4.7 Article

A conformationally flexible, urea-based tripodal anion receptor: Solid-state, solution, and theoretical studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY
卷 71, 期 4, 页码 1598-1608

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jo052339f

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

[GRAPHICS] Tripodal tris(urea) cationic receptors 1 and 2 containing p-tolyl or octyl substituents, respectively, have been synthesized, and their association behavior with anionic guests has been studied via a variety of methods. The receptors are based around a hexasubstituted aryl core and contain both urea and pyridinium functionalities. For 1: 1 complexes, anions reside within the central cavity of the host species, held by hydrogen bonds from both NH and CH donors. The following host-anion complexes have been characterized by X-ray crystallography: 1-(Br)(3), 1-(PF6)(3)center dot 2(CH3)(2)CO, and 1-(NO3)(1.5)(PF6)(1.5). Each structure contains the receptor in a significantly different geometry, highlighting the anion-dependent conformational flexibility of 1. Solution H-1 NMR spectroscopic titrations have shown the two host species to display significant affinity for both halides and hydrogen sulfate and strongly suggest the persistence of CH center dot center dot center dot X- interactions despite the presence of stronger NH donor groups. Variable-temperature H-1 NMR studies on the more soluble octyl derivative 2 show that there is a distinct change in conformation associated with the formation of a 1: 1 host/guest complex. Computations using density functional theory (with the B3LYP functional) have been employed to aid in understanding the geometry of the 1:1 host/chloride complexes of 1 and 2. These experiments suggest that the lowest energy conformation for 1-Cl is one in which the ureidopyridinium arms are orientated upward forming a cavity that is sealed by CH center dot center dot center dot pi interactions, effectively forming a unimolecular capsule, whereas for 2 a less symmetrical 2-up, 1-down geometry is favored.

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