Thermo‐Solvatochromism of Merocyanine Polarity Probes – What Are the Consequences of Increasing Probe Lipophilicity through Annelation?
Authors: Martins Clarissa T. , Lima Michelle S. , Bastos Erick L. , El Seoud Omar A. 
Published: January 2008

The question raised in the title has been answered by comparing the solvatochromism of two series of polarity probes, the lipophilicities of which were increased either by increasing the length of an alkyl group (R) attached to a fixed pyridine‐based structure or through annelation (i.e., by fusing benzene rings onto a central pyridine‐based structure). The following novel solvatochromic probes were synthesized:2,6‐dibromo‐4‐[(E)‐2‐(1‐methylquinolinium‐4‐yl)ethenyl]phenolate (MeQMBr2) and 2,6‐dibromo‐4‐[(E)‐2‐(1‐methylacridinium‐4‐yl)ethenyl)]phenolate (MeAMBr2). The solvatochromic behavior of these probes, along with that of 2,6‐dibromo‐4‐[(E)‐2‐(1‐methylpyridinium‐4‐yl)ethenyl]phenolate (MePMBr2) was analyzed in terms of increasing probe lipophilicity, through annelation. Values of the empirical solvent polarity scale [ET(MePMBr2)] in kcal mol–1 correlated linearly with ET(30), the corresponding values for the extensively employed probe 2,6‐diphenyl‐4‐(2,4,6‐triphenylpyridinium‐1‐yl)phenolate (RB). On the other hand, the nonlinear correlations of ET(MeQMBr2) or ET(MeAMBr2) with ET(30) are described by second‐order polynomials. Possible reasons for this behavior include: i) self‐aggregation of the probe, ii) photoinduced cis/trans isomerization of the dye, and iii) probe structure‐ and solvent‐dependent contributions of the quinonoid and zwitterionic limiting formulas to the ground and excited states of the probe. We show that mechanisms (i) and (ii) are not operative under the experimental conditions employed; experimental evidence (NMR) and theoretical calculations are presented to support the conjecture that the length of the central ethenylic bond in the dye increases in the order MeAMBr2 > MeQMBr2 > MePMBr2. That is, the contribution of the zwitterionic limiting formula predominates for the latter probe, as is also the case for RB, this being the reason for the observed linear correlation between the ET(MePMBr2) and the ET(30) scales. The effect of increasing probe lipophilicity on solvatochromic behavior therefore depends on the strategy employed. Increasing the length of R affects solvatochromism much less than annelation, because the former structural change hardly perturbs the energy of the intramolecular charge‐transfer transition responsible for solvatochromism. The thermo‐solvatochromic behavior (effect of temperature on solvatochromism) of the three probes was studied in mixtures of water with propanol and/or with DMSO. The solvation model used explicitly considers the presence of three “species” in the system: bulk solution and probe solvation shell [namely, water (W), organic solvent (Solv)], and solvent–water hydrogen‐bonded aggregate (Solv‐W). For aqueous propanol, the probe is efficiently solvated by Solv‐W; the strong interaction of DMSO with W drastically decreases the efficiency of Solv‐W in solvating the probe, relative to its precursor solvents. Temperature increases resulted in desolvation of the probes, due to the concomitant reduction in the structured characters of the components of the binary mixtures.(© Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 69451 Weinheim, Germany, 2008)