| Literature DB >> 35652474 |
John Bergner1,2, Christian Walla1,3, Frank Rominger1, Andreas Dreuw3, Milan Kivala1,2.
Abstract
We disclose a successive π-expansion of pyracylene towards boat-shaped polycyclic scaffolds. The unique structural features of the resulting compounds were revealed by X-ray crystallographic analysis. Depending on the extent of π-expansion the compounds display intense bathochromically shifted absorption bands in their UV/Vis spectra and are prone to several redox events as documented by cyclic voltammetry. The experimental observations are in line with the computational studies based on density functional theory, suggesting progressive narrowing of the HOMO-LUMO gap and distinct evolution of the electronic structure and aromaticity.Entities:
Keywords: curved PAH; electron acceptor; odd-membered; pyracylene; π-expansion
Year: 2022 PMID: 35652474 PMCID: PMC9543126 DOI: 10.1002/chem.202201554
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chemistry ISSN: 0947-6539 Impact factor: 5.020
Figure 1Successive π‐expansion from pyracylene 1 to dibenzopyracylene 2 and the HBC‐pyracylene hybrid HPH.
Scheme 1Synthetic strategy towards HPH and its congeners OPP and TPP. a) DDQ, TfOH, CH2Cl2, 0 °C, 15 min, N2; b) 4‐tert‐butylphenylacetylene, CuI, [Pd(PPh3)4], NEt3, 100 °C, 18 h, N2; c) 4‐tert‐butylphenylacetylene, CuI, [Pd(PPh3)4], NEt3/THF/toluene (5 : 1 : 1), 100 °C, 18 h, N2; d) bis(4‐tert‐butylphenyl)acetylene, [RhCl(PPh3)3], o‐xylene, 135 °C, 52 h, N2. DDQ=2,3‐dichloro‐5,6‐dicyano‐1,4‐benzoquinone; TfOH=trifluoromethanesulfonic acid; THF=tetrahydrofuran.
Figure 2(A) Successive induction of the boat‐shaped geometry evolving from OPP (top) over TPP (center) to HPH (bottom) as revealed by X‐ray crystallographic analysis (50 % probability level, H‐atoms and solvent molecules omitted). (B) Top view of HPH. (C) Short contacts in the solid state of HPH highlighted in red. (D) Relevant bond angles within the central pyracylene moiety of HPH. (E) Solid‐state packing of HPH.
Summary of the NICS(X), X=+1, 0, −1, and HOMA values of HPH.
|
ring[a] |
NICS(X) |
HOMA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
+1 |
0 |
−1 |
|
|
|
−7.04 |
−3.13 |
−4.36 |
+0.90 |
|
|
+2.47 |
+11.1 |
+6.99 |
−0.33 |
|
|
−9.79 |
−6.93 |
−8.27 |
+0.82 |
|
|
−4.00 |
−0.34 |
−4.42 |
+0.49 |
|
|
−11.0 |
−9.10 |
−11.3 |
+0.92 |
|
|
−4.41 |
−1.16 |
−5.30 |
+0.29 |
|
|
−9.03 |
−7.70 |
−10.6 |
+0.93 |
[a] Ring labels are shown in Figure 2B.
Figure 3UV/Vis absorption spectra of OPP (blue), TPP (black) and HPH (red). A: experimental (CH2Cl2, rt). B: TD‐DFT calculated (CAM‐B3LYP/6‐31G(d)).
Experimental and optoelectronic data for OPP, TPP and HPH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
band gap [eV][e] | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOMO[c] |
LUMO[d] |
EA |
IP |
|
|
|
445 |
470 |
2.64 |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
2.22 |
5.95 |
3.73 |
|
|
539 |
582 |
2.13 |
– (−2.06) |
−1.59 (−1.66) |
+0.70 (+0.80) |
−5.50 |
−3.21 |
2.36 |
5.46 |
3.10 |
|
|
587 |
627 |
1.98 |
−1.82 (−1.86) |
−1.46 (−1.51) |
+0.61 (+0.72) |
−5.41 |
−3.34 |
2.46 |
5.47 |
3.01 |
[a] Calculated according to hcλ end −1, λ end estimated from the intersection of a tangent line to the lowest energy absorption band of the UV/Vis spectrum with the x‐axis. [b] measured in CH2Cl2 (in THF). [c] HOMO energies calculated from E HOMO,CV=−(E (0/+)+4.8) eV. [d] LUMO energies calculated from E LUMO, CV=−4.8 eV‐E (−/0), under the assumption that the potential of Fc/Fc+ is −4.8 eV vs. vacuum. [e] DFT calculated values (CAM−B3LYP/6‐31G(d)).
Figure 4HOMO and LUMO of OPP (left), TPP (center), HPH (right) with their corresponding energy values (B3LYP/6‐31G(d)).
Figure 5Cyclic voltammograms of TPP (black) and HPH (red) (∼2 mM) at rt (vs. Fc/Fc+, Bu4NPF6 as supporting electrolyte, scan rate 149 mVs−1). Recorded in A: CH2Cl2 B: THF.