4.7 Article

Fluorescence deactivation mechanism for a new probe detecting phosgene based on ESIPT and TICT

期刊

ORGANIC CHEMISTRY FRONTIERS
卷 6, 期 5, 页码 597-602

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8qo01320a

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11474141]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province [20170540408]
  3. Youth Program of the Education Department of Liaoning Province [LQN201703]
  4. Science and Technology Plan Project of Shenyang City [17-119-8-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The detection of toxic phosgene is extraordinarily crucial. A fluorescence probe 2-(2-aminophenyl) benzothiazole (abbreviated as probe 1), designed to detect phosgene, had been developed based on an excited state intramolecular proton transfer (ESIPT) process in experiment (L. Y. Chen, D. Wu, J. M. Kim and J. Yoon, Anal. Chem., 2017, 89, 12596-12601). However, the ESIPT mechanism failed to be qualitatively investigated and it is questionable that ESIPT emission of probe 1 was not observed in experiment. In this work, we give in-depth insight into the ESIPT reaction process and non-radiative deactivation mechanism of probe 1 for the first time. Theoretical absorption and fluorescence-emission spectra matched the experimental results. The excited state hydrogen bond strengthening mechanism was verified. The torsional isomer structure of probe 1 was found by building and analyzing the potential energy curves that demonstrate proton transfer just occurs in the excited state. The obtained cross point of the potential energy curves demonstrated that intersystem crossing and phosphorescence are inactivation channels, and the calculated phosphorescence value is 728 nm, which explains the reason behind the unobserved ESIPT-emission spectrum. The frontier molecular orbitals were shown and displayed charge redistribution, which further explains that the quenched fluorescence originates from the twisting intramolecular charge transfer (TICT) character of photoisomerization.

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

4.7
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