4.6 Article

Electrochemical assessment of a tripodal thiourea-based anion receptor at the liquid|liquid interface

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 25, 期 27, 页码 18121-18131

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d3cp01431b

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thiourea-based receptors’ binding affinity for anions at the aqueous|organic interface was evaluated using electrochemical measurements. Most anions showed a 1:1 stoichiometry for complexation, except for excess Cl- and Br- anions which exhibited higher stoichiometry. High stability constants were observed at the aqueous|1,2-dichlorobenzene (DCB) interface, possibly due to the less competitive environment of the less polar solvent. Protonation of the receptor at the bridgehead tertiary amine was inferred from potential-dependent voltammetric measurements unrelated to anion:receptor complexation.
Thiourea-based receptors for anions have been widely studied due to their ability to transport anions across phospholipid bilayers. The binding affinity of a tripodal thiourea-based receptor for anions was assessed at the aqueous|organic interface using electrochemical measurements. A 1 : 1 stoichiometry was determined for the complexation of most anions, with a higher stoichiometry found in the presence of excess Cl- and Br- anions. High stability constants were estimated for the formation of the complexes at the aqueous|1,2-dichlorobenzene (DCB) interface. When compared with an organic solvent of higher polarity, nitrobenzene (NB), the high stability constants observed in DCB are believed to be due to the less competitive environment of the less polar solvent. Protonation of the receptor at the bridgehead tertiary amine was also inferred from the potential-dependent voltammetric measurements that are not related to anion:receptor complexation. The inherent advantages of the electrochemical method with the use of low polarity solvents are expected to provide new insights into the binding and transport of newly-developed neutral receptors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据