DOI: 10.1002/chem.201201437
Synthesis and Characterization of Reversible Chemosensory Polymers:
Modulation of Sensitivity through the Attachment of
Novel Imidazole Pen
ACHTUNGTRENNUNGdants
Rudrakanta Satapathy, Harihara Padhy, Yen-Hsing Wu, and Hong-Cheu Lin*
[a]Introduction
The molecular design of new sensors is of prime importance because of tremendous demands in analytical, biomedical, biotechnological, and nanotechnological applications.[1] The
success of fluorescence-based sensors can be attributed to their advantageous features of specific sensitivity, selectivity, and real-time screening for various moieties.[2] Rigid and
ladder-type low band-gap conjugated polymers can display excellent redox and optoelectronic properties, such as broad and long-wavelength light absorption, good luminescence in-tensity, and favorable carrier mobility, which result in poten-tial applications in optoelectronics, microelectronics, light-emitting diodes, photovoltaics, and field-effect transistors.[3]
Some interesting recent extensions of these materials con-cerned their subsequent application in fluorescent and bio-logical sensors.[4]Conjugated polymers (as molecular wires)
have enormous advantages over small molecules for sensing applications due to facile exciton transport and energy mi-gration along their conjugated polymer backbones, which enhance the electronic communication between receptors and polymers.[4]Conjugated polymers are attractive for
serv-ing as semi-conductive “molecular wires” owserv-ing to their p-electron resonances through conjugations between donor– acceptor repeat units. This allows such polymers to be utiliz-ed as one of the most vital classes of sensing materials by virtue of their high sensitivities derived from molecular wire effects.[5] Furthermore, conjugated polymer sensors hold
great promise because their emission intensities, absorban-ces, charge-transport properties, conductivities, and exciton migrations can be easily perturbed by external chemical spe-cies, such as acids, bases, and ions, leading to substantial changes in their measurable signals.[1, 6, 7] The incorporation
of sensitive and selective functionalities (as probes) for both protons and metal ions, together with well-known fluoro-phores, into conjugated polymers has yielded new materials suitable for chemosensory applications.[6]Thus, the synthesis
of soluble and stable fluorescent conjugated polymers has yielded improved selective recognition and transduction ma-terials for chemical and biological sensing purposes.[8–10] A
key feature for such sensing applications is a need for rever-sibility within certain ranges of recognition processes.[7]
Imi-Abstract: Three novel electron donor– acceptor conjugated polymers (P1–P3) bearing various imidazole pendants have been synthesized. Their excellent photophysical and electrochemical properties make them suitable trans-duction materials for chemosensing ap-plications. Indeed, polymers P1–P3 have been found to show remarkable sensing capabilities towards H+ and
Fe2 + in semi-aqueous solutions. Upon
titration with H+, polymers P1 and P2
showed hypsochromic shifts of their absorptions and photoluminescence (PL) maxima with enhanced fluores-cence intensities. However, P3 showed diminished absorption and fluorescence intensities under similar conditions due to static quenching. The anomalous
be-havior of P3 compared with P1 and P2 has been clarified in terms of electronic distributions through computational analysis. Furthermore, P3 (KSV=1.03
107) showed a superior sensing ability
towards Fe2 + compared with P1 (K
SV=
2.01 106) and P2 (K
SV=4.12 106) due
to its improved molecular wire effect. Correspondingly, the fluorescence life-time of P3 was greatly decreased (almost 11-fold) compared to those of polymers P1 (4.6-fold) and P2 (6.2-fold) in the presence of Fe2 +. By means
of a fluorescence on-off-on approach, chemosensing reversibilities in protona-tion–deprotonation and metallation– demetallation have been achieved by employing triethylamine (TEA) and the disodium salt of ethyl ACHTUNGTRENNUNGene-ACHTUNGTRENNUNGdiaminetetraacetic acid (Na2-EDTA)/
phenanthroline, respectively, as suitable counter ligands. 1H NMR titrations
have revealed the unique behavior of P3 compared with P1 and P2. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no previous reports of Fe2 + sensors
based on single imidazole receptors conjugated to a main-chain polymer showing such a diverse sensitivity pat-tern depending on their attached sub-stituents.
Keywords: computational analysis · donor–acceptor systems · fluores-cence · molecular wire effect · sen-sors · transduction material
[a] R. Satapathy, Dr. H. Padhy, Y.-H. Wu, Prof. H.-C. Lin Department of Materials Science and Engineering National Chiao Tung University
Hsinchu, R.O.C. (Taiwan) Fax: (+886)35724727 E-mail: [email protected]
Supporting information for this article is available on the WWW under http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/chem.201201437.
in the presence of metal ions/suitable counter ligands, which can induce a large energy perturbation.[6]
Fe2 + is the most abundant transition metal ion in
biologi-cal systems and plays significant roles in metabolic process-es.[7]Fe2 +ions are essential for most organisms, but both
de-ficiency and overload of Fe2 + can cause various syndromes
as a result of the disruption of iron transport, storage, and balance.[8] For example, Fe2 + deficiency leads to anaemia
and breathing problems, while excess iron in the body causes DNA, liver, and kidney damage (hemochromato-sis).[9]Introduction of specific probes, such as epoxy,
bipyri-dine, terpyribipyri-dine, quinoline, dipyrrolylquinoxaline, imida-zole, and sulfate on the backbones or side chains of conju-gated polymers has been successfully employed for metal ion detection on the basis of characteristic metal-to-ligand charge-transfer effects.[10] However, to the best of our
knowledge, there have been no reports of Fe2 + sensors with
a single imidazole receptor conjugated to a main-chain poly-mer backbone. Herein, we report three imidazole-based pol-ymers that show remarkable sensing capabilities towards Fe2 +.
thetics, hypnotics, psychiatric drugs, and nerve gases. Its de-tection is also pertinent to the analysis of drinking water and the refinement of uranium used in nuclear weapon man-ufacture.[12a–d]The detection of fluoride is often subject to
in-terference from other halides.[12e,f]Hence, selective fluoride
detection in the presence of other halides has also become an objective of many researchers.[12g–j]
With these concepts in mind, we have synthesized three novel imidazole-based conjugated fluorescent polymers (P1–P3; Scheme 1). The photophysical and electrochemical properties of these polymers indicate that they might serve as excellent energy-transfer materials with remarkable sta-bilities, making them suitable for use in chemosensors. Com-pared with P1 and P2, polymer P3 showed a different spec-tral change upon pH sensing, probably due to its distinct electronic distribution. All of the polymers showed reversi-bility in pH sensing upon the addition of TFA as a protonat-ing agent and TEA as a counter ligand for deprotonation. Furthermore, the quenched fluorescences of polymers P1– P3 were restored upon the addition of counter ligands. Hence, reversible sensing capabilities of polymers P1–P3
wards Fe2 + ions were achieved by the addition of suitable
counter ligands (Na2-EDTA/phenanthroline). Furthermore,
all of the monomeric precursors (1 B–4 B) showed distinct sensitivities towards fluoride ions over the other halides.
Results and Discussion
Synthesis: Four imidazole-based monomers (M1–M4) were synthesized according to Scheme 1. Benzo[1,2-b:4,3-b’]di-thiophene-4,5-quinine (1-A) was prepared in two steps, that is, initial preparation of 3,3’-bithiophene followed by acyla-tion with oxalyl chloride in the absence of a Lewis acid. It was found that the best route to 3,3’-bithiophene was to treat 3-bromothiophene with nBuLi and then to perform an oxidative coupling using commercial grade CuCl2, which
gave the product in 77.9 % yield (Scheme S1 in the Support-ing Information). Furthermore, 1,10-phenanthroline-5,6-dione (4-A) was prepared by treating 1,10-phenanthroline with H2SO4, HNO3, and KBr.[13a] Phenanthrene-9,10-dione
(2-A) and acenaphthylene-1,2-dione (3-A) were obtained from commercial sources. Imidazole derivatives (1-B–4-B) were obtained by cyclization of 3-thiophenecarboxaldehyde with the corresponding diketo compounds (1-A–4-A) using NH4OAc in acetic acid. All imidazole derivatives (1-B–4-B)
were directly employed without further purification. Mono-mers (M1–M4) were prepared by N-alkylation of 1-B–4-B using K2CO3as base and an alkyl iodide in DMF and were
subsequently purified by column chromatography to afford good yields. To the best of our knowledge, none of these monomers has been synthesized previously. Finally, Suzuki polymerization of monomers M1–M4 with the diboronic ester of benzothiadiazole afforded the respective polymers P1–P4 (Scheme 1). It is worthy of mention that, except for P4, all of these polymers proved to be soluble in common organic solvents, such as CH2Cl2, CHCl3, THF, and
1,2-di-chlorobenzene. However, the average molecular weight of polymer P3 (Mw = 13 718) was higher than those of P1 (Mw = 4614) and P2 (Mw = 5755) due to the good solubility of the acenaphthylene-imidazole units in P3 compared to the benzodithiophene units in P1 and the phenanthrene units in P2. Further characterizations of polymers P1–P3 were carried out in semi-aqueous solutions of THF/H2O
(1:1).
Photophysical characterization: Normalized absorption and emission spectra of the polymers in both solutions and solid films are shown in Figure 1, and their characteristic optical data are summarized in Table 1. All of these polymers ex-hibited two distinct broad absorption peaks, with the high-energy sharp peaks at 300–400 nm being attributable to d-d* transitions, and the low-energy broad bands at 500–650 nm being attributable to localized intramolecular charge
trans-Figure 1. Normalized (a) UV absorption and (b) photoluminescence spec-tra of P1, P2, and P3 in THF solutions (sol) and solid films (film).
Table 1. Photophysical, electrochemical, and thermal properties of P1, P2, and P3.
Polymer Solution[a] Film[b] Energy levels
emax,abs (nm) emax,em (nm) Stokes shift[g](nm) emax,abs (nm) emax,em (nm) Stokes shift[g](nm) eonset,abs (nm) Eg,opt[e] (eV) Eonset,ox[d](V)/ HOMO (eV) Eonset,red[d](V)/ LUMO (eV) Eg,el[f] (eV) Tg (8C) P1 305, 515 631 119 325, 535 ACHTUNGTRENNUNG(659)[c], 684 149 664 1.86 1.05/ 5.40 0.86/ 3.49 1.91 234 P2 301, 521 640 119 329, 539 ACHTUNGTRENNUNG(684)[c], 711 172 676 1.83 1.02/ 5.37 0.87/ 3.48 1.89 274 P3 319, 470 594 224 327, 497 ACHTUNGTRENNUNG(683)[c], 709 212 662 1.87 1.06/ 5.41 0.86/ 3.49 1.92 249
[a] In THF solutions. [b] Spin-coated from THF solutions on a glass surface. [c] Shoulder peak. [d] EHOMO/ELUMO=[ (Eonset Eonset (Fc/Fc+vs Ag/Ag+)) 4.8].
fers between electron donors and acceptors in the polymer backbones. Significant bathochromic shifts of the absorp-tions as well as photoluminescence (PL) emissions of all of the polymers in solid films could be ascribed to interchain aggregations of rigid planar segments in the polymer back-bones.[14a–c] The shoulders seen in the PL spectra in
Fig-ure S1(b) may be ascribed to the increased vibronic coupling associated with molecular rigidity in solid films. The notice-ACHTUNGTRENNUNGably larger values of the Stokes shifts of all of the polymers signify differences in the geometrical structures in the ground and excited states. This further indicates the occur-rence of significant excited-state intermolecular charge transfer in the chromophores, which is essential for chemo-sensory applications.[14d,e] The optical bandgaps (~ 1.85 eV)
of these polymers (P1–P3) were found to be smaller than that of P3HT (~ 1.90 eV)[14g]due to the combination of
elec-tron donor and acceptor moieties. In addition, the bandgaps of P1–P3 were also smaller than that of the analogous poly-mer PT2BT (1.97 eV) containing bithiophene (as donor) and benzothiadiazole (as acceptor) units,[14h] which implies
that, compared to the bithiophene unit in PT2BT, the 3-thio-phene-imidazole unit (with a stronger electron-donating ability) induced more effective conjugation between the donor and acceptor segments in polymers P1–P3. Therefore, it could be concluded that polymers P1–P3 have good elec-tronic communication between receptors in their backbones through facile migration of excitons during the sensing proc-ess.[14i]
Electrochemical characterization: Cyclic voltammograms of the polymers in solid films are shown in Figure 2, and the re-lated data are summarized in Table 1. All of the polymers displayed reversible or quasi-reversible n-doping/dedoping (reduction/reoxidation) processes at negative potentials, which indicated good structural stability in their charged states. Furthermore, the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) levels of polymers P1–P3 (ca. 5.4 eV) were lower than 5.2 eV, which showed their good air stability.[15c]
Besides structural stability, these low HOMO levels suggest that polymers P1–P3 should be capable of serving as good electron-donor materials for sensing applications.[15]
pH sensing and reversibility: The pH-sensing properties of these polymers were investigated by UV/Vis and PL titra-tions. As shown in Figure 3(a), upon increasing [H+] by the
addition of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a hypsochromic shift in the absorption maximum as well as the onset occurred, with a concomitant decrease in the absorption intensity of P1. Polymer P2 showed a similar pH-sensing response (Fig-ure 3(b)), probably due to a similar electronic distribution. At higher [H+], the imidazole units were protonated, which
hindered the effective charge transfer from the benzodithio-phene and phenanthrene units to the backbones of P1 and P2, respectively. The excited state was more strongly desta-bilized than the ground state, due to the protonation of donor imidazole units, and thus hypsochromic shifts of the absorption and emission spectra were observed.[16a] The PL
spectra of P1 and P2 in Figure 4(a) and (b), respectively, show significant blue shifts with enhanced intensities upon increasing [H+]. Photoinduced electron transport (PET)[16b]
from the imidazole units to the polymer backbones of P1 and P2 caused weak fluorescence. However, protonation of Figure 2. Cyclic voltammograms of polymers (a) P1, (b) P2, and (c) P3 in solid films obtained at a scan rate of 100 mV s 1.
the imidazole moieties diminished PET effects at higher [H+], which in turn restored the fluorescence originating
from the imidazole unit and hence the fluorescence was en-hanced.[16c,d] Due to the different electronic distribution of
the five-membered anti-aromatic (acenaphthylene) rings in P3, this polymer showed a different pH response from P1 and P2 containing six-membered aromatic rings (benzodi-thiophene and phenanthrene, respectively). In contrast to P1 and P2, upon increasing [H+], the absorption intensity of
P3 (Figure 3(c)) decreased without significant blue shifts of its absorption maxima. Sequentially, a new shoulder ap-peared at 360–400 nm at moderate [H+] (2 10 6 2.1
10 3m). Surprisingly, unlike for P1 and P2, the fluorescence
intensities of P3 decreased with increasing [H+]
(Fig-ure 4(c)), which could possibly be attributed to static quen-ching.[16e–g]The notion of static quenching was further
con-firmed by a Stern–Volmer plot for the fluorescence
quench-ing of P3 upon titration with [H+] at various temperatures
(Figure 4(d)), which revealed that the binding constant of the quencher H+ for P3 was reduced upon increasing the
temperature. Furthermore, each of the polymers recovered most of its original absorption and fluorescence upon the addition of triethylamine (TEA) due to deprotonation of the imidazolium salt. Consequently, the modulation of both the UV/Vis and PL spectra upon the addition of TFA and TEA clearly indicates that all of the polymers (P1–P3) are promising reversible pH-sensing materials in terms of both absorption and fluorescence ratiometries.
We further investigated the sensing mechanism by theo-retical calculations based on computational analysis (see Figure 5). The HOMO electron clouds are mostly localized over the benzodithiophene units of P1, while the LUMO electron clouds are localized over the benzothiadiazole units. A more electron-rich center is induced by the aroma-Figure 3. UV/Vis absorption spectra of (a) P1, (b) P2, and (c) P3 in THF/H2O (1:1) (1.4 105m) at various concentrations of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and after final neutralizations with triethylamine (TEA).
ticity of the benzodithiophene unit in P1, and thus the HOMO electron cloud resides over this unit. As a highly electron-accepting group, the benzothiadiazole unit gathers most of the LUMO electron cloud. Thus, there is effective intramolecular charge transfer (ICT) from the pendant ben-zodithiophene unit to the polymer backbone through the imidazole linkage. The aromaticity of the phenanthrene ring in P2 makes it a strong electron-donating unit. The HOMO electron cloud is thus mostly localized over the phenan-threne unit. Similarly to P1, the LUMO electron cloud in P2 is mostly localized over the benzothiadiazole unit. Thus, there is effective ICT in the polymer backbone of P2 due to the charge-separated states. In both P1 and P2, the nitrogen lone pairs of the imidazole units belong to the HOMOs of the respective polymers. Upon titration with H+, the
nitro-gen lone pairs become coordinated with the H+ions, leading
to bonding-type interactions and thus to blocking of the original ICT that occurs in the polymers. Furthermore, upon
complexation with H+, both frontier orbitals (HOMO and
LUMO) are located only over the polymer backbones. This cannot give a completely charge-separated state for an ef-fective ICT process, and thus the fluorescence is enhanced for both P1 and P2 after their complexation with H+. The
anti-aromaticity of the acenaphthylene ring in P3 makes it a less electron-rich center compared with the aromatic benzo-dithiophene (in P1) and phenanthrene (in P2) units. Thus, the HOMO electron cloud is not fully delocalized over the acenaphthylene unit in P3. The LUMO electron cloud is lo-calized over the polymer backbone. Unlike in P1 and P2, the charge-separated states are not well-defined in the case of P3. However, upon complexation with H+ions, a
well-or-ganized charge-separated state appears in P3. Finally, this causes an effective charge transfer in the polymer backbone. This can be attributed to the plausible quenching mecha-nism in P3.
Figure 4. PL spectra of (a) P1, (b) P2, and (c) P3 in THF/H2O (1:1) (1.4 105m) at various concentrations of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and after final
neutralizations with triethylamine (TEA). Insets in (a)–(c) are the respective Stern–Volmer plots. (d) Stern–Volmer plots for the fluorescence quenching of P3 by H+at 25 8C and 50 8C.
Selectivity, sensitivity, and reversibility in metal ion sensing: The chemosensing properties of the fluorescent polymers were investigated for a variety of metal ions, such as Li+,
Na+, K+, Ca2 +, Ba2 +, Mg2 +, Zn2 +, Co2 +, Ni2 +, Cd2 +, Fe2 +,
Ag+, Mn2 +, and Cu2 + (Figure 6). The fluorescence intensities
of P1–P3 were only slightly altered upon the addition of up to 30 equiv of Li+, Na+, K+, Ca2 +, Ba2 +, Ni2 +, Zn2 +, Ag+,
Co2 +, Mn2 +, and Cu2 +. However, the fluorescence intensities
of polymers P1–P3 were decreased significantly in the
presence of 10 equiv of Fe2 +. This may have been due
to a better coordination ability of imidazole receptors towards Fe2 + ions, which may be
attrib-uted to energy- and/or charge-transfer due to the stronger ligand–metal interaction.[16e]
The selectivity for Fe2 + was
fur-ther proven by its interference with other background metal ions. As illustrated in Figure 7, the sensitivities of polymers P1–P3 towards Fe2 + were not significantly affected by other competing metal ions. Howev-er, P3 showed better quenching efficiency compared to those of P1 and P2. This could be attrib-uted to the higher molecular weight of P3, which gave rise to a better semiconducting “mo-lecular wire effect” than P1 and P2. The larger number of
repeat units in P3 provided more binding sites and thus caused complete fluorescence quenching.
The PL quenching efficiencies (PLQE) and static Stern– Volmer quenching constants (KSV) are listed in Table 2. Due
to the larger molecular wire effect, KSVof P3 is about 5.1
and 2.5 times higher than those of P1 and P2, respectively. As depicted in Figure 8, sharp decreases in the fluorescence intensities of P1–P3 were observed upon the addition of Figure 5. Localization of electron clouds in HOMO and LUMO of P1–P3 before (left) and after (right)
com-plexation with H+
.
Figure 6. Fluorescence emission response profiles (I0/I with error bars) of
P1, P2, and P3. Polymer concentration (1.2 105m), Fe2 + added =
10 equiv (1.2 104m), other metal ions added = 30 equiv (3.6 10 4m)
(single-metal system).
Figure 7. Fluorescence emission response profiles (I/I0with error bars) of
P1, P2, and P3. Polymer concentration (1.2 10 5
m), [Fe2 +] = 1.2 104m (10 equiv) and in the presence of other metal ions at 1.2 104m
Fe2 + up to one molar equivalent. The fluorescence quantum
yields and lifetimes of polymers P1–P3 before and after the addition of Fe2 + are summarized in Table 3. Upon the
addi-tion of Fe2 +, the fluorescence lifetimes of the polymers
de-creased significantly (see Figure 9).[17] In the presence of
Fe2 +, the fluorescence lifetimes of P1 and P2 were
creased almost 4.6- and 6.2-fold, respectively. The larger de-crease in the fluorescence lifetime of polymer P3 (11.4-fold) further confirmed its superior sensing ability due to its stronger molecular wire effect. Stern–Volmer plots for P1– P3 in the presence of Fe2 + indicated 1:1 stoichiometries
(Figure S1). Fluorescence recovery tests were carried out with two suitable counter ligands, namely the disodium salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Na2-EDTA) and
phen-ACHTUNGTRENNUNGanthroline. As illustrated in Figure 8, upon the addition of Na2-EDTA or phenanthroline in THF to the quenched Fe2 +
-polymer (P1–P3) solutions, the fluorescence intensities were about 65–85 % recovered. This indicated the reversibil-ity of the association of Fe2 + with imidazole units, and the
preferential formation of a stable Fe-EDTA complex. Simi-larly, upon the addition of phenanthroline to the quenched Fe2 +-polymer (P1–P3) solutions, the fluorescence intensities
were almost 90 % recovered. This suggested that Fe2 +
coor-dinates strongly through a double coordinating bond with phenanthroline, thereby releasing Fe2 + from the polymers.
Thus, for the fully quenched Fe2 +-polymer (P1–P3)
solu-tions, the phenanthroline-mediated fluorescence recovery was more prominent than that with EDTA. Photographs of the quenching and recovery of the fluorescences of each of the polymers (P1–P3) are also shown in the insets in Figure 8. Moreover, the fluorescence on-off-on behavior was
observed over six successive cycles (Figure 10). Thus, a re-markable fluorescence on-off-on behavior was achieved for the polymer solutions for the sensing of Fe2 +based on
rever-sible binding to the imidazole receptors and dissociation upon the addition of appropriate counter ligands (such as EDTA and phenanthroline) to form more stable complexes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of inter-vention by the phenanthroline ligand eliciting efficient fluo-rescence recovery of imidazole receptors in the presence of metal ions.
To further elucidate the binding mode,1H NMR titrations
were conducted by the addition of Fe2 +(in D
2O) to M1–M3
(binding probes of P1–P3, respectively) in [D8]THF (see
Figure 11). In the case of M1, the signals of the aromatic protons were gradually shifted upfield upon the sequential addition of Fe2 +. The peak corresponding to the
dibromo-thiophene unit was shifted upfield by 0.1 ppm (from d = 7.55 to 7.45 ppm). Likewise, upon the addition of Fe2 +, a notable
shift was observed in the signals of the aromatic protons cor-responding to M2. That of the proton corcor-responding to di-bromothiophene was shifted upfield by 0.13 ppm (from d = 7.58 to 7.45 ppm). Unlike for M1 and M2, the proton peak corresponding to the dibromothiophene unit in M3 was dra-matically downfield shifted. The signal of the dibromothio-phene protons in M3, originally at d = 7.42 ppm, was shifted downfield by 0.16 ppm to d = 7.58 ppm. This was probably due to the different electronic distribution in M3 due to the presence of the anti-aromatic acenaphthylene moiety (as discussed previously in relation to the computational analy-sis).
F sensing of 1-B, 2-B, 3-B, and 4-B: The precursors of mon-omers M1–M4 (i.e., imidazole derivatives 1-B, 2-B, 3-B, and 4-B with free NH groups) were investigated for their halide ion sensing capabilities. As shown in Figure S2 (a)–(d), all of these imidazole derivatives were capable of sensing F effec-tively over other halides (Cl , Br , and I ). Upon the addi-tion of F to 1-B, the PL peak at 500 nm decreased gradual-ly (Figure S1(e)). Likewise, upon the addition of F (ap-proaching 1 equiv) to 2-B, the PL peak at 325 nm increased and a new peak simultaneously developed at 430 nm (Fig-ure S1(f)). For 3-B, the PL peaks at 325, 525, and 580 nm de-creased upon the addition of F (Figure S1(g)). However, 4-B showed the best sensing behavior towards F ions. The PL peak of 4-B at 420 nm decreased gradually and a new peak developed at 504 nm with the addition of F (Figure S2(h)).
Conclusion
Three novel imidazole-based low-bandgap polymers (P1– P3) have been synthesized. Due to their donor–acceptor conjugations, these polymers show excellent photophysical and electrochemical properties (such as brilliant fluorescen-ces, low bandgaps, large Stokes shifts, and low HOMO levels). As a result, they constitute structurally stable, semi-conducting molecular wires capable of acting as promising Table 2. Photoluminescence quenching efficiency (PLQE) and Stern–
Volmer quenching constants (KSV) of polymers upon the addition of
Fe2 +.
Metal Ion Polymers PLQE (%)[a] K
SV[b]
Fe2 +
P1 78.22 2.01 106
P2 81.57 4.12 106
P3 96.94 1.03 107
[a] PLQE = A0 A/A0; where A0=area under the PL curve without metal
ion, A = area under the PL curve in presence of 10 equiv of metal ions. [b] Stern–Volmer quenching constants can be evaluated by the static Stern–Volmer equation I0/I = 1 + KSV[Q], where I0is the PL intensity of
the polymer (1.2 10 5m) in the absence of the quencher, I is the PL
in-tensity in the presence of each quencher, KSV is the Stern–Volmer
quenching constant, and [Q] is the quencher concentration.
Table 3. Photoluminescence properties of P1, P2, and P3 upon titration with Fe2 +. Sample lem(nm)[a] Fem[b] t[c] P1 633 0.82 0.97 P1 + Fe2 + 628 0.15 0.21 P2 640 0.84 1.12 P2 + Fe2 + 632 0.11 0.18 P3 661 0.89 1.14 P3 + Fe2 + 630 0.05 0.10
Figure 8. Sequential PL quenching of P1 (a, left), P2 (b, left), and P3 (c, left) (1.2 10 5m) in THF/H
2O (1:1) acquired by the addition of 0–10 equiv of
Fe2 +and the recovery of fluorescence by the addition of Na
2-EDTA or phenanthroline. Lower insets: photographs of fluorescence quenching in the
poly-mer solutions upon addition of Fe2 +and restoration of the original fluorescence upon addition of phenanthroline or Na
2-EDTA. PL quenching of P1 (a,
transduction materials for chemosensory applications. These imidazole-based polymers showed remarkable sensing capa-bilities towards H+ and Fe2 + in semi-aqueous solutions.
However, polymer P3 showed a distinct sensitivity response compared with polymers P1 and P2. Upon titration with H+, polymer P3 showed reduced absorption and
fluores-cence intensities due to static quenching. Polymers P1 and P2 showed hypsochromic shifts of their absorption and PL maxima, with enhanced fluorescence intensities under simi-lar conditions. Compared with P1 and P2, the anomalous behavior of P3 was proven by computational analyses of the Figure 9. Time-resolved fluorescence of polymers P1 (a), P2 (b), and P3
(c), before (empty circles) and after (solid circles) the addition of Fe2 +.
Figure 10. On-off-on switching of the fluorescence spectra of P1 (a), P2 (b), and P3 (c,) over seven successive cycles (with error bars) upon the addition of Fe2 +and phenanthroline.
electron densities in the HOMOs and LUMOs of P1–P3 before and after complexation with H+. Recoveries of the
original fluorescences and absorptions were achieved by adding TEA. Furthermore, P3 showed the best sensing abili-ty for Fe2 + among P1–P3 due to its stronger molecular wire
effect. Correspondingly, in the presence of Fe2 +, the
fluores-cence lifetime of P3 was extensively decreased (almost 11-fold) compared with those of polymers P1 (4.6-11-fold) and P2 (6.2-fold).1H NMR titrations with Fe2 + revealed distinct
be-havior of P3 compared with P1 and P2. The quenched fluo-rescences were recovered by adding Na2-EDTA or
phenan-throline. Thus, imidazole-based polymers can act as efficient chemosensing materials in terms of selectivity, sensitivity, and reversibility based on the on-off-on fluorescence proto-col, which holds promise for future environmental and bio-logical applications.
Experimental Section
Reagents: All chemicals and solvents were of reagent grade and were purchased from Acros, Aldrich, TCI, Fluka, TEDIA, or Lancaster Chem-ical Co. Toluene was dried by distillation over sodium/benzophenone before use. Chloroform (CHCl3) and DMF were purified by refluxing
with CaH2and then distilled. Solvents were degassed with nitrogen for
1 h prior to use when necessary.
Measurements and characterizations:1H and13C NMR spectra were
re-corded on a Bruker DX-300 spectrometer (300 MHz for1H, 75 MHz for 13C) using CDCl
3and [D6]DMSO as solvents. Elemental analyses were
performed on a HERAEUS CHN-OS RAPID elemental analyzer. Ther-mogravimetric analyses (TGA) were conducted with a TA Instrument Q500 at a heating rate of 10 8C min 1 under nitrogen. The molecular
weights of the polymers were measured by gel permeation chromatogra-phy (GPC) using a Waters 1515 separation module, employing poly-ACHTUNGTRENNUNGstyrene standards, and eluting with tetrahydrofuran (THF). UV/Vis ab-sorption spectra were recorded on an HP G1103 A spectrophotometer from solutions in dilute solutions (105m) in THF or as solid films
(spin-coated on glass substrates from THF solutions with a concentration of 10 mg mL 1). Cyclic voltammetry (CV) measurements were performed
using a BAS 100 electrochemical analyzer with a standard three-electrode electrochemical cell in a 0.1 m solution of tetrabutylammonium hexafluor-ophosphate, (TBA)PF6, in acetonitrile at room temperature at a scanning
rate of 100 mV s1. Prior to the CV measurements, the solutions were
purged with nitrogen for 30 s. In each case, a carbon working electrode coated with a thin layer of the polymer, a platinum wire as the counter electrode, and a silver wire as the quasi-reference electrode were used, and an Ag/AgCl (3 m KCl) electrode served as a reference electrode for all potentials quoted herein. The redox couple of ferrocene/ferrocenium ion (Fc/Fc+) was used as an external standard. The corresponding
HOMO and LUMO levels were calculated using Eox/onset and Ered/onset
from experiments on solid polymer films of similar thickness, which were deposited by drop-casting from solutions in chloroform (ca. 5 mg mL 1).
The onset potentials were determined from the intersections of two tan-gents drawn at the rising and background currents of the CV measure-ments. The pH-sensing properties were assessed in THF/H2O (1:1)
solu-tions by the addition of TFA as a proton source and TEA for reversibili-ty tests. Similarly, the metal-sensing properties were assessed by the addi-tion of metal ions to the polymer soluaddi-tions in THF/H2O (1:1).
Reversibil-ity in metal ion sensing was assessed using the disodium salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Na2-EDTA) or phenanthroline.
Acknowledgements
Financial support of this project has been provided by the National Sci-ence Council of Taiwan (ROC) through NSC 99–2113-M-009–006-MY2 and NSC 99–2221-E-009–008-MY2, and National Chiao Tung University through 97W807.
[1] a) J. D. Krooswyk, C. T. Tyrakowski, P. T. Snee, J. Phys. Chem. C. 2010, 114, 21348; b) R. A. Shimkunas, E. Robinson, R. Lam, S. Lu, X. Xu, X. Q. Zhang, H. Huang, E. Osawa, D. Ho, Biomaterials 2009, 30, 5720; c) L. Cui, Y. Zhong, W. Zhu, Y. Xu, Q. Du, X. Wang, X. Qian, Y. Xiao, Org. Lett. 2011, 13, 928; d) Y. Liu, C. Deng, L. Tang, A. Qin, R. Hu, J. Z. Sun, B. Z. Tang, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 660; e) D. Maity, T. Govindaraju, Chem. Commun. 2010, 46, 4499; f) P. T. Snee, R. C. Somers, G. Nair, J. P. Zimmer, M. G. Bawendi, D. G. Nocera, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 13320; g) Z. Q. Guo, W. H. Zhu, M. M. Zhu, X. M. Wu, H. Tian, Chem. Eur. J. 2010, 16, 14424; h) J. H. Jung, J. H. Lee, S. Shinkai, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2011, 40, 4464.
[2] a) T. Myochin, K. Kiyose, K. Hanaoka, H. Kojima, T. Terai, T. J. Nagano, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 3401; b) F. Qian, C. Zhang, Y. Zhang, W. He, X. Gao, P. Hu, Z. Guo, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 1460; c) D. Maity, T. Govindaraju, Inorg. Chem. 2010, 49, 7229; d) T. M. Swager, Acc. Chem. Res. 1998, 31, 201; e) R. Guliyev, A. Coskun, E. U. Akkaya, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 9007; f) H. N. Kim, Z. Guo, W. Zhu, J. Yoon, H. Tian, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2011, 40, 79; g) M. Park, S. Seo, I. S. Lee, J. H. Jung, Chem. Commun. 2010, 46, 4478; h) D. Maity, A. K. Manna, D. Karthigeyan, T. K. Kundu, S. K. Pati, T. Govindaraju, Chem. Eur. J. 2011, 17, 11152; i) Z. Q. Guo, W. H. Zhu, H. Tian, Macromolecules 2010, 43, 739; j) D. Maity, T. Govindaraju, Chem. Eur. J. 2011, 17, 1410; k) H. Son, H. Y. Lee, Figure 11.1H NMR titrations of monomers M1 (a), M2 (b), and M3 (c)
in [D8]THF upon the sequential addition of 0–1 equiv of Fe2 +(in D2O).
(Arrow marks show the shifts of the peak corresponding to the dibromo-thiophene units).
J. M. Lim, D. Kang, W. S. Han, S. S. Lee, J. H. Jung, Chem. Eur. J. 2010, 16, 11549; l) H. Y. Lee, D. R. Bae, J. C. Park, H. Song, W. S. Han, J. H. Jung, Angew. Chem. 2009, 121, 1265.
[3] a) F. S. Kim, G. Ren, S. A. Jenekhe, Chem. Mater. 2011, 23, 682; b) H. Usta, A. Facchetti, T. Marks, Acc. Chem. Res. 2011, 44, 501; c) A. C. Grimsdale, K. L. Chan, R. E. Martin, P. G. Jokisz, A. B. Holmes, Chem. Rev. 2009, 109, 897; d) L. Liao, A. Cirpan, Q. Chu, F. Karasz, Y. Pang, J. Polym. Sci. Part A: Polym. Chem. 2007, 45, 2048; e) Y. J. Cheng, S. H. Yang, C. S. Hsu, Chem. Rev. 2009, 109, 5868; f) M. Mas-Torrent, C. Rovira, Chem. Rev. 2011, 111, 4833; g) B. Y. Shao, X. Gong, A. J. Heeger, M. Liu, A. K. Y. Jen, Adv. Mater. 2009, 21, 1972; h) N. Cho, H. L. Yip, J. A. Davies, P. D. Kazar-inoff, D. F. Zeigler, M. M. Durban, Y. Segawa, K. M. OMalley, C. K. Luscombe, A. K. Y. Jen, Adv. Eng. Mater. 2011, 1, 1148; i) F. Huang, K. S. Chen, H. L. Yip, S. K. Hau, O. Acton, Y. Zhang, J. Luo, A. K. Y. Jen, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 13886.
[4] a) D. T. McQuade, A. E. Pullen, T. M. Swager, Chem. Rev. 2000, 100, 2537; b) S. W. Thomas III, G. D. Joly, T. M. Swager, Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 1339; c) B. Liu, H. Dai, Y. Bao, F. Du, J. Tian, R. Bai, Polym. Chem. 2011, 2, 1699; d) H. Lee, J. H. Lee, S. Kang, J. Y. Lee, G. John, J. H. Jung, Chem. Commun. 2011, 47, 2937; e) X. Duan, L. Liu, F. Feng, S. Wang, Acc. Chem. Res. 2010, 43, 260; f) H. Dong, X. Cao, C. Li, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2009, 1, 1599; g) X. Lou, Y. Zhang, J. Qin, Z. Li, Chem. Eur. J. 2011, 17, 9691; h) J. Li, Y. Wu, F. Song, G. Wei, Y. Cheng, C. Zhu, J. Mater. Chem. 2012, 22, 478. [5] a) L. J. Fan, Y. Zhang, C. B. Murphy, S. E. Angell, M. F. L. Parker,
B. R. Flynn Jr. , W. E. Jones, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2009, 253, 410; b) B. Liu, Y. Bao, H. Wang, F. Du, J. Tian, Q. Li, T. Wang, R. Bai, J. Mater. Chem. 2012, 22, 3555.
[6] a) S. W. Hong, C. H. Ahn, J. Huh, W. H. Jo, Macromolecules 2006, 39, 7694; b) Y. Clarke, W. Xu, J. N. Demas, B. A. DeGraff, Anal. Chem. 2000, 72, 3468; c) R. A. Potyrailo, Angew. Chem. 2006, 118, 718; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 702; d) M. Kruppa, B. Kçnig, Chem. Rev. 2006, 106, 3520; e) O. A. Bozdemir, O. Buyukcakir, E. U. Akkaya, Chem. Eur. J. 2009, 15, 3830; f) A. Coskun, E. U. Akkaya, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 14474; g) J. Jiang, X. Xiao, P. Zhao, H. Tian, J. Polym. Sci. Part A: Polym. Chem. 2010, 48, 1551. [7] a) M. R. A. Blomberg, P. E. M. Siegbahn, M. Wikstrom, Inorg. Chem. 2003, 42, 5231; b) S. Yamamoto, H. Takeda, Y. Maki, O. Hay-aishi, J. Biol. Chem. 1969, 244, 2951; c) G. E. Cartwright, C. J. Gubler, M. M. Wintrobe, J. Biol. Chem. 1957, 224, 533; d) M. Shel-laiah, Y. C. Rajan, H C Lin, J. Mater. Chem. 2012, 22, 8976. [8] a) P. Aisen, M. W. Resnick, E. A. Leibold, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol.
1999, 3, 200; b) R. S. Eisenstein, Annu. Rev. Nutr. 2000, 20, 627; c) J. B. Neilands, Ann. Rev. Biochem. 1981, 50, 715; d) H. Ouchetto, M. Dias, R. Mornet, E. Lesuisse, J. M. Camadro, Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2005, 13, 1799; e) S. D. Kalinowski, C. P. Sharpe, V. P. Bern-hardt, R. D. Richardson, J. Med. Chem. 2008, 51, 331; f) V. M. Chaud, C. Izumi, Z. Nahaal, T. D. Shuhama, L. P. M. Bianchi, O. Freitas, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 871; g) Q. Zou, X. Li, J. Zhang, J. Zhou, B. Sun, H. Tian, Chem. Commun. 2012, 48, 2095. [9] a) J. B. S. Neilands, Struct. Bonding (Berlin) 1984, 58, 1; b) G. Win-kelmann, D. van der Helm, J. B. Neilands, Iron Transport in Mi-crobes, Plants, Animals, VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, D-6940 Weinheim, Germany, 1987; c) B. F. Matzanke, G. M. Matzanke, K. N. Raymond, Iron Carriers, Iron Proteins, VCH Publishers, New York, 1989, 5; d) C. Brugnara, Clin. Chem. 2003, 49, 1573.
[10] a) S. Ghosh, C. K. Dey, R. Manna, Tetrahedron Lett. 2010, 51, 3177; b) Y. Liu, Q. Miao, S. W. Zhang, X. B. Huang, L. F. Zheng, Y. X. Cheng, Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2008, 209, 685; c) Q. Miao, X. B. Huang, Y. Q. Cheng, Y. Liu, L. L. Zeng, Y. X. Cheng, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2009, 111, 3137; d) X. Liu, X. Zhou, X. Shu, J. Zhu, Macromolecules 2009, 42, 7634; e) Y. Zhang, C. B. Murphy, W. E. Jones, Macromolecules 2002, 35, 630; f) A. R. Rabindranath, A. Maier, M. Schaer, B. Tieke, Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2009, 210, 659; g) M. Kimura, T. Horai, K. Hanabusa, H. Shirai, Adv. Mater. 1998,
10, 459; h) A. Maier, A. R. Rabindranath, T. Bernd, Adv. Mater. 2009, 21, 959; i) A. Maier, A. R. Rabindranath, B. Tieke, Chem. Mater. 2009, 21, 3668; j) S. J. Ou, Z. H. Lin, C. Y. Duan, H. T. Zhang, Z. P. Bai, Chem. Commun. 2006, 4392; k) S. Watanabe, H. Seguchi, K. Yoshida, K. Kifune, T. Tadaki, H. Shiozaki, Tetrahedron Lett. 2005, 46, 8827; l) G. Saikia, P. K. Iyer, Macromolecules 2011, 44, 3753; m) A. K. Dwivedi, G. Saikia, P. K. Iyer, J. Mater. Chem. 2011, 21, 2502.
[11] a) A. P. Mykytiuk, D. S. Russell, R. E. Sturgeon, Anal. Chem. 1980, 52, 1281; b) A. A. Schilt, P. J. Taylor, Anal. Chem. 1970, 42, 220; c) D. Banerjea, K. Tripathi, Anal. Chem. 1960, 32, 1598; d) A. Safavi, H. Abdollahi, R. Mirzanjani, Spectrochim. Acta Part A 2006, 63, 196; e) A. Safavi, M. R. Hormozi Nezhad, Can. J. Anal. Sci. Spectrosc. 2004, 49, 210; f) A. M. Garcia Rodriguez, A. Garcia de Torres, J. M. Cono Pavon, C. Bosch Ojeda, Talanta 1998, 47, 463. [12] a) S. Matuso, K. Kiyomiya, M. Kurebe, Arch. Toxicol. 1998, 72, 798;
b) S.-W. Zhang, T. M. Swager, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 3420; c) M. Laisalmi, H. Kokki, A. Soikkeli, H. Markkanen, A. Yli-Han-kala, P. Rosenberg, L. Lindgren, Acta Acad. Regiae Sci. Ups. 2006, 50, 982; d) B. Liu, H. Tian, J. Mater. Chem. 2005, 15, 2681; e) W. Huang, Y. Li, Z. Yang, H. Lin, H. Lin, Spectrochim. Acta Part A 2011, 79, 471; f) O. B. Berryman, A. C. Sather, J. Rebek, Org. Lett. 2011, 13, 5232; g) H. Tong, L. Wang, X. Jing, F. Wang, Macromole-cules 2003, 36, 2584; h) G. Zhou, Y. Cheng, L. Wang, X. Jing, F. Wang, Macromolecules 2005, 38, 2148; i) Y. Bao, B. Liu, H. Wang, J. Tian, R. Bai, Chem. Commun. 2011, 47, 3957; j) B. Chetia, P. K. Iyer, Tetrahedron Lett. 2008, 49, 94.
[13] a) A. S. Denisova, M. B. Degtyareva, E. M. Dem’yanchuk, A. A. Si-manova, Russian J. Org. Chem. 2005, 41, 1690; b) C. M. Amb, P. M. Beaujuge, J. R. Reynolds, Adv. Mater. 2010, 22, 724.
[14] a) S.-H. Chan, C. P. Chen, T.-C. Chao, C. Ting, C. S. Lin, B. T. Ko, Macromolecules 2008, 41, 5519; b) I. H. Jung, J. Yu, E. Jeong, S. Kwon, H. Kong, K. Lee, H. Y. Woo, H. K. Shim, Chem. Eur. J. 2010, 16, 3743; c) C. P. Chen, S. H. Chan, T. C. Chao, C. Ting, B. T. Ko, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 12828; d) Y. Xu, Y. Pang, Chem. Commun. 2010, 46, 4070; e) S. Atilgan, T. Ozdemir, E. U. Akkaya, Org. Lett. 2010, 12, 4792; f) P.-T. Wu, H. Xin, F. S. Kim, G. Ren, S. A. Jenekhe, Macromolecules 2009, 42, 8817; g) W. Yue, Y. Zhao, H. Tian, D. Song, Z. Xie, D. Yan, Y. Geng, F. Wang, Macromolecules 2009, 42, 6510; h) X. Liu, X. Shu, X. Zhou, X. Zhang, J. Zhu, J. Phys. Chem. A. 2010, 114, 13370.
[15] a) J. H. Huang, K. C. Li, D. Kekuda, H. H. Padhy, H. C. Lin, K. C. Ho, C. W. Chu, J. Mater. Chem. 2010, 20, 3295; b) N. Kleinhenz, L. Yang, H. Zhou, S. C. Price, W. You, Macromolecules 2011, 44, 872; c) Y. P. Zou, D. Gendron, R. Badrou-Aich, A. Najari, Y. Tao, M. Le-clerc, Macromolecules 2009, 42, 2891.
[16] a) I. Valeur, B. Leray, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2000, 205, 3; b) M. Mameli, M. C. Aragoni, M. Arca, C. Caltagirone, F. Demartin, G. Farruggia, G. D. Filippo, F. A. Devillanova, A. Garau, F. Isaia, V. Lippolis, S. Murgia, L. Prodi, A. Pintus, N. Zaccheroni, Chem. Eur. J. 2010, 16, 919; c) A. P. De Silva, H. Q. N. Gunaratne, T. Gunn-laugsson, A. J. M. Huxley, C. P. McCoy, J. T. Rademacher, T. E. Rice, Chem. Rev. 1997, 97, 1515; d) L. Shen, X. Lu, H. Tian, W. Zhu, Macromolecules 2011, 44, 5612; e) S. M. Borisov, O. S. Wolf-beis, Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 423; f) G. A. Hembury, V. V. Borovkov, Y. Inoue, Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 1; g) Z. C. Xu, J. Yoon, D. R. Spring, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2010, 39, 1996.
[17] a) R. Satapathy, Y. H. Wu, H. C. Lin, Chem. Commun. 2012, 48, 5668; b) R. Satapathy, Y. H. Wu, H. C. Lin, Org. Lett. 2012, 14, 2564; c) P. J. Yang, H. C. Chu, T. C. Chen, H. C. Lin, J. Mater. Chem. 2012, 22, 12358; d) H. C. Chu, Y. H. Lee, S. J. Hsu, P. J. Yang, A. Ya-bushita, H. C. Lin, J. Phys. Chem. B 2011, 115, 8845.
Received: August 31, 2012 Revised: September 5, 2012 Published online: October 30, 2012
![Table 3. Photoluminescence properties of P1, P2, and P3 upon titration with Fe 2 + . Sample l em (nm) [a] F em [b] t [c] P1 633 0.82 0.97 P1 + Fe 2 + 628 0.15 0.21 P2 640 0.84 1.12 P2 + Fe 2 + 632 0.11 0.18 P3 661 0.89 1.14 P3 + Fe 2 + 630 0.05 0.10](https://thumb-ap.123doks.com/thumbv2/9libinfo/7936854.157404/8.892.74.432.407.520/table-photoluminescence-properties-titration-fe-sample-fe-fe.webp)
