Theoretical, Semiempirical, and Experimental Solvatochromic Comparison Methods for the Construction of the α 1 Scale of Hydrogen-Bond Donation of Solvents

Today, the hydrogen bonding donation (HBD) ability parameter of new solvents, α, is generally determined either by the Kamlet-Taft solvatochromic comparison of two probes, Reichardt betaine dye B(30) and 4-nitroanisole, or by the measurement of a single probe (e.g., solvatochromism of an iron coordi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of organic chemistry 2022-05, Vol.87 (9), p.6273-6287
Hauptverfasser: Laurence, Christian, Mansour, Sergui, Vuluga, Daniela, Sraïdi, Khadija, Legros, Julien
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 6287
container_issue 9
container_start_page 6273
container_title Journal of organic chemistry
container_volume 87
creator Laurence, Christian
Mansour, Sergui
Vuluga, Daniela
Sraïdi, Khadija
Legros, Julien
description Today, the hydrogen bonding donation (HBD) ability parameter of new solvents, α, is generally determined either by the Kamlet-Taft solvatochromic comparison of two probes, Reichardt betaine dye B(30) and 4-nitroanisole, or by the measurement of a single probe (e.g., solvatochromism of an iron coordination complex). This work highlights the shortcomings of these probes and recommends three replacement methods: (a) the theoretical comparison of the experimental and PCM-TD-DFT calculated transition energies (30) of B(30), (b) the semiempirical comparison of the experimental and McRae calculated (30), and, (c) for ionic liquids, the experimental comparison of (30) and (33) lying on the lower basicity of the betaine dye B(33) compared to B(30). These methods yield a new HBD parameter, α , for 101 molecular solvents and 30 ionic liquids. The novelty is emblematic for water, with α = 1.54 instead of α (Kamlet-Taft) = 1.17. The solvent parameter α is not equivalent to the solute hydrogen-bond acidity parameter α , partly because of the self-association of HBD solvents.
doi_str_mv 10.1021/acs.joc.2c00526
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03838942v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>35467876</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1436-5ca30db805e4d0d8d490cff557da087d687c37306a8e3f541f5422e872b88e883</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9UctOwzAQtBAIyuPMDfmKRMrajhP3COVRpCIOhXPk2hsSlMSRHSr4Fr6CH-GbcClgaWXt7MyOVkPIMYMxA87OtQnjF2fG3ABInm2REZMckmwC6TYZAXCeCJ6JPbIfwgvEJ6XcJXtCplmu8mxEPh4rdB6H2ujmjC6wrbHta79pdWfp9VuPvm6xG3RDF65Z6cGZyru2NnTq2l77OriO3uNQORto6TwdKoyjLgz-1Qx1HLryB_v6pIwu4mZcI7N3690zdsmlizZXrtN_3LVL9AuHZKfUTcCj3_-APN1cP05nyfzh9m56MU8MS0WWSKMF2KUCiakFq2w6AVOWUuZWg8ptpnIjcgGZVihKmbJYnKPK-VIpVEockNPN3ko3RR-P1f69cLouZhfzYo2BUEJNUr5ikXu-4RrvQvBY_gsYFOtIihhJESMpfiOJipONon9dtmj_-X8ZiG84xIr4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Theoretical, Semiempirical, and Experimental Solvatochromic Comparison Methods for the Construction of the α 1 Scale of Hydrogen-Bond Donation of Solvents</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>American Chemical Society Journals</source><creator>Laurence, Christian ; Mansour, Sergui ; Vuluga, Daniela ; Sraïdi, Khadija ; Legros, Julien</creator><creatorcontrib>Laurence, Christian ; Mansour, Sergui ; Vuluga, Daniela ; Sraïdi, Khadija ; Legros, Julien</creatorcontrib><description>Today, the hydrogen bonding donation (HBD) ability parameter of new solvents, α, is generally determined either by the Kamlet-Taft solvatochromic comparison of two probes, Reichardt betaine dye B(30) and 4-nitroanisole, or by the measurement of a single probe (e.g., solvatochromism of an iron coordination complex). This work highlights the shortcomings of these probes and recommends three replacement methods: (a) the theoretical comparison of the experimental and PCM-TD-DFT calculated transition energies (30) of B(30), (b) the semiempirical comparison of the experimental and McRae calculated (30), and, (c) for ionic liquids, the experimental comparison of (30) and (33) lying on the lower basicity of the betaine dye B(33) compared to B(30). These methods yield a new HBD parameter, α , for 101 molecular solvents and 30 ionic liquids. The novelty is emblematic for water, with α = 1.54 instead of α (Kamlet-Taft) = 1.17. The solvent parameter α is not equivalent to the solute hydrogen-bond acidity parameter α , partly because of the self-association of HBD solvents.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3263</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-6904</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1021/acs.joc.2c00526</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35467876</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Chemical Society</publisher><subject>Betaine - chemistry ; Chemical Sciences ; Hydrogen ; Hydrogen Bonding ; Ionic Liquids ; Solvents - chemistry</subject><ispartof>Journal of organic chemistry, 2022-05, Vol.87 (9), p.6273-6287</ispartof><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1436-5ca30db805e4d0d8d490cff557da087d687c37306a8e3f541f5422e872b88e883</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1436-5ca30db805e4d0d8d490cff557da087d687c37306a8e3f541f5422e872b88e883</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9601-0411 ; 0000-0002-4807-7897</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,2765,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35467876$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-03838942$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Laurence, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mansour, Sergui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vuluga, Daniela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sraïdi, Khadija</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Legros, Julien</creatorcontrib><title>Theoretical, Semiempirical, and Experimental Solvatochromic Comparison Methods for the Construction of the α 1 Scale of Hydrogen-Bond Donation of Solvents</title><title>Journal of organic chemistry</title><addtitle>J Org Chem</addtitle><description>Today, the hydrogen bonding donation (HBD) ability parameter of new solvents, α, is generally determined either by the Kamlet-Taft solvatochromic comparison of two probes, Reichardt betaine dye B(30) and 4-nitroanisole, or by the measurement of a single probe (e.g., solvatochromism of an iron coordination complex). This work highlights the shortcomings of these probes and recommends three replacement methods: (a) the theoretical comparison of the experimental and PCM-TD-DFT calculated transition energies (30) of B(30), (b) the semiempirical comparison of the experimental and McRae calculated (30), and, (c) for ionic liquids, the experimental comparison of (30) and (33) lying on the lower basicity of the betaine dye B(33) compared to B(30). These methods yield a new HBD parameter, α , for 101 molecular solvents and 30 ionic liquids. The novelty is emblematic for water, with α = 1.54 instead of α (Kamlet-Taft) = 1.17. The solvent parameter α is not equivalent to the solute hydrogen-bond acidity parameter α , partly because of the self-association of HBD solvents.</description><subject>Betaine - chemistry</subject><subject>Chemical Sciences</subject><subject>Hydrogen</subject><subject>Hydrogen Bonding</subject><subject>Ionic Liquids</subject><subject>Solvents - chemistry</subject><issn>0022-3263</issn><issn>1520-6904</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9UctOwzAQtBAIyuPMDfmKRMrajhP3COVRpCIOhXPk2hsSlMSRHSr4Fr6CH-GbcClgaWXt7MyOVkPIMYMxA87OtQnjF2fG3ABInm2REZMckmwC6TYZAXCeCJ6JPbIfwgvEJ6XcJXtCplmu8mxEPh4rdB6H2ujmjC6wrbHta79pdWfp9VuPvm6xG3RDF65Z6cGZyru2NnTq2l77OriO3uNQORto6TwdKoyjLgz-1Qx1HLryB_v6pIwu4mZcI7N3690zdsmlizZXrtN_3LVL9AuHZKfUTcCj3_-APN1cP05nyfzh9m56MU8MS0WWSKMF2KUCiakFq2w6AVOWUuZWg8ptpnIjcgGZVihKmbJYnKPK-VIpVEockNPN3ko3RR-P1f69cLouZhfzYo2BUEJNUr5ikXu-4RrvQvBY_gsYFOtIihhJESMpfiOJipONon9dtmj_-X8ZiG84xIr4</recordid><startdate>20220506</startdate><enddate>20220506</enddate><creator>Laurence, Christian</creator><creator>Mansour, Sergui</creator><creator>Vuluga, Daniela</creator><creator>Sraïdi, Khadija</creator><creator>Legros, Julien</creator><general>American Chemical Society</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9601-0411</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4807-7897</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220506</creationdate><title>Theoretical, Semiempirical, and Experimental Solvatochromic Comparison Methods for the Construction of the α 1 Scale of Hydrogen-Bond Donation of Solvents</title><author>Laurence, Christian ; Mansour, Sergui ; Vuluga, Daniela ; Sraïdi, Khadija ; Legros, Julien</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1436-5ca30db805e4d0d8d490cff557da087d687c37306a8e3f541f5422e872b88e883</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Betaine - chemistry</topic><topic>Chemical Sciences</topic><topic>Hydrogen</topic><topic>Hydrogen Bonding</topic><topic>Ionic Liquids</topic><topic>Solvents - chemistry</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Laurence, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mansour, Sergui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vuluga, Daniela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sraïdi, Khadija</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Legros, Julien</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><jtitle>Journal of organic chemistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Laurence, Christian</au><au>Mansour, Sergui</au><au>Vuluga, Daniela</au><au>Sraïdi, Khadija</au><au>Legros, Julien</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Theoretical, Semiempirical, and Experimental Solvatochromic Comparison Methods for the Construction of the α 1 Scale of Hydrogen-Bond Donation of Solvents</atitle><jtitle>Journal of organic chemistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Org Chem</addtitle><date>2022-05-06</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>87</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>6273</spage><epage>6287</epage><pages>6273-6287</pages><issn>0022-3263</issn><eissn>1520-6904</eissn><abstract>Today, the hydrogen bonding donation (HBD) ability parameter of new solvents, α, is generally determined either by the Kamlet-Taft solvatochromic comparison of two probes, Reichardt betaine dye B(30) and 4-nitroanisole, or by the measurement of a single probe (e.g., solvatochromism of an iron coordination complex). This work highlights the shortcomings of these probes and recommends three replacement methods: (a) the theoretical comparison of the experimental and PCM-TD-DFT calculated transition energies (30) of B(30), (b) the semiempirical comparison of the experimental and McRae calculated (30), and, (c) for ionic liquids, the experimental comparison of (30) and (33) lying on the lower basicity of the betaine dye B(33) compared to B(30). These methods yield a new HBD parameter, α , for 101 molecular solvents and 30 ionic liquids. The novelty is emblematic for water, with α = 1.54 instead of α (Kamlet-Taft) = 1.17. The solvent parameter α is not equivalent to the solute hydrogen-bond acidity parameter α , partly because of the self-association of HBD solvents.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Chemical Society</pub><pmid>35467876</pmid><doi>10.1021/acs.joc.2c00526</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9601-0411</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4807-7897</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-3263
ispartof Journal of organic chemistry, 2022-05, Vol.87 (9), p.6273-6287
issn 0022-3263
1520-6904
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03838942v1
source MEDLINE; American Chemical Society Journals
subjects Betaine - chemistry
Chemical Sciences
Hydrogen
Hydrogen Bonding
Ionic Liquids
Solvents - chemistry
title Theoretical, Semiempirical, and Experimental Solvatochromic Comparison Methods for the Construction of the α 1 Scale of Hydrogen-Bond Donation of Solvents
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T21%3A00%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Theoretical,%20Semiempirical,%20and%20Experimental%20Solvatochromic%20Comparison%20Methods%20for%20the%20Construction%20of%20the%20%CE%B1%201%20Scale%20of%20Hydrogen-Bond%20Donation%20of%20Solvents&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20organic%20chemistry&rft.au=Laurence,%20Christian&rft.date=2022-05-06&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=6273&rft.epage=6287&rft.pages=6273-6287&rft.issn=0022-3263&rft.eissn=1520-6904&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021/acs.joc.2c00526&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_hal_p%3E35467876%3C/pubmed_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/35467876&rfr_iscdi=true