Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
[4-Di(2-acetoxyethyl)aminophenyl]-2-furylmethanone [Fur(OAc) 2 ], [4-di(2-hydroxyethyl)aminophenyl]-2-furylmethanone [Fur(OH) 2 ], and their thiophene analogues, [4-di(2-acetoxyethyl)aminophenyl]-2-thienylmethanone [Thi(OAc) 2 ] and [4-di(2-hydroxyethyl)aminophenyl]-2-thienylmethanone [Thi(OH) 2 ], have been synthesized as model compounds for the study of molecular interactions in the solid-state and liquid environments with different polarity. The UV/Vis absorption spectra of these compounds have been studied in 30 solvents of different polarity and hydrogen bonding ability. The solvent dependent UV/Vis spectroscopic band shifts ν max are analyzed using the empirical Kamlet−Taft solvent parameters π* (dipolarity/polarizability), α (hydrogen bond donating capacity), and β (hydrogen bond accepting ability) in terms of the well-established linear solvation energy relationship (LSErs): ν max = (ν max ) 0 + s π* + a α + b β. The solvent independent coefficients s, a, and b and (ν max ) 0 have been determined. To evaluate the environmental effects for Fur(OH) 2 and Thi(OH) 2, the UV/Vis spectroscopic behavior of these compounds was also investigated as pure crystal powders and as a guest in ormosil sol−gel glasses. The solid-state structures of the latter compounds were determined by single-crystal X-ray diffraction techniques. The X-ray investigations confirm the existence of qualitatively different intermolecular hydrogen bonds in Fur(OH) 2 and Thi(OH) 2, which are additionally reflected by the UV/Vis reflectance absorption spectra and are related to the solvatochromism result.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ElSayed et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: