4.5 Article

Design, Synthesis, and X-ray Structural Analyses of Diamantane Diammonium Salts: Guests for Cucurbit[n]uril (CB[n]) Hosts

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY
卷 2014, 期 12, 页码 2533-2542

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/ejoc.201301844

关键词

Synthetic methods; Host-guest systems; Polycycles; Diamantane

资金

  1. Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sports [098-0982933-2911, 098-1191344-2943]
  2. US National Science Foundation (NSF) [CHE-1110911]
  3. Ben-Gurion University Research Fund for Scientific Relations
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Chemistry [1110911] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

New bisprimary and bisquaternary diamantane-1,6- and -4,9-diammonium/diaminium salts were synthesized, and characterized by NMR spectroscopy and X-ray crystallography. The impetus for these syntheses were previously reported X-ray crystallographic investigations of adamantane mono- and bisquaternary ammonium ions [3,5-diMeAda-1-NH3 or Ada-1,3-di(NMe3)] complexed with cucurbit[n]uril (n = 7, 8). The crystal structures were analyzed to ascertain possible structural hypotheses for high binding affinity guests bound within various diameter pumpkin-shaped hosts. Although Diam-4,9-di(NMe3I) 5 could be readily prepared from the bisprimary precursor, corresponding Diam-1,6-di(NMe3I) 14 could not be obtained even under strong reaction conditions. Stereochemical analysis of this situation suggests very severe steric non-bonding cis-1,3-diaxial type HH interactions between the axial-type NMe3 group and neighboring axial proton neighbors. These same interactions are found in Ada-2,6-di(NMe3I) analogues, but they are alleviated in this smaller polycyclic skeleton through tilting the axial C(methylene)-NMe3 bond away from its axial neighbors. However, similar structural relief for Diam-1,6-di(NMe3I) is not possible, because the C(methine)-NMe3 bond therein is ligated to the diamondoid's rigid skeleton.

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

4.5
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