesting aggregation-induced emission enhancement (AIEE) effect.[30] Instead of emission quenching, fluorescent molecules
with AIE or AIEE behavior can emit bright light by aggregate formation.[31,32] Meanwhile, luminophors with aggregate fluorescence change feature
can also usually emit strong fluorescence in the aggregation state.[33,34] Therefore, the discovery of AIE, AIEE, and aggregate fluorescence
change phenomena is helpful for the acquisition of high-contrast mechanochromic
luminescence materials. On the other hand, the exploitation of novel
organic emitters with wide tuning range wavelength based on the same
core structure has become a promising and wildly attentional research
topic in the last ten years.[35−37]1,8-Naphthalimide-based
compounds are an important class of organic
dyes, and they exhibit potential practical applications in a wide
range of fluorescent sensors, optical devices, and fluorescent cellular
imaging agents.[38−43] Unfortunately, the aggregate-state luminous efficiency of most 1,8-naphthalimide-based
luminogens is not ideal owing to the existence of the ACQ effect.[44] Indeed, it is significative and challenging
to design and synthesize highly solid-state emissive 1,8-naphthalimide-based
derivatives. In this work, six highly solid-state emissive luminophors
(Chart ) based on
1,8-naphthalimide and tetraphenylethene units were successfully obtained.
Furthermore, compounds 1–3 showed obvious AIEE
characteristics involving fluorescent color change from weak orange
to strong green. Interestingly, compounds 4–6 showed
aggregate fluorescence change feature involving fluorescent color
change from orange to yellow. In addition, luminogens 1–3 exhibited reversible mechanofluorochromic phenomena with color changes
between blue or blue-green and green emissions. Meanwhile, luminogens 4–6 also exhibited reversible mechanochromiccharacteristics
involving fluorescent color change from yellow-green or yellow to
yellow or orange. Indeed, the preparation of these highly solid-state
emissive 1,8-naphthalimide-based luminogens is beneficial to the development
of rewritable recording mediums (Scheme ).
Chart 1
Molecular Structures of Compounds 1–6.
Scheme 1
Synthesis of the Compounds 1–6
Results and Discussion
AIEE or
Aggregate Fluorescence Change Behaviors of Compounds 1–6
To investigate the aggregation-induced
properties of compounds 1–6, the corresponding
UV–vis absorption spectra in dimethylformamide (DMF)–H2O mixtures with different watercontents were surveyed initially
(Figures S1–S6, Supporting Information). Level-off tails could be clearly observed in the long-wavelength
region as the watercontent increased. Such tails can commonly be
observed in nanoparticle suspensions and are the signals of the formation
of nanoscopic aggregates.[45] Subsequently,
the photoluminescence (PL) spectra were recorded in DMF–H2O mixtures with various water fractions (fw). As shown in Figure , luminogen 1 displayed very weak emission
with λmax at 609 nm in dilute DMF solution, corresponding
to a weak orange fluorescence under 365 nm UV light, and its absolute
fluorescence quantum yield (Φ) was 1.44%. However, the emission
intensity decreased significantly, and the orange fluorescence almost
disappeared as the watercontent was increased to 10% because of the
twisted intramolecular charge-transfer (TICT) effect.[33] Interestingly, when the watercontent was increased to
50%, a new green emission band was observed with λmax at 511 nm. Furthermore, the mixture emitted bright green light with
a fluorescence quantum yield up to 46.42% when the fw value was 90%. Obviously, water is a nonsolvent of compound 1. Therefore, the strong green light-emitting was triggered
by the aggregate formation. In fact, the nano-aggregates (fw = 90%) obtained were confirmed by dynamic
light scattering (DLS) (Figure ). The formation of nano-aggregates resulted in the restricted
intramolecular rotation of tetraphenylethene unit and thus the generation
of the green light emission. Clearly, compound 1 is an
AIEE-active luminogen. Similarly, as shown in Figures S7 and S8, compounds 2 and 3 also exhibited excellent AIEE properties. On the other hand, as
shown in Figure S9, compound 4 exhibited one emission band with λmax at 611 nm
in dilute DMF solution, and it emitted an orange fluorescence (Φ
= 29.02%) under 365 nm UV irradiation. Interestingly, when fw reached 20%, the orange fluorescence also
almost disappeared, and this phenomenon could also be attributed to
the TICT effect. As fw was further increased
to 50%, one new emission band was observed with λmax at 558 nm, and the fluorescence color changed from orange to yellow.
When fw exceeded 50%, the fluorescent
color was still yellow, and the fluorescence quantum yield was 31.66%
as the fw value was increased to 90%.
Moreover, when the watercontent was 90%, the nano-aggregates obtained
were also characterized by DLS (Figure ), and thus compound 4 exhibited interesting
aggregate fluorescence change behavior involving a fluorescence color
changing from orange to yellow. Similarly, as shown in Figures S10 and S11, compounds 5 and 6 also exhibited aggregate fluorescence change
properties.
Figure 1
(A) PL spectra of the dilute solutions of luminogen 1 (concentration: 20 μM) in DMF–H2O mixtures
with different volume fractions of water (0–90%). Excitation
wavelength: 365 nm; (B) PL images of luminogen 1 (concentration:
20 μM) in DMF–H2O mixtures with different fw values (0–90%) under irradiation with
UV light at 365 nm.
Figure 2
Size distribution curves
of compounds 1–6 (2.0
× 10–5 mol L–1) in DMF–water
mixtures with 90% volume fraction of water.
(A) PL spectra of the dilute solutions of luminogen 1 (concentration: 20 μM) in DMF–H2O mixtures
with different volume fractions of water (0–90%). Excitation
wavelength: 365 nm; (B) PL images of luminogen 1 (concentration:
20 μM) in DMF–H2O mixtures with different fw values (0–90%) under irradiation with
UV light at 365 nm.Size distribution curves
of compounds 1–6 (2.0
× 10–5 mol L–1) in DMF–water
mixtures with 90% volume fraction of water.
Mechanofluorochromic Characteristics of Compounds 1–6
Next, the mechanochromic fluorescence behaviors of luminogens 1–6 were explored by solid-state PL spectroscopy. As
evident from Figure , the solid sample of compound 1 emitted bright blue-green
light with one emission band at 484 nm (λmax), and
its luminescence quantum yield was 20.82%, and the average lifetime
of the as-synthesized sample 1 was 4.04 ns (Figure ). However, after
it was ground using a spatula or a pestle, a green light centered
at 517 nm was observed, and the quantum yield of ground sample 1 was 20.16%, and the average lifetime of the ground sample 1 was 4.45 ns. Moreover, the mechanochromic green fluorescence
could be converted into its initial state upon treatment with fuming
dichloromethane vapor for 1 min. Thus, luminogen 1 showed
reversible mechanochromic behavior with fluorescence changes between
blue-green and green emissions. Furthermore, the repeatability of
this mechanofluorochromicconversion of 1 was superior
(Figure ). Similarly,
as shown in Figures and 7, luminogens 2 and 3 also showed reversible mechanochromic fluorescence phenomena
involving color changes from blue or blue-green to green, and their
corresponding luminescence lifetimes before and after grinding were
shown in Figures S12 and S13 (Supporting Information). Meanwhile, their mechanofluorochromicconversion could also be
repeated several times without fatigue (Figures S16 and S17, Supporting Information). Obviously, the high-contrast
mechanochromic fluorescence of 2 affords its potential
application in rewritable recording mediums. As shown in Figure , we wrote two letters
“C” and “Z” on the weighing paper, which
exhibited green luminescence in the sheared area. Upon treatment of
the ground sample with fuming dichloromethane vapor, the two letters
turned to the original blue. On the other hand, as can be seen in Figure , luminogen 4 showed an emission band with λmax at 562
nm and emitted strong yellow fluorescence with the quantum yield of
30.16% and the average lifetime of 2.71 ns (Figure ). In contrast, a slightly red-shifted emission
peak centered at 568 nm was observed, and a yellowish brown fluorescence
(Φ = 29.80%) was noticed under 365 nm UV light, and the initial
emission state was obtained after treatment with dichloromethane vapor.
Therefore, luminogen 4 showed reversible mechanochromic
phenomenon involving slightly red-shifted fluorescent color change,
and a set of four cycles of repeated grinding-fuming processes is
shown in Figure . Similarly, as shown in Figures and 13, luminogens 5 and 6 also showed reversible mechanofluorochromiccharacteristics
with color changes from yellow or yellow-green to orange or yellow,
and their luminescence lifetimes in various solid states were shown
in Figures S14 and S15 (Supporting Information), and the repeatabilities of their mechanofluorochromic behaviors
were good (Figures S18 and S19, Supporting Information). Furthermore, as presented in Figure S20 (Supporting Information), the reversible mechanochromic fluorescence of 6 could also be applied in optical recording. The maximum
emission wavelengths of compounds 1–6 in different
solid states (as-synthesized powder, ground one and fumed one) have
been summarized in a table (Figure S21, Supporting Information).
Figure 3
(A) PL spectra of luminogen 1 at different
conditions.
Excitation wavelength: 365 nm. Photographic images of luminogen 1 under 365 nm UV light: (B) as-synthesized solid sample;
(C) ground sample; (D) sample after treatment with dichloromethane
vapor.
Figure 4
Decay curves (excitation wavelength: 365 nm)
of luminogen 1 in various solid states: the unground
solid sample (the
black line, emission wavelength: 484 nm) and the ground solid sample
(the red line, emission wavelength: 517 nm).
Figure 5
Repetitive
experiment of mechanochromic behavior for luminogen 1.
Figure 6
(A) PL spectra of luminogen 2 at
different conditions.
Excitation wavelength: 365 nm. Photographic images of luminogen 2 under 365 nm UV light: (B) as-synthesized solid sample;
(C) ground sample; (D) sample after treatment with dichloromethane
vapor.
Figure 7
(A) PL spectra of luminogen 3 at
different conditions.
Excitation wavelength: 365 nm. Photographic images of luminogen 3 under 365 nm UV light: (B) as-synthesized solid sample;
(C) ground sample; (D) sample after treatment with dichloromethane
vapor.
Figure 8
Repeated writing and erasing processes utilizing
the switchable
mechanochromic fluorescence of 2.
Figure 9
(A) PL
spectra of luminogen 4 at different conditions.
Excitation wavelength: 365 nm. Photographic images of luminogen 4 under 365 nm UV light: (B) as-synthesized solid sample;
(C) ground sample; (D) sample after treatment with dichloromethane
vapor.
Figure 10
Decay curves (excitation wavelength:
365 nm) of luminogen 4 in various solid states: the unground
solid sample (the
black line, emission wavelength: 562 nm) and the ground solid sample
(the red line, emission wavelength: 568 nm).
Figure 11
Repetitive
experiment of mechanochromic behavior for luminogen 4.
Figure 12
(A) PL spectra of luminogen 5 at different conditions.
Excitation wavelength: 365 nm. Photographic images of luminogen 5 under 365 nm UV light: (B) as-synthesized solid sample;
(C) ground sample; (D) sample after treatment with dichloromethane
vapor.
Figure 13
(A) PL spectra of luminogen 6 at different conditions.
Excitation wavelength: 365 nm. Photographic images of luminogen 6 under 365 nm UV light: (B) as-synthesized solid sample;
(C) ground sample; (D) sample after treatment with dichloromethane
vapor.
(A) PL spectra of luminogen 1 at different
conditions.
Excitation wavelength: 365 nm. Photographic images of luminogen 1 under 365 nm UV light: (B) as-synthesized solid sample;
(C) ground sample; (D) sample after treatment with dichloromethane
vapor.Decay curves (excitation wavelength: 365 nm)
of luminogen 1 in various solid states: the unground
solid sample (the
black line, emission wavelength: 484 nm) and the ground solid sample
(the red line, emission wavelength: 517 nm).Repetitive
experiment of mechanochromic behavior for luminogen 1.(A) PL spectra of luminogen 2 at
different conditions.
Excitation wavelength: 365 nm. Photographic images of luminogen 2 under 365 nm UV light: (B) as-synthesized solid sample;
(C) ground sample; (D) sample after treatment with dichloromethane
vapor.(A) PL spectra of luminogen 3 at
different conditions.
Excitation wavelength: 365 nm. Photographic images of luminogen 3 under 365 nm UV light: (B) as-synthesized solid sample;
(C) ground sample; (D) sample after treatment with dichloromethane
vapor.Repeated writing and erasing processes utilizing
the switchable
mechanochromic fluorescence of 2.(A) PL
spectra of luminogen 4 at different conditions.
Excitation wavelength: 365 nm. Photographic images of luminogen 4 under 365 nm UV light: (B) as-synthesized solid sample;
(C) ground sample; (D) sample after treatment with dichloromethane
vapor.Decay curves (excitation wavelength:
365 nm) of luminogen 4 in various solid states: the unground
solid sample (the
black line, emission wavelength: 562 nm) and the ground solid sample
(the red line, emission wavelength: 568 nm).Repetitive
experiment of mechanochromic behavior for luminogen 4.(A) PL spectra of luminogen 5 at different conditions.
Excitation wavelength: 365 nm. Photographic images of luminogen 5 under 365 nm UV light: (B) as-synthesized solid sample;
(C) ground sample; (D) sample after treatment with dichloromethane
vapor.(A) PL spectra of luminogen 6 at different conditions.
Excitation wavelength: 365 nm. Photographic images of luminogen 6 under 365 nm UV light: (B) as-synthesized solid sample;
(C) ground sample; (D) sample after treatment with dichloromethane
vapor.
Powder X-ray Diffraction
and X-ray Single-Crystal Measurements
To determine the mechanofluorochromic
mechanism of 1–6, the powder X-ray diffraction
(XRD) patterns of 1–6 in various solid states
were measured. Take compound 1 as an example, as evident
from Figure , the
diffraction curve of the as-synthesized
sample displayed many intense and sharp reflection peaks, illustrating
its crystalline structure. In contrast, the strong and sharp diffraction
peaks vanished after grinding the solid sample in a mortar, which
implied that the grinding resulted in a crystal-to-amorphous morphology
transition. Moreover, upon treatment with dichloromethane solvent
vapor, many sharp and intense diffraction peaks reappeared, indicating
its crystalline state was restored. Therefore, the powder XRD results
suggested that the mechanofluorochromic behavior for 1 was attributed to the interconversion between crystalline and amorphous
states. Similarly, as can be seen in Figures S22–S26 (Supporting Information), the pristine powder
of compounds 2–6 also exhibited intense and sharp
peaks, indicating their crystalline morphology, and the powder XRD
patterns obtained upon grinding did not show any obvious diffraction
peaks, indicating the formation of amorphous morphology, and the initial
diffraction peaks could be restored after treatment with fuming dichloromethane
vapor. Based on the abovementioned analyses, the mechanofluorochromic
behaviors of 2–6 could also be attributed to the
morphology transition between the crystalline and amorphous states.
In addition, fortunately, single crystals of 3 were successfully
grown by the recrystallization method. The fluorescence quantum yield
of these single crystals was 74.87%, and the fluorescence lifetime
was 4.80 ns (Figure S27). The corresponding
fluorescence spectrum and fluorescence image of these single crystals
were shown in Figures S28 and S29 (Supporting Information). Detailed crystal information is provided in the
Tables S1 and S2 (Supporting Information). As can be seen in Figure , the molecular conformation of compound 3 is
twisted due to the existence of tetraphenylethene unit. Indeed, the
twisted molecular conformation and the presence of weak intermolecular
C–H···O (dC–H···O = 2.695 Å) and C–H···π (dC–H···π = 2.207
Å) interactions lead to a loose packing motif, which may readily
collapse upon exposure to mechanical stimuli. As a consequence, the
amorphous state is formed, and the blue-green fluorescence was changed
to green.
Figure 14
Powder XRD patterns of compound 1 in various solid
states: the unground powder, the ground powder, the powder after treatment
with dichloromethane vapor.
Figure 15
Structural
organization of compound 3.
Powder XRD patterns of compound 1 in various solid
states: the unground powder, the ground powder, the powder after treatment
with dichloromethane vapor.Structural
organization of compound 3.
Conclusions
In summary, we developed six highly solid-emissive
1,8-naphthalimide-based
compounds. Interestingly, compounds 1–3 showed
AIEE characteristics involving fluorescent color change from weak
orange to strong green, and compounds 4–6 showed
aggregate fluorescence change feature involving fluorescent color
change from orange to yellow. Furthermore, these aggregation-induced
green light-emitting or aggregation-induced yellow light-emitting
luminophors also exhibited different mechanofluorochromism phenomena.
Among them, 1–3 exhibited mechanofluorochromic
phenomena with color changes between blue or blue-green and green
emissions, and 4–6 exhibited mechanochromiccharacteristics
involving fluorescent color change from yellow-green or yellow to
yellow or orange. Indeed, 2 and 6 are promising
candidates of rewritable recording mediums. According to powder XRD
and X-ray single-crystal analyses results, their significative mechanofluorochromic
properties should be caused by the morphology transformation and the
alteration of molecular packing. This research work provides valuable
reference for the rational design of novel 1,8-naphthalimide-based
high-contrast mechanochromic fluorescence materials.
Experimental
Section
General Methods
All manipulations were carried out
under an argon atmosphere by using standard Schlenk techniques, unless
otherwise stated. All starting materials and reagents were obtained
as analytical grade from commercial suppliers and used without further
purification. Compound 1-1,[46] compound 1-2,[46] compound 1-3,[46] compound 1-4,[47] and Compound 1-5(48) were prepared by procedures described in the
corresponding literatures. 1HNMR (400 MHz) and 13CNMR (100 or 125 MHz) spectra were collected on American Varian
MercuryPlus 400 spectrometer (400 MHz) and Bruker AVANCE NEO 500
MHz FT-NMR Spectrometer (500 MHz). 1HNMR spectra are reported
as followed: chemical shift in ppm (δ) relative to the chemical
shift of TMS at 0.00 ppm, integration, multiplicities (s = singlet,
d = doublet, t = triplet, m = multiplet), and coupling constant (Hz). 13CNMR chemical shifts reported in ppm (δ) relative
to the central line of triplet for CDCl3 at 77 ppm or the
central line of quintet for CD2Cl2 at 53.84
ppm. Mass spectra were obtained using Thermo scientific DSQ II. Elemental
analyses (C, H, N) were carried out with a PE CHN 2400 analyzer. The
absorption spectra were measured on an Agilent 8453 UV/vis spectrophotometer.
Fluorescence spectra were recorded on a Hitachi-F-4600 fluorescence
spectrophotometer. XRD studies were recorded on a Shimadzu XRD-6000
diffractometer using Ni-filtered and graphite-monochromated Cu Kα
radiation (λ = 1.54 Å, 40 kV, 30 mA). The X-ray crystal-structure
determination of compound 3 was obtained on a Bruker
APEX DUO CCD system. The DMF–water mixtures with various water
fractions were prepared by tardily adding ultrapure water into the
DMF solution of samples. The aggregate behaviors of compounds 1–6 were investigated by NanoBrook 90Plus (Brookhaven
Instruments). Absolute luminescence quantum yields were measured by
HAMAMATSU ABSOLUTE PL QUANTUM YIELD SPECTROMETER C11347. Fluorescence
lifetimes were measured by FLS 1000. Column chromatographic separations
were carried out on silica gel (200–300 mesh). TLC was performed
by using commercially prepared 100–400 mesh silica gelplates
(GF254) and visualization was effected at 254 nm.
Crystallographic
Details
Single crystals of compound 3 suitable
for X-ray analysis were obtained by slow diffusion
of n-hexane into a solution of dichloromethane. A
crystal of 3 with appropriate dimensions was mounted
on a glass fiber for diffraction experiment. Intensity data were collected
on a Nonius Kappa CCD diffractometer with Mo Kα radiation (0.71073
Å) at room temperature. The structure was solved by a combination
of direct methods (SHELXS-97)[49] and Fourier
difference techniques and refined by full-matrix least-squares (SHELXL-97).[50] All non-H atoms were refined anisotropically.
The hydrogen atoms were placed in the ideal positions and refined
as riding atoms. Crystallographic data for the structure in this paper
have been deposited with the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre
as supplemental publication CCDC 1812957 (compound 3).
General Procedure for the Synthesis of Compound 1
A mixture of compounds 1-4 (2.1 mmol, 0.79
g), 1-1 (2.0 mmol, 0.61 g), K2CO3 (3.62 mmol, 0.50 g), and Pd(PPh3)4 (0.087
mmol, 0.1 g) were stirred in toluene (50 mL), ethanol (50 mL), and
H2O (5 mL) for 16 h under an argon atmosphere at 80 °C.
After completion of present reaction, the mixture was extracted with
dichloromethane (3 × 20 mL). The combined organic layers were
washed with brine, dried (Na2SO4), and concentrated
in vacuo. The residues were purified by column chromatography, affording
the expected green solid product in a yield of 78%. 1HNMR (400 MHz, CD2Cl2): δ (ppm) 8.50–8.47
(m, 2H), 8.11–8.08 (m, 1H), 7.62–7.56 (m, 2H), 7.19–7.17
(m, 2H), 7.13–7.11 (m, 2H), 7.10–6.98 (m, 15H), 4.15–4.09
(m, 2H), 1.22 (t, J = 6 Hz, 3H). 13CNMR
(100 MHz, CD2Cl2): δ (ppm) 164.4, 164.2,
147.0, 144.6, 144.1, 144.0, 143.9, 142.4, 140.9, 137.3, 132.9, 131.9,
131.7, 131.6, 131.2, 130.9, 130.5, 129.7, 129.1, 128.2, 128.2, 127.2,
127.1, 127.1, 127.0, 123.5, 122.3, 35.8, 13.5. EI-MS: m/z = 555.5 [M]+. Anal. Calcd. for C40H29NO2: C, 86.46; H, 5.26; N, 2.52.
Found: C, 86.52; H, 5.33; N, 2.47.
General Procedure for the
Synthesis of Compound 2
A mixture of compounds 1-4 (2.1 mmol, 0.79
g), 1-2 (2.0 mmol, 0.64 g), K2CO3 (3.62 mmol, 0.50 g), and Pd(PPh3)4 (0.087
mmol, 0.1 g) were stirred in toluene (50 mL), ethanol (50 mL), and
H2O (5 mL) for 16 h under an argon atmosphere at 80 °C.
After completion of present reaction, the mixture was extracted with
dichloromethane (3 × 20 mL). The combined organic layers were
washed with brine, dried (Na2SO4), and concentrated
in vacuo. The residues were purified by column chromatography, affording
the expected white solid product in a yield of 75%. 1HNMR (400 MHz, CD2Cl2): δ (ppm) 8.48–8.45
(m, 2H), 8.10–8.07 (m, 1H), 7.60–7.55 (m, 2H), 7.18–7.16
(m, 2H), 7.13–7.10 (m, 2H), 7.09–6.98 (m, 15H), 4.04–4.00
(m, 2H), 1.70–1.61 (m, 2H), 0.91 (t, J = 8
Hz, 3H). 13CNMR (100 MHz, CD2Cl2): δ (ppm) 164.6, 164.4, 146.9, 144.6, 144.1, 144.0, 143.9,
142.4, 140.9, 137.3, 132.8, 131.9, 131.7, 131.6, 131.2, 130.9, 130.5,
129.7, 129.1, 128.2, 128.2, 127.1, 127.1, 127.1, 123.5, 122.3, 42.3,
21.8, 11.8. EI-MS: m/z = 569.5 [M]+. Anal. Calcd. for C41H31NO2: C, 86.44; H, 5.48; N, 2.46. Found: C, 86.40; H, 5.41; N, 2.51.
General Procedure for the Synthesis of Compound 3
A mixture of compounds 1-4 (2.1 mmol, 0.79
g), 1-3 (2.0 mmol, 0.66 g), K2CO3 (3.62 mmol, 0.50 g), and Pd(PPh3)4 (0.087
mmol, 0.1 g) were stirred in toluene (50 mL), ethanol (50 mL), and
H2O (5 mL) for 16 h under an argon atmosphere at 80 °C.
After completion of present reaction, the mixture was extracted with
dichloromethane (3 × 20 mL). The combined organic layers were
washed with brine, dried (Na2SO4), and concentrated
in vacuo. The residues were purified by column chromatography, affording
the expected yellow-green solid product in a yield of 79%. 1HNMR (400 MHz, CD2Cl2): δ (ppm) 8.49–8.47
(m, 2H), 8.10 (d, J = 12 Hz, 1H), 7.62–7.56
(m, 2H), 7.18 (d, J = 8 Hz, 2H), 7.12 (d, J = 8 Hz, 2H), 7.09–6.98 (m, 15H), 4.07 (d, J = 6 Hz, 2H), 1.63–1.58 (m, 2H), 1.38–1.30
(m, 2H), 0.89 (t, J = 8 Hz, 3H). 13CNMR
(100 MHz, CD2Cl2): δ (ppm) 164.6, 164.4,
146.9, 144.6, 144.1, 144.0, 143.9, 142.4, 140.9, 137.3, 132.8, 131.9,
131.7, 131.6, 131.2, 130.9, 130.5, 129.7, 129.1, 128.2, 128.2, 127.1,
127.1, 127.1, 127.0, 123.5, 122.3, 40.5, 30.7, 20.8, 14.1. EI-MS: m/z = 583.5 [M]+. Anal. Calcd.
for C42H33NO2: C, 86.42; H, 5.70;
N, 2.40. Found: C, 86.35; H, 5.74; N, 2.35.
General Procedure for the
Synthesis of Compound 4
To a deoxygenated mixture
of compounds 1-1 (5.6 mmol, 1.7 g), 1-5 (6.1
mmol, 2.2 g), Pd(OAc)2 (0.4 mmol, 90 mg), K2CO3 (6.8 mmol,
0.94 g), and tetra-n-butylammonium bromide (6.6 mmol,
2.13 g), was added anhydrous DMF (100 mL). The reaction mixture was
stirred at 110 °C for 18 h. After completion of present reaction,
the mixture was extracted with dichloromethane (3 × 30 mL). The
combined organic layers were washed with brine, dried (Na2SO4), and concentrated in vacuo. The residues were purified
by column chromatography, affording the expected yellow solid product
in a yield of 65%. 1HNMR (400 MHz, CD2Cl2): δ (ppm) 8.52–8.45 (m, 3H), 7.90 (d, J = 8 Hz, 1H), 7.78 (d, J = 16 Hz, 1H),
7.70 (t, J = 8 Hz, 1H), 7.35 (d, J = 8 Hz, 2H), 7.21 (d, J = 16 Hz, 1H), 7.09–6.95
(m, 17H), 4.15–4.09 (m, 2H), 1.22 (t, J =
8 Hz, 3H). 13CNMR (125 MHz, CD2Cl2): δ (ppm) 164.3, 164.0, 145.0, 144.1, 144.0, 143.9, 142.0,
141.6, 140.8, 135.2, 135.2, 132.2, 131.7, 131.6, 131.6, 131.2, 131.1,
130.2, 129.9, 129.0, 128.2, 128.1, 128.0, 127.0, 127.0, 127.0, 126.9,
126.9, 124.1, 123.7, 123.6, 122.0, 35.7, 13.5. EI-MS: m/z = 581.5 [M]+. Anal. Calcd. for C42H31NO2: C, 86.72; H, 5.37; N, 2.41.
Found: C, 86.66; H, 5.30; N, 2.46.
General Procedure for the
Synthesis of Compound 5
To a deoxygenated mixture
of compounds 1-2 (5.6 mmol, 1.78 g), 1-5 (6.1 mmol, 2.2 g), Pd(OAc)2 (0.4 mmol, 90 mg), K2CO3 (6.8 mmol,
0.94 g), and tetra-n-butylammonium bromide (6.6 mmol,
2.13 g), was added anhydrous DMF (100 mL). The reaction mixture was
stirred at 110 °C for 18 h. After completion of present reaction,
the mixture was extracted with dichloromethane (3 × 30 mL). The
combined organic layers were washed with brine, dried (Na2SO4), and concentrated in vacuo. The residues were purified
by column chromatography, affording the expected yellow solid product
in a yield of 62%. 1HNMR (400 MHz, CD2Cl2): δ (ppm) 8.50 (m, 3H), 7.91 (d, J = 8 Hz, 1H), 7.79 (d, J = 16 Hz, 1H), 7.71 (t, J = 6 Hz, 1H), 7.35 (d, J = 8 Hz, 2H),
7.22 (d, J = 16 Hz, 1H), 7.09–6.95 (m, 17H),
4.05–4.01 (m, 2H), 1.69–1.63 (m, 2H), 0.92 (t, J = 8 Hz, 3H). 13CNMR (125 MHz, CD2Cl2): δ (ppm) = 164.5, 164.2, 145.0, 144.1, 144.0,
143.9, 142.0, 141.6, 140.8, 135.2, 132.2, 131.7, 131.6, 131.6, 131.3,
131.1, 130.2, 129.9, 128.2, 128.1, 128.0, 127.0, 127.0, 127.0, 126.9,
126.9, 124.1, 123.6, 123.6, 122.0, 54.3, 54.1, 53.8, 53.6, 53.4, 42.2,
21.8, 11.7. EI-MS: m/z = 595.5 [M]+. Anal. Calcd. for C43H33NO2: C, 86.69; H, 5.58; N, 2.35. Found: C, 86.61; H, 5.63; N, 2.31.
General Procedure for the Synthesis of Compound 6
To a deoxygenated mixture of compounds 1-3 (5.6 mmol,
1.86 g), 1-5 (6.1 mmol, 2.2 g), Pd(OAc)2 (0.4
mmol, 90 mg), K2CO3 (6.8 mmol,
0.94 g), and tetra-n-butylammonium bromide (6.6 mmol,
2.13 g), was added anhydrous DMF (100 mL). The reaction mixture was
stirred at 110 °C for 18 h. After completion of present reaction,
the mixture was extracted with dichloromethane (3 × 30 mL). The
combined organic layers were washed with brine, dried (Na2SO4), and concentrated in vacuo. The residues were purified
by column chromatography, affording the expected yellow solid product
in a yield of 62%. 1HNMR (400 MHz, CD2Cl2): δ (ppm) 8.52–8.45 (m, 3H), 7.90 (d, J = 8 Hz, 1H), 7.78 (d, J = 16 Hz, 1H),
7.70 (t, J = 8 Hz, 1H), 7.35 (d, J = 8 Hz, 2H), 7.21 (d, J = 16 Hz, 1H), 7.09–6.95
(m, 17H), 4.06 (t, J = 8 Hz,, 2H), 1.65–1.58
(m, 2H), 1.38–1.32 (m, 2H), 0.90 (t, J = 6
Hz, 3H). 13CNMR (125 MHz, CD2Cl2): δ (ppm) = 164.2, 163.9, 144.7, 143.8, 143.8, 143.7, 141.8,
141.3, 140.6, 135.0, 135.0, 131.9, 131.4, 131.3, 131.3, 130.9, 130.8,
129.9, 129.6, 128.7, 127.9, 127.9, 127.8, 126.7, 126.7, 126.7, 126.6,
123.8, 123.3, 123.3, 121.7, 40.2, 30.3, 20.5, 13.8. EI-MS: m/z = 609.5 [M]+. Anal. Calcd.
for C44H35NO2: C, 86.67; H, 5.79;
N, 2.30. Found: C, 86.75; H, 5.85; N, 2.23.
Authors: J Luo; Z Xie; J W Lam; L Cheng; H Chen; C Qiu; H S Kwok; X Zhan; Y Liu; D Zhu; B Z Tang Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2001-09-21 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Kishor S Jagadhane; Sneha R Bhosale; Datta B Gunjal; Omkar S Nille; Govind B Kolekar; Sanjay S Kolekar; Tukaram D Dongale; Prashant V Anbhule Journal: ACS Omega Date: 2022-09-21