ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
My Activity
CONTENT TYPES

Sensing and Liquid–Liquid Extraction of Dicarboxylates Using Dicopper Cryptates

  • Sonia La Cognata
    Sonia La Cognata
    Department of Chemistry, Università degli Studi di Pavia, v.le T. Taramelli 12, Pavia 27100, Italy
  • Riccardo Mobili
    Riccardo Mobili
    Department of Chemistry, Università degli Studi di Pavia, v.le T. Taramelli 12, Pavia 27100, Italy
  • Francesca Merlo
    Francesca Merlo
    Department of Chemistry, Università degli Studi di Pavia, v.le T. Taramelli 12, Pavia 27100, Italy
  • Andrea Speltini
    Andrea Speltini
    Department of Drug Sciences, Università degli Studi di Pavia,via Taramelli 12, Pavia 27100, Italy
  • Massimo Boiocchi
    Massimo Boiocchi
    Centro Grandi Strumenti, Università degli Studi di Pavia, via A. Bassi 21, Pavia 27100, Italy
  • Teresa Recca
    Teresa Recca
    Centro Grandi Strumenti, Università degli Studi di Pavia, via A. Bassi 21, Pavia 27100, Italy
    More by Teresa Recca
  • Louis J. Maher III
    Louis J. Maher, III
    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, United States
  • , and 
  • Valeria Amendola*
    Valeria Amendola
    Department of Chemistry, Università degli Studi di Pavia, v.le T. Taramelli 12, Pavia 27100, Italy
    *Email: [email protected]
Cite this: ACS Omega 2020, 5, 41, 26573–26582
Publication Date (Web):October 7, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c03337

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

  • Open Access

Article Views

1159

Altmetric

-

Citations

LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (3 MB)
Supporting Info (4)»

Abstract

We report the investigation of dicopper(II) bistren cryptate, containing naphthyl spacers between the tren subunits, as a receptor for polycarboxylates in neutral aqueous solution. An indicator displacement assay for dicarboxylates was also developed by mixing the azacryptate with the fluorescent indicator 5-carboxyfluorescein in a 50:1 molar ratio. Fluorimetric studies showed a significant restoration of fluorophore emission upon addition of fumarate anions followed by succinate and isophthalate. The introduction of hexyl chains on the naphthalene groups created a novel hydrophobic cage; the corresponding dicopper complex was investigated as an extractant for dicarboxylates from neutral water into dichloromethane. The liquid–liquid extraction of succinate—as a model anion—was successfully achieved by exploiting the high affinity of this anionic guest for the azacryptate cavity. Extraction was monitored through the changes in the UV–visible spectrum of the dicopper complex in dichloromethane and by measuring the residual concentration of succinate in the aqueous phase by HPLC-UV. The successful extraction was also confirmed by 1H-NMR spectroscopy. Considering the relevance of polycarboxylates in biochemistry and in the environmental field, e.g., as waste products of industrial processes, our results open new perspectives for research in all contexts where recognition, sensing, or extraction of polycarboxylates is required.

Introduction

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Polycarboxylates are relevant in the industrial and environmental fields. In addition, these anionic species are natural cellular metabolites with roles as intermediates of the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle. For these reasons, molecular systems capable of selectively recognizing target polycarboxylates have attracted attention in the supramolecular chemistry field over many years. (1) Interest will undoubtedly grow because of the recent medical recognition of the pathological roles of some dicarboxylates, such as succinate, beyond normal metabolism. (2,3)
Molecular receptors are appreciated as powerful tools for the selective recognition of either neutral or ionic guests in competing media. (1,3−6) In the context of anion recognition, research has led to the development of a plethora of anion sensors, anion-responsive materials, and organocatalytic processes involving anion complexation. (7−9) Compared to the macrocyclic parents, the preorganization and the well-defined cavity in macrobicycles give an important contribution to the selectivity of these systems for anionic guests. (10)
Bistren-like azacryptands, in particular, have emerged among cage-like anion receptors. (1,3,4,6) In these systems, when the recognition of bidentate anionic guests is concerned, selectivity can be maximized by properly choosing the spacers between the tren subunits on the azacryptand skeleton. (1) Anion binding properties can be further improved by including two transition metal ions in the receptor cavity. The obtained dinuclear azacryptates form stable complexes with those bidentate anions—including polycarboxylates—for which the separation between the binding units better fits the separation between the metal ions in the cavity. Besides anion recognition, molecular receptors were successfully applied in the selective liquid–liquid or solid–liquid extraction of target anions and as anion transporters across cell membranes. (11−14) The latter applications have generally involved the extraction and/or transport of halides—chloride in particular—or oxoanions. (15−19) Despite the promising features of cage-like systems, their application in these fields is difficult to achieve.
In particular, in the extraction of polycarboxylates from a neutral aqueous solution into an aprotic solvent, the process must be both electroneutral and selective; i.e., charge neutrality must be maintained and the extractant should discriminate among similar guests. Some years ago, Lu and co-workers (20) demonstrated that the dizinc(II) complex of the cryptand L1 (reported in Figure 1) successfully discriminates between fumarate (fum2–) and its geometric isomer, maleate (male2–): the affinity constants were 4.6 and 3.4 log units for fum2– and male2–, respectively. A tendency to form 1:1 inclusion complexes with fum2– and succinate was also found for the dicopper(II) analogue complex, as shown by the crystal structures of the adducts. (20)

Figure 1

Figure 1. Azacryptands L1 and L2 and the series of polycarboxylates studied in this work.

In this work, by applying the indicator displacement approach (21) to the [Cu2(L1)]4+ complex, we obtained an assay for the detection of fum2– in neutral water. This approach, which is well known in the literature, has previously been applied by our group in the determination of polycarboxylates in competing media. (22)
The skeleton of L1 was also modified by appending n-hexyl chains on the naphthyl spacers, thus obtaining a novel hydrophobic cryptand, L2, suitable for applications in the liquid–liquid extraction of dicarboxylates from water to immiscible solvents. (23) Our tests with the succinate anion showed that [Cu2(L2)]4+ extracts suc2– from neutral aqueous solution to dichloromethane; extraction is accompanied by the inclusion of the anion into the cage cavity.

Results and Discussion

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

L1 and L2 were synthesized by Schiff-base condensation of tren with the proper dialdehyde, mixed in a 2:3 molar ratio, followed by reduction. In the case of L1, we followed the procedure described by Lu et al. (20) The synthesis of L2 (see Figure S1) and other experimental details are reported in the Experimental Section of this manuscript.

Potentiometric and pH-Spectrophotometric Investigations

Protonation and complexation equilibria involving L1 and L2 were first investigated by potentiometric titrations.
In the case of L1, titrations were performed on both the ligand alone and in the presence of two equivalents of Cu(CF3SO3)2 in a 30% v/v water/MeOH mixture ([NaNO3] = 0.05 M; T = 25 °C). This medium allowed us to solubilize both the free cage and the dicopper complex up to pH 11. The calculated constants (obtained through a non-linear least squares procedure, using the HyperQuad package) (24) allowed us to build the distribution diagrams of the species, reported as % abundance relative to L1 versus pH. The corresponding distribution diagrams, with and without Cu(II), are shown in Figure 2 and Figure S2, respectively (see the equilibrium constants in Table S1).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Distribution diagram showing species present at the equilibrium over the course of the potentiometric titration of L1 (0.4 mM) in the presence of 2 equiv of Cu(CF3SO3)2; the pH-spectrophotometric profiles of Mol Abs at 877 and 667 nm (red and green triangles, respectively) vs pH are superimposed (MeOH/water 30% v/v, 0.05 M NaNO3; T = 25 °C). The lines in the diagram correspond to the species: H6L16+, gray; H5L15+, purple; H4L14+, orange; [Cu(L1H3)]5+, cyan; [Cu2(L1)]4+, red; [Cu2(L1)(OH)]3+, green; [Cu2(L1)(OH)2]2+, blue.

Around pH 2, L1 is in the hexaprotonated form. The mononuclear species [Cu(H3L1)]5+ (i.e., with the copper(II) ion occupying one of the tren subunits) prevails between pH 4 and 5.5, while the dinuclear complex [Cu2(L1)]4+, with one metal center for each tren subunit, becomes the major species in solution over pH 5.5. In [Cu2(L1)]4+, each copper(II) ion is penta-coordinated, with a water molecule occupying the apical position left free by the polyamino ligand. At pH > 8, the coordinated water molecules undergo deprotonation, leading to the species [Cu2(L1)(OH)]3+ and [Cu2(L1)(OH)2]2+ (>80% around pH 10).
A pH-spectrophotometric titration was performed in the same conditions and the obtained experimental profiles of molar absorbance versus pH were superimposed to the distribution diagram of the species (as shown in Figure 2). The family of spectra is available in the Supporting Information (see Figure S4). Around pH 7, the spectrum shows a band around 880 nm and a shoulder at 667 nm, attributable to the [Cu2(L1)]4+ complex with Cu(II) ions in a trigonal bipyramidal geometry. (25) The development of Nsec → Cu(II) (LMCT) bands is also observed near 330 nm.
Above pH 8, the deprotonation of the water molecules coordinated to Cu(II) ions leads to development of the hydroxide-containing species [Cu2(L1)(OH)]3+ and [Cu2(L1)(OH)2]2+. Deprotonation is accompanied by a change in the intensity ratio between the d–d bands at 880 and 667 nm. A color change is also observed in solution from green to light blue (see the blue line in Figure S4).
Potentiometric and pH-spectrophotometric titrations have been also performed on the lipophilic cage L2. For solubility reasons, in this case, the dioxane/water 20% v/v mixture, [TBA]NO3 0.05 M, was employed (T = 25 °C). The distribution diagram of the species, reported in Figures S3 and S6, shows a trend similar to that found for L1. Working in the presence of 2 equiv of Cu(II), the monometallic complex [Cu(L2H3)]5+ prevails in solution between pH 4 and 5.2, while the dimetallic cryptate [Cu2(L2)]4+ is the dominant species (>99%) in the pH range 6–10. The pH-spectrophotometric experiment confirmed the trend found for the non-functionalized ligand. In particular, around neutral pH, the UV–vis spectrum of [Cu2(L2)]4+ (see the green line in Figure S5) is characterized by a d–d band around 900 nm and a shoulder at 730 nm. These bands are peculiar of the coordination of Cu(II) ions to the tren subunits, with water molecules completing the penta-coordination sphere of the two metal centers. The binding of Cu(II) ions to the tren compartments is also accompanied by the development of Nsec → Cu(II) (LMCT) bands near 330 nm. Over pH 11, the deprotonation of the coordinated water molecules causes spectral variations similar to those observed for L1, with the change in the intensity ratio between the d–d bands at 845 and 680 nm. The profiles of the molar absorbances at 650 and 885 nm (green and red triangles, respectively) are superimposed to the distribution diagram of the species versus pH in Figure S6.

Crystal Structures Analysis

Through the slow evaporation of an aqueous solution containing the dicarboxylate sodium salt and the in situ-prepared complex [Cu2(L1)](CF3SO3)4 in a 1:1 molar ratio, we obtained single crystals suitable for X-ray diffraction analysis of the inclusion complexes with glutarate (glut2–), alpha-ketoglutarate (α-keto2–), and acetylendicarboxylate (ace2–) anions. Simplified sketches of the molecular structures are reported in Figure 3 (additional information is available in the Supporting Information).

Figure 3

Figure 3. From the left, pairs of simplified sketches of [Cu2(L1)(glut)]2+, [Cu2(L1)(α-keto)]2+, and [Cu2(L1)(ace)]2+ species. The bridging portion of each dicarboxylate anion is drawn as large spheres, in order to emphasize similitudes and differences among the guests. Hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity, and atom names are reported only for Cu, N, and O.

The hydrated crystals of [Cu2(L1)(glut)](CF3SO3)2·5(H2O) and [Cu2(L1)(α-keto)](CF3SO3)2·4(H2O) are isostructural and originate from two monoclinic crystal structures.
As described in the experimental section, the X-ray diffraction quality of the synthetic crystals containing the glut2– and α-keto2– adducts was poor. However, the results of the crystallographic study have been considered suitable to the aims of this work because the chemically significant parts of the two structures (i.e., the [Cu2(L1)]4+ cations and the dicarboxylate ions) are unequivocally determined, albeit with larger than typical esd’s values for interatomic distances and angles. Furthermore, the solid-state analysis reveals very similar molecular geometries of the [Cu2(L1)]4+ cryptate in the presence of the two dicarboxylate anions having a common backbone of five C atoms. As already observed by Lu et al. (20) for the inclusion complexes with fum2– and suc2–, all the anionic guests reside in the cage cavity, which exhibits a cradle-like arrangement (see Figure 3 and the Supporting Information): the dicarboxylate anion bridges the two Cu(II) ions, both presenting a penta-coordination geometry, with four N atoms of the tren subunits and an O atom of the anion. The longer carbon chains of glut2– and α-keto2– anions as well as the linear backbone of ace2– disfavor an optimal match within the cage’s cavity and generally cause an increase of the Cu(II)···Cu(II) separation in the cryptate. The Cu(II)···Cu(II) separation is 8.77(1) Å in both [Cu2(L1)(fum)]2+ and [Cu2(L1)(suc)]2+4, whereas it is 8.95(1) Å in [Cu2(L1)(glut)]2+ and 8.98(1) Å in [Cu2(L1)(α-keto)]2+. For [Cu2(L1)(ace)]2+, the intermediate value of 8.88(1) Å is found. Complete geometrical features of the metal-center coordinations are reported in the Supporting Information.
The coordination geometry of the metal centers was distinguished using the structural parameter τ, (26) calculated by eq 1.
(1)
where β and α are the two greatest bond angles of the metal center, with β > α. The τ value is close to 0 in the presence of a square pyramidal (SP) geometry, while a value close to 1 reveals a trigonal bipyramidal (TB) geometry. (26)
In the inclusion complexes with fum2– and suc2–, (20) the couples of τ values for the two metal centers are τ1 and τ2 = 0.64 and 0.89 and τ1 and τ2 = 0.60 and 0.89, respectively. Therefore, in both adducts, the geometry around one metal center is close to TB, while for the other one, it is intermediate between TB and SP. In the complex [Cu2(L1)(ace)]2+, an intermediate TB/SP geometry is found for both metals (τ1 and τ2 = 0.51 and 0.69, respectively). In the structures with glut2– and α-keto2–, the TB → SP distortion is more significant and it involves both Cu(II) ions: τ1 and τ2 = 0.30 and 0.34 in [Cu2(L1)(glut)]2+; τ1 and τ2 = 0.33 and 0.39 in [Cu2(L1)(α-keto)]2+.
The TB → SP distortion is emphasized by the bond angle Nter–Cu–Ocar, involving the two axial atom positions of the trigonal bipyramid: Nter–Cu–Ocar is almost flat in the presence of fum2– and suc2– ions [being in the range 175.4(2)–178.8(2)°] and remains close to these values in the presence of the linear ace2– ion, being the observed values 173.57(14) and 178.26(15)° for the two metal centers, respectively. On the other hand, Nter–Cu–Ocar decreases to values in the range 167.3(2)–169.1(2)° in the presence of glut2– and α-keto2–. All these latter dicarboxylates extend their carbon chain outside the cavity of the cradle-like dimetallic cage while keeping the best plane of the dicarboxylate groups almost parallel to the best plane of the naphthalene rings of the two lateral arms (the dihedral angles for the studied molecular compounds are in the range 2.2–8.8°). However, for longer dicarboxylates, the sliding off of the cradle increases the separations between the centroids of the naphthalenes and the centroids of the dicarboxylate moieties. In particular, the two centroid–centroid separations are 3.42 and 3.45 Å in [Cu2(L1)(glut)]2+ and 3.57 and 3.60 Å in [Cu2(L1)(α-keto)]2+.
These values are longer than the centroid–centroid separations found in [Cu2(L1)(fum)]2+ (3.33 and 3.37 Å) and somewhat longer than the values observed in [Cu2(L1)(ace)]2+ (3.37 and 3.44 Å). This suggests minor face-to-face π-stacking interactions in the case of dicarboxylates with a backbone of five C atoms.

Spectrophotometric Studies on [Cu2(L1)]4+ with Dicarboxylates

In this work, we aimed to deepen our understanding of the binding tendencies of [Cu2(L1)]4+ through spectrophotometric titrations with a series of carboxylates. In particular, we tested the affinity of [Cu2(L1)]4+ for polycarboxylates (i) of different lengths, (ii) with either an aliphatic or aromatic skeleton, or (iii) with the same number of carbon atoms but presenting different substituents or unsaturation degrees (see Table 1 and Table S7).
Table 1. Conditional Binding Constants (as log K11 Values) Obtained by UV–Vis Titrations on [Cu2(L1)]4+ and [Cu2(L2)]4+a
anionic guestlog K11 [Cu2(L1)]4+log K11 [Cu2(L2)]4+
fum2–>65.76(2)
suc2–>65.60(3)
isopht2–>64.98(4)
α-keto2–6.00(1)n.a.
ace2–5.90(2)n.a.
glut2–5.39(1)4.14(3)
adi2–2.58(1)3.47(1)
male2–2.78(1)3.65(5)
a

Conditions: [Cu2(L1)]4+ water, 0.05 M HEPES, pH 7; [Cu2(L2)]4+ in dioxane/water solution 20% v/v, 0.025 M HEPES, pH 7 (T = 25 °C). Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. Titration data were processed with the HyperQuad package. See the Supporting Information for details. n.a.: not available.

Our UV–vis titrations, performed in aqueous buffer at pH 7 (0.05 M HEPES buffer), pointed out the formation of 1:1 adducts with all tested anions with the exception of malonate and oxalate.
For both these anions, a significant decrease in the intensity of the d–d bands was observed under titration, attributable to an anion-induced decomposition of the dicopper cryptate.
The log K11 values, reported in Table 1 and Table S7, point out a stronger affinity for dicarboxylates with a rigid structure and with two or three carbon atoms between the −COO groups (named C2 and C3 anions, respectively). With longer dicarboxylates (e.g., adipate and pimelate, C4 and C5, respectively), a significant drop of the affinity is observed.
Among the investigated anionic species, stronger interactions are found with fum2–, suc2–, and isopht2–: for all these guests, the titration profiles are too steep to allow accurate determination of the binding constants by UV–vis titrations. (31) Interestingly, the affinity for these dicarboxylates is even greater than that found for the tricarboxylate citrate anion (see Table S7).
The position of the d–d bands in the initial UV–vis spectrum of [Cu2(L1)]4+ is consistent with a TB coordination geometry around the copper(II) ions, with water molecules occupying the positions left free by the tren subunits. The band at 877 nm and the shoulder around 660 nm are typical of complexes of the [Cu(tren)(X)]2+ type. (25) Under titrations with dicarboxylates, a significant blue shift of the band at 877 nm is observed, accompanied by an increase in intensity of the shoulder (see, e.g., Figure 4 and Figure S9).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Spectra taken over the course of the titration of [Cu2(L1)]4+ (0.5 mM) with an aqueous solution of fumaric acid in 0.05 M HEPES at pH 7. Inset: profiles of ε (i.e., Mol Abs) at 691 (blue triangles) and 903 nm (red triangles) vs equivalents of the added guest.

For the investigated C3 anions, affinity increases along the series: glut2– < α-keto2– < isopht2–. The crystal structures of the inclusion complexes with glut2– and α-keto2– reveal that these anions bridge the Cu(II) centers of the cage while standing a bit outside the cavity. This binding mode induces a relevant TB → SP distortion of the coordination geometry around the Cu(II) ions. A similar distortion can be hypothesized in solution, as indicated by the exchange of the intensity ratio between the d–d bands at 660 and 877 nm (see Figures S10 and S11). (25)
Among aromatic dicarboxylates, a peak of selectivity is found for isophthalate, whose bite length corresponds to those in fum2– and suc2–. A relevant drop of the affinity is instead observed with phthalate and terephthalate (log K11 ≈ 2.5 and 3.5, respectively, see the Supporting Information for details), which are too small and too large, respectively, for the cavity.

Spectrofluorimetric Studies on [Cu2(L1)]4+ with 5-FAM and Dicarboxylates

The fluorescent indicator displacement approach was applied to investigate [Cu2(L1)]4+ with those anions—e.g., fum2–, suc2–, and isopht2–—for which the constants could not be determined by UV–vis titrations. 5-Carboxyfluorescein (5-FAM) was chosen as the indicator because it possesses an isophthalate unit apt to bridge the Cu(II) ions in the azacryptate cavity (see Scheme 1).

Scheme 1

Scheme 1. Displacement of 5-FAM from the [Cu2(L1)]4+ Cavity Promoted by the Fumarate Anion
First, the [Cu2(L1)]4+/5-FAM association constant was determined by spectrofluorimetric titration of a solution of 5-FAM (1 μM) with a solution of the dicopper complex in buffered aqueous solution (0.05 M HEPES, pH 7). The family of spectra and the corresponding titration profile are shown in Figure 5exc = 473 nm; λem = 520 nm).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Spectra taken over the course of the fluorimetric titration of 5-FAM (1 μM) with a solution of [Cu2(L1)]4+ in 0.05 M HEPES at pH 7. Inset: profile of I/I0 at 520 nm (triangles) vs equivalents of the dicopper complex superimposed to the distribution diagram of the species (as % abundance vs equivalents of dicopper complex): red line = % free 5-FAM; gray line = % [Cu2(L1)(5-FAM)]+ .

As expected, the binding of 5-FAM to the azacryptate cavity is accompanied by the quenching of the fluorophore emission. (22) The experimental profiles could be fitted for a single equilibrium, leading to the formation of the 1:1 complex [Cu2(L1)(5-FAM)]+ with an association constant of 7.20(2) log units.
For the experiments with dicarboxylates, stock solutions of 5-FAM (0.1 μM) with 50 equiv of the dicopper cryptate were prepared and used in titrations with chosen anions. As shown by Figure 6, a significant displacement of the indicator from the receptor cavity, accompanied by a significant restoration of the emission, was only obtained with the strongly binding anions fum2– and suc2–. In contrast, e.g., with adi2–, male2–, and citrate, a slight increase of the emission was only observed in the presence of a large excess of the guest. From the fitting of the titration profiles, we obtained the binding constants, which are reported in Table 2. Addition material is available in the Supporting Information.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Profiles of the spectrofluorimetric titrations of the indicator displacement assay (0.1 μM 5-FAM, 5 μM [Cu2(L1)]4+) with solutions of the anionic guests in 0.05 M HEPES at pH 7 (fum2– = red triangles, suc2– = blue triangles; α-keto2– = dark blue triangles; glut2– = green triangles; adi2– = dark green triangles; diamonds = citrate). I = emission intensity; Imax = emission intensity of a solution of 5-FAM in the absence of the dicopper complex (λexc = 473 nm; λem = 520 nm).

Table 2. Conditional Binding Constants (as log K11 Values) Obtained
guestlog K11a,bbite (Å)cτ1, τ2c
fum2–>6a, 8.21(3)b5.000.64, 0.89
suc2–>6a, 7.38(3)b5.020.60, 0.89
isopht2–>6a, 7.20(4)bn.a.n.a.
α-keto2–6.00(1)a, 5.95(3)b5.280.33, 0.39
ace2–5.90(2)a, 5.71(3)b5.100.51, 0.69
glut2–5.39(1)a, 5.40(4)b5.270.30, 0.34
adi2–2.58(1)an.a.n.a.
male2–2.78(1)an.a.n.a.
a

Obtained by UV–vis titrations on [Cu2(L1)]4+ with the anionic guest.

b

Obtained by fluorimetric indicator displacement titrations with selected anions; 5-FAM was used as the fluorescent indicator.

c

The anion bite and the τ1 and τ2 values were obtained from the crystal structures reported in this work or taken from the literature. (20)

Spectrophotometric Studies on [Cu2(L2)]4+

In order to evaluate the effect of spacers’ functionalization on the anion-binding properties of the azacryptate, the new receptor [Cu2(L2)]4+ was investigated with a series of dicarboxylates by UV–vis titrations (see Table 1 and Figures S24–S30). These studies were performed in dioxane/water solution (20% v/v), buffered at pH 7 by HEPES buffer 0.025 M (T = 25 °C), because of the low solubility of the dicopper complex in only aqueous media. Appreciating that organic solvents in the aqueous mixture may alter dissociation equilibria, we determined pKa values for two relevant acids, H2suc and H2glut, through potentiometric titrations in dioxane/water (20% v/v), 0.05 M [TBA]NO3 (T = 25 °C; see Supporting Information). As expected, complete deprotonation of H2suc and H2glut was obtained only at pH > 8 (see the Supporting Information), while the abundance of the corresponding dicarboxylates in pure water was already greater than 99% at pH 7.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Family of spectra taken over the course of the UV–vis titration of [Cu2(L2)]4+ (50 μM) with a solution of H2suc in dioxane/water (20% v/v) at pH 7 (0.025 M HEPES, path length: 10 cm). Initial spectrum and final spectrum: red and blue lines, respectively. Inset figure: plot of ε (i.e., Mol Abs) at 687 nm vs equiv of the added guest (triangles), superimposed to the distribution diagram of the species calculated for a log K11 = 5.60; % [Cu2(L2)]4+ (red line) and [Cu2(L2)(suc)]2+ (blue line) vs equiv of succinate. (23) See the Supporting Information for more details.

Even if the deprotonation of dicarboxylic acids is disfavored in the chosen aqueous mixture, the coordination of the corresponding dianion to the metal centers within the cavity of the cage may provide sufficient driving force to promote complete deprotonation. This was confirmed by our studies on [Cu2(L2)]4+ with the guests reported in Table 1. In particular, [Cu2(L2)]4+ was found to form 1:1 adducts with all of the investigated anions, with the greatest selectivity for fum2– and suc2–. Reduced affinity was found for anions with longer chains, e.g., glut2– and adi2–. The spectral changes observed over the course of the titration experiments of [Cu2(L2)]4+ are quite similar to those observed for the non-functionalized ligand L1 (Figure 7). In fact, the [Cu2(L2)]4+ spectrum shows a d–d band at 900 nm, with the shoulder at 700 nm, typical of a TB geometry for the copper(II) ions, with water molecules in the positions left free by the tren subunits. The variations of these bands, observed during titrations with anions, are very similar to those found with [Cu2(L1)]4+ (see the Supporting Information for details).
Despite several efforts, no single crystals suitable for X-ray analysis of the inclusion complexes with anions for [Cu2(L2)]4+ were obtained. Therefore, the binding of suc2– to the lipophilic azacryptate [Cu2(L2)]4+, with the formation of the [Cu2(L2)(suc)]2+ adduct, was confirmed by HRMS-ESI spectroscopy in an acetonitrile solution of [Cu2(L2)]4+ treated with 1 equiv aqueous Na2suc. The HRMS-ESI spectrum (see the Supporting Information) displays a peak at 796.4592 m/z, attributable to the doubly charged ion [Cu2(L2)(suc)]2+.
As shown in Table 1, the selectivity displayed by [Cu2(L2)]4+ is lower than that found for [Cu2(L1)]4+, but the affinity trend is rather similar. Discrepancies in the log K11 values for the binding of dicarboxylates by the two azacryptates can be attributed to the different structures of the cages and to the different media employed for measurements.

Extraction Experiments

Given its high affinity for polycarboxylate guests and its enhanced lipophilicity, we tested the cage-like complex [Cu2(L2)]4+ as a potential extractant of dicarboxylates from neutral water into an immiscible organic solvent, i.e., dichloromethane. (23) It should be noticed that the complex [Cu2(L1)]4+ cannot be used as an extracting agent because of its insolubility in dichloromethane.
The stability of the [Cu2(L2)(suc)]2+ adduct in the chosen solvent was first verified by UV–vis titration of [Cu2(L2)]4+ (30 μM) with [TBA]2suc in dichloromethane (path length 10 cm; T = 25 °C). This study confirmed the high affinity of suc2– for the azacryptate and the formation of a receptor–anion adduct, with a 1:1 stoichiometry (see Supporting Information, Figure S31).
We then performed liquid–liquid extraction experiments. A 0.20 mM solution of [Cu2(L2)]4+ in dichloromethane was stirred for 10 min in contact with an aqueous solution of 1 mM H2suc in HEPES buffer 0.050 M at pH 7. The successful extraction of H2suc from water was demonstrated by recording UV–vis spectra of the organic phase before and after mixing (see Figure S33). Notably, the final spectrum of the dichloromethane phase displayed the same changes in the d–d bands of the [Cu2(L2)]4+ complex as those found upon titration of the azacryptate with [TBA]2suc in this medium. This result indicates that suc2– is successfully transferred from neutral water to dichloromethane, where it is stabilized by complexation with [Cu2(L2)]4+.
These initial tests were then followed by quantitative extraction experiments in which the suc2– concentration in the aqueous layer was monitored by HPLC-UV. These experiments (see the Experimental Section for details) again employed 0.20 mM solutions of [Cu2(L2)]4+ in dichloromethane and 1.0 mM solutions (i.e., 5-fold excess vs [Cu2(L2)]4+) of H2suc in 0.050 M HEPES buffer at pH 7.
Seven extraction experiments were performed independently over non-consecutive days. HPLC-UV analyses indicated that suc2– was effectively extracted into the organic phase only in the presence of the azacryptate. The final concentration of succinate in the organic phase actually matched the concentration of dicopper cryptate in the organic phase; in fact, the measured average extraction yield—calculated with respect to the initial concentration of suc2– in the aqueous phase—was 20 ± 4% (n = 7, α = 0.05) (see the Supporting Information for details). Notably, this result also corresponds to the maximum amount of suc2– that would result in the organic phase if the entire amount of [Cu2(L2)]4+ forms a 1:1 complex with the anion in DCM. This is in full agreement with the data obtained by UV–vis spectroscopy (i.e., by measuring the spectrum of the [Cu2(L2)]4+ in the organic phase before and after extraction).
These findings were corroborated by additional trials showing that succinate does not measurably enter the organic phase without complexation by [Cu2(L2)]4+: the organic phase was evaporated to dryness after extraction in the absence of the cryptand. Chromatographic analysis of the residue, reconstituted with 1 mL of 0.050 M HEPES buffer, showed an undetectable concentration of suc2–.
A further confirmation of suc2– extraction was obtained through an 1H-NMR experiment, consisting of the quantification of suc2– in buffered D2O solution (1.5 mL, 0.05 M PBS, pH 7), before and after extraction with a solution of the dicopper complex in DCM (see the Experimental Section for details). Very interestingly, starting from a 1.044 mM solution of suc2– (1.57 mmol) in buffered D2O, after 10 min. Stirring with a 0.42 mM solution of [Cu2(L2)]4+ in DCM (1.5 mL, 0.63 mmol [Cu2(L2)]4+), a 0.638 mM residual concentration of suc2– in the D2O phase was found. This indicates that 0.61 mmol of the anion are extracted into the organic phase, corresponding to a 97% extraction yield relative to the cage. The 1H-NMR spectra are shown in the Supporting Information. A control experiment in which a buffered solution of suc2– was stirred with a pure DCM layer confirmed that suc2– is not extracted, from the PBS buffer into DCM, in the absence of the cage.

Conclusions

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

In this work, we show that an indicator displacement assay, consisting of the dicopper azacryptate [Cu2(L1)]4+ and the fluorescent indicator 5-FAM, can be successfully applied in the sensing of the fumarate anion in neutral water.
In addition, we demonstrate that the lipophilic cage-like complex [Cu2(L2)]4+can be successfully applied in the extraction of highly hydrated polyanionic species from water.
Extraction studies, using succinate as a model anion, showed that the quantitative extraction of the dicaboxylate guest can be achieved by employing the lipophilic azacryptate [Cu2(L2)]4+ as the extractant. This complex is actually capable of stabilizing the polyanion in dichloromethane through encapsulation in the cavity. Given the relevance of polycarboxylates as normal metabolites and pathological oncometabolites as well as industrial waste products, our results open new possibilities for research and application in selective recognition, trapping, and extraction of target polycarboxylates.

Experimental Section

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Materials and Methods

All reagents for syntheses were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and used without further purification. All reactions were performed under dinitrogen. High-resolution mass spectra were recorded on a Thermo Scientific Q Exactive Plus instrument. 1H- and 13C-NMR spectra were recorded on a Bruker AVANCEIII 400 MHz (operating at 9.37 T, 400 MHz), equipped with a 5 mm BBO probe head with Z-gradient (Bruker BioSpin). For the extraction study, 1H-NMR analysis was performed using the AVANCEIII 400 MHz. Spectra were acquired using a Bruker pulse sequence noesygppr1d for water suppression, after optimization of 90°pulse, shims, and O1 parameter. Phase correction and baseline correction were applied using an automatic procedure. Succinate concentration was determined using the Topspin Eretic2 package. UV–vis spectra were collected using a Varian Cary 50 SCAN spectrophotometer, with quartz cuvettes of the appropriate path length (1 or 10 cm) at 25.0 ± 0.1 °C. Emission spectra were collected using a Perkin Elmer LS50B fluorimeter, with a quartz cuvette of 1 cm path length. HPLC gradient-grade acetonitrile and ultrapure water were purchased from VWR (Milan, Italy). The HPLC-UV apparatus consisted of a Shimadzu (Milan, Italy) LC-20AT solvent delivery module equipped with a DGU-20A3 degasser and interfaced with a SPD-20A UV detector. A Sepachrom Adamas C18-AQ (250 × 4.6 mm, 5 μm) column coupled with a Supelco Supelguard Ascentis C18 (20 × 2.1 mm, 5 μm) guard column was used. 1,5-Di(hexyloxy)naphthalene-2,6-dicarboxaldehyde, [TBA]2suc, and L1 were synthesized following known procedures. (27−29)

Synthesis of L2

A solution of 1,5-di(hexyloxy)naphthalene-2,6-dicarboxaldehyde (0.12 g; 0.31 mmol; 3.0 equiv) in dicloromethane (DCM; 10 mL) and MeOH (70 mL) was added to a solution of AgNO3 (0.05 g; 0.31 mmol; 3.0 equiv) in MeOH (70 mL). The reaction mixture was then refluxed under an Ar atmosphere. A solution of tris(2-aminoethyl)amine (0.03 mL; 0.21 mmol; 2.0 equiv) in MeOH (50 mL) was then slowly added dropwise, and the reaction was refluxed for 24 h. The solution containing the polyimine cage compound was then transferred in a round-bottom flask, and DCM was evaporated under vacuum. The methanol solution was refluxed again, and NaBH4 (3.0 g) was added in small portions in order to reduce both imine bonds and Ag+. After 12 h, the mixture was cooled to room temperature and filtered to eliminate Ag0 particles. The solvent was evaporated under vacuum to give a white solid that was dissolved with brine (200 mL) and extracted with DCM (4 × 50 mL). The collected organic phase was then dried with Na2SO4. The solvent was evaporated under vacuum to obtain 0.13 g of a yellowish dense oil. Yield: 91%; 1H-NMR (400 MHz, DMSO-d6 + HNO3, T = 353 K) δ: 7.84–7.61 (6H, naph), 4.44 (m, 12H, N-CH2-naph), 3.91 (m, 12H, O-CH2-C), 3.20–2.80 (br m, 24H, N-CH2CH2-N), 1.97 (m, 12H, OCH2-CH2-C), 1.51–1.27 (m, 36H, O(CH2)2-(CH2)3-C), 0.91 (t, 18H, -CH3); 13C-NMR (100 MHz, DMSO-d6, T = 298 K) δ: 154.02, 129.16, 126.89, 122.22, 118.91, 76.32, 51.07, 45.68, 45.26, 31.78, 30.29, 25.53, 22.61, 14.40; HRMS-ESI (MeOH) m/z: [M + H+]+ calculated for C84H132N8O6, 1350.0348, found 1350.0529.

Potentiometric and pH-Spectrophotometric Titrations

Protonation constants of ligand L1 were determined in a water/methanol (30% v/v) mixture, 0.05 M in NaNO3. Protonation constants of ligand L2 were determined in a dioxane/water (20% v/v) mixture, 0.05 M in [TBA]NO3. In a typical experiment, 15 mL of a 5 × 10–4 M (L1) or 4 × 10–4 M (L2) ligand solution was treated with an excess of 1.0 M HNO3. Titrations were performed by addition of 10 μL aliquots of carbonate-free standard 0.1 M NaOH, recording 80–100 points for each titration. Complexation constants of L1 and L2 cages were determined by performing a potentiometric titration experiment, working in the presence of 2 equiv of Cu(CF3SO3)2 or Cu(NO3)2, respectively. Prior to each potentiometric titration, the standard electrochemical potential (E°) of the glass electrode was determined in the proper solvent mixture by a titration experiment according to the Gran method. (29) Protonation and complexation titration data (emf vs mL of NaOH) were processed with the HyperQuad package (24) to estimate the equilibrium constants.
pH-spectrophotometric titrations were performed on solutions of L1 and L2 (4 × 10–4 M) in the presence of Cu(II) (8 × 10–4 M) in the same solvent mixture utilized in potentiometric titrations in water/methanol (30% v/v) with 0.05 M NaNO3 and dioxane/water (20% v/v) with [TBA]NO3 0.05 M, 25 °C, respectively). In a typical experiment, aliquots of carbonate-free standard 0.1 M NaOH were added to the solution of the azacryptate and copper, both the electrochemical potential and the UV–vis spectrum of the solution were recorded after each addition.

Spectrophotometric Titrations

In a typical experiment, a concentrated solution of the dicopper(II) azacryptate in DMSO was diluted with buffer at pH 7, i.e., 0.05 M HEPES buffer in pure water for [Cu2(L1)]4+ or 0.025 M HEPES buffer in dioxane/water (20% v/v) for [Cu2(L2)]4+: the final concentration of the azacryptate ranged between 50 and 500 μM. The buffered solution of the azacryptate was then titrated with a standard solution of either the chosen dicarboxylic acid or the corresponding disodium salt, in the case of phthalates. After each addition of the titrant solution, the UV–vis spectrum was recorded. It should be noted that with terephthalate and phthalate anions, the formation of a precipitate over the course of the titration prevented accurate determination of association constants. The concentration of the azacryptate solution was chosen on the basis of the p parameter (p = [concentration of the azacryptate–anion adduct]/[maximum possible concentration of the azacryptate–anion adduct]), which should range between 0.2 and 0.8. (30) Titration data were processed with the HyperQuad package (24) to estimate equilibrium constants. In some cases, even working with very dilute solutions of the azacryptate, the curvature of the titration profile was too sharp to allow accurate calculation of binding constants. In these cases, distribution diagrams were traced assuming an estimated value of the constant.

Spectrofluorimetric Titrations

A solution of 5-FAM (1 μM) was first titrated with a solution of the in situ-prepared [Cu2(L2)]4+ complex in 0.05 M HEPES buffer at pH 7. The indicator was excited at 478 nm, i.e., an isosbestic point of the corresponding UV–vis titration. Titration data were processed with the HyperQuad package (24) to estimate receptor–indicator binding constants.
Titrations with anions were then performed on solutions of 5-FAM (0.1 μM) and the in situ-prepared [Cu2(L2)]4+ complex (5 μM) in 0.05 M HEPES buffer at pH 7. Titration data were processed with the HyperQuad package (24) to estimate equilibrium constants.

X-ray Diffraction Studies

Diffraction data for [Cu2(L1)(glut)](CF3SO3)2·4H2O crystal (greenish azure, 0.30 × 0.26 × 0.04 mm3), [Cu2(L1)(α-keto)](CF3SO3)2·5H2O crystal (greenish azure, 0.30 × 0.18 × 0.02 mm3), and [Cu2(L1)(ace)](CF3SO3)2·4H2O crystal (bluish azure, 0.26 × 0.22 × 0.13 mm3) were collected by means of a Bruker-AXS diffractometer equipped with a SMART-APEX CCD detector. Data collection were performed at room temperature with Mo Kα X-ray radiation (λ = 0.7107 Å), and crystal data are reported on Table S8. CCD frames were processed with the SAINT software, (31) and intensities were corrected for Lorentz and polarization effects; absorption effects were empirically evaluated by the SADABS software, (32) and absorption correction was applied to the data. All crystal structures were solved by direct methods (SIR 97) (33) and refined by full-matrix least-squares procedures on F2 using all reflections (SHELXL-2018). (34) Anisotropic displacement parameters were used for all non-hydrogen atoms. Hydrogens were placed at calculated positions, and their positions were refined according to a riding model. Positions for H atoms belonging to water solvent molecules were not determined.
The X ray diffraction quality of the synthetic crystals of the glut2–and α-keto2– was poor. The poor diffraction quality produced a low accuracy for the atom positions of the triflate counterions and of the water solvent molecules, which exhibited large and elongated atom displacement parameters, probably related to some unresolved positional disorder. In general, soft geometrical restraints and restraints on the atom displacement parameters were applied for the refinement of these atom positions. More details on the positional disorder identified in these crystal structures and on the restraints applied in the final least-squares cycles of structure refinements are reported in the Supporting Information.
CCDC 1971576, 1996979, and 2006355 contain the supplementary crystallographic data for this paper. These data can be obtained free of charge from the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre.

Extraction Experiments

After an equilibration period of 5 min, 20 μL of each sample was injected into the HPLC system. The mobile phases were (A) 25 mM aqueous H3PO4 (pH 2.5) and (B) acetonitrile, working with an isocratic elution 10% B for 7 min, followed by a washing step (linear gradient to 70% B until 9 min, hold for 3 min). The flow rate was 0.8 mL min–1, and the detection wavelength was 214 nm.
Extraction experiments were performed with solutions of succinic acid (1.0 mM), prepared in aqueous buffer (0.05 M HEPES buffer) at pH 7, and an organic phase obtained by dilution with DCM of a stock solution of [Cu2(L2)](NO3)4 (9 mM) in DMSO. The final concentration of [Cu2(L2)]4+ in DCM was 0.20 mM [the % DMSO into the final solution being about 2% v/v]. The extraction of succinate from water into DCM was quantitatively evaluated by comparing the dicarboxylate concentration in the buffered aqueous solution, before and after mixing with the solution of [Cu2(L2)]4+ in DCM. The solutions were vigorously stirred for 20 min and then allowed to separate for 10 min. A blank experiment was run by mixing the aqueous solution of succinate with pure DCM under the same conditions as in the cryptate-mediated extraction. For each repeat, the stock solution of succinic acid was freshly prepared in order to reduce experimental errors. Succinate extraction was also monitored by 1H-NMR spectroscopy. For the experiment, a solution of succinic acid (1.076 mM) was prepared in D2O (0.05 M PBS at pH 7). The organic phase was obtained by dilution with DCM of a stock solution of [Cu2(L2)](CF3SO3)4 (5.1 mM) in DMSO. The final concentration of [Cu2(L2)]4+ in DCM was 0.42 mM [the % DMSO into the final solution being about 6% v/v]. The extraction of succinate from the D2O solution into DCM was quantitatively evaluated by comparing the dicarboxylate concentration in D2O, before and after mixing with the solution of [Cu2(L2)]4+ in DCM. The solutions were vigorously stirred for 20 min and then allowed to separate for 10 min. A blank experiment was run by mixing the aqueous solution of succinate with DCM/6% DMSO (v/v) under the same conditions as in the cryptate-mediated extraction. Succinate concentration was determined using the Topspin Eretic2 package, using glycine (1.00 mM) as an internal reference for the D2O phase.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.0c03337.

  • Synthesis of L2; potentiometric and pH-spectrophotometric titrations of L1 and L2; spectrophotometric titrations of [Cu2(L1)] and [Cu2(L2)]; X-ray diffraction studies; extraction experiments; and characterization of L2 (PDF)

  • Crystallographic information file of [Cu2(L1)(glut)](CF3SO3)2·4(H2O) (CIF)

  • Crystallographic information file of [Cu2(L1)(α-keto)](CF3SO3)2·5(H2O) (CIF)

  • Crystallographic information file of [Cu2(L1)(ace)](CF3SO3)2·4(H2O) (CIF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Sonia La Cognata - Department of Chemistry, Università degli Studi di Pavia, v.le T. Taramelli 12, Pavia 27100, Italy
    • Riccardo Mobili - Department of Chemistry, Università degli Studi di Pavia, v.le T. Taramelli 12, Pavia 27100, Italy
    • Francesca Merlo - Department of Chemistry, Università degli Studi di Pavia, v.le T. Taramelli 12, Pavia 27100, Italy
    • Andrea Speltini - Department of Drug Sciences, Università degli Studi di Pavia,via Taramelli 12, Pavia 27100, ItalyOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-6924-7170
    • Massimo Boiocchi - Centro Grandi Strumenti, Università degli Studi di Pavia, via A. Bassi 21, Pavia 27100, Italy
    • Teresa Recca - Centro Grandi Strumenti, Università degli Studi di Pavia, via A. Bassi 21, Pavia 27100, Italy
    • Louis J. Maher - Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, United StatesOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-5043-6422
  • Funding

    V.A. received funding for reagents and solvents from the Cariplo Foundation (grant 2019-2090). The National Inter-University Consortium of Materials Science and Technology (INSTM) is also acknowledged. R.M. and S.L.C. acknowledge the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research and the University of Pavia for fellowships.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Clelia Cazzola is acknowledged for her contribution in the UV–vis titrations of [Cu2L2]4+ with anions. The Laboratorio Biochimica, Biotecnologie e Diagnostica Avanzata, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo (Pavia, Italy) is gratefully thanked for HRMS measurements.

ABBREVIATIONS

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

α-keto2–

alpha-ketoglutarate

ace2–

acetylendicarboxylate

adi2–

adipate

5-FAM

5-carboxyfluorescein

cit3–

citrate

DCM

dichloromethane

fum2–

fumarate

glut2–

glutarate

HEPES

4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic acid

isopht2–

isophthalate

male2–

maleate

PBS

phosphate-buffered solution

pht2–

phthalate

suc2–

succinate

terepht2–

terephthalate

TBA

tetrabutylammonium

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 34 other publications.

  1. 1
    (a) Bowman-James, K.; Bianchi, A.; García-Espana, E. Anion Coordination Chemistry; Eds.John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2012.
    (b) Teresa Albelda, M.; Frías, J. C.; García-España, E.; Schneider, H. J. Supramolecular Complexation for Environmental Control. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41, 38593877,  DOI: 10.1039/c2cs35008d
    (c) Sessler, J. L.; Gale, P. A.; Cho, W.-S. Anion Receptor Chemistry. Monographs in supramolecular Chemistry; Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, 2006;
    (d) Ngo, H. T.; Liu, X.; Jolliffe, K. A. Anion recognition and sensing with Zn(ii)–dipicolylamine complexes. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41, 49284965,  DOI: 10.1039/c2cs35087d
    (e) Maeda, H.; Anzenbacher, P., Jr. In Supramolecular Chemistry: From Molecules to Nanomaterials; Steed, J. W., Gale, P. A., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, 2012, pp. 25812610.
    (f) Zhao, J.; Yang, D.; Yang, X. J.; Wu, B. Anion Coordination Chemistry: From Recognition to Supramolecular Assembly. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2019, 378, 415444,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2018.01.002
    (g) Wu, X.; Gilchrist, A. M.; Gale, P. A. Prospects and Challenges in Anion Recognition and Transport. Chem 2020, 6, 12961309,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chempr.2020.05.001
  2. 2
    (a) Zhao, T.; Mu, X.; You, Q. Succinate: An Initiator in Tumorigenesis and Progression. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 5381953828,  DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.17734
    (b) Her, Y. F.; Maher, L. J., III Succinate Dehydrogenase Loss in Familial Paraganglioma: Biochemistry, Genetics, and Epigenetics. Int. J. Endocrinol. 2015, 2015, 1,  DOI: 10.1155/2015/296167
  3. 3
    (a) Hosseini, M. W.; Lehn, J.-M. Anion Coreceptor Molecules. Linear Molecular Recognition in the Selective Binding of Dicarboxylate Substrates by Ditopic Polyammonium Macrocycles. Helv. Chim Acta 1986, 69, 587603,  DOI: 10.1002/hlca.19860690308
    (b) Lehn, J.-M.; Méric, R.; Vigneron, J.-P.; Bkouche-Waksman, I.; Pascard, C. Molecular Recognition of Anionic Substrates. Binding of Carboxylates by a Macrobicyclic Coreceptor and Crystal Structure of Its Supramolecular Cryptate with the Terephthalate Dianion. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1991, 2, 6264,  DOI: 10.1039/C39910000062
    (c) Wang, Q.-Q.; Day, V. W.; Bowman-James, K. Tunable, Shape-Shifting Capsule for Dicarboxylates. Chem. Sci. 2011, 2, 17351738,  DOI: 10.1039/c1sc00292a
    (d) Santos, M. M.; Marques, I.; Carvalho, S.; Moiteiro, C.; Félix, V. Recognition of Bio-Relevant Dicarboxylate Anions by an Azacalix[2]Arene[2]Triazine Derivative Decorated with Urea Moieties. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2015, 13, 30703085,  DOI: 10.1039/C4OB02283A
  4. 4
    (a) Mateus, P.; Delgado, R.; André, V.; Duarte, M. T. Dicarboxylate Recognition Properties of a Dinuclear Copper(II) Cryptate. Inorg. Chem. 2015, 54, 229240,  DOI: 10.1021/ic502230q
    (b) Esteves, C. V.; Mateus, P.; André, V.; Bandeira, N. A. G.; Calhorda, M. J.; Ferreira, L. P.; Delgado, R. Di- versus Trinuclear Copper(II) Cryptate for the Uptake of Dicarboxylate Anions. Inorg. Chem. 2016, 55, 70517060,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.6b00945
    (c) Chakraborty, S.; Saha, S.; Lima, L. M. P.; Warzok, U.; Sarkar, S.; Akhuli, B.; Nandi, M.; Bej, S.; Adarsh, N. N.; Schalley, C. A.; Delgado, R.; Ghosh, P. Polyamide–Polyamine Cryptand as Dicarboxylate Receptor: Dianion Binding Studies in the Solid State, in Solution, and in the Gas Phase. J. Org. Chem. 2017, 82, 1000710014,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.joc.7b01431
  5. 5
    Curiel, D.; Más-Montoya, M.; Sánchez, G. Complexation and Sensing of Dicarboxylate Anions and Dicarboxylic Acids. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2015, 284, 1966,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2014.09.010

    and references therein

  6. 6
    (a) Fabbrizzi, L. Cryptands and Cryptates; World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd., London.
    (b) Amendola, V.; Bergamaschi, G.; Miljkovic, A. Azacryptands as Molecular Cages for Anions and Metal Ions. Supramol. Chem. 2018, 30, 236242,  DOI: 10.1080/10610278.2017.1339885
    (c) Thevenet, A.; Marie, C.; Tamain, C.; Amendola, V.; Miljkovic, A.; Guillaumont, D.; Boubals, N.; Guilbaud, P. Perrhenate and pertechnetate complexation by an azacryptand in nitric acid medium. Dalton Trans. 2020, 49, 14461455,  DOI: 10.1039/C9DT04314D
  7. 7
    (a) Busschaert, N.; Caltagirone, C.; Van Rossom, W.; Gale, P. A. Applications of Supramolecular Anion Recognition. Chem. Rev. 2015, 115, 80388155,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00099
    (b) Gale, P. A.; Caltagirone, C. Fluorescent and Colorimetric Sensors for Anionic Species. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2018, 354, 227,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2017.05.003
  8. 8
    (a) Kubik, S. Anion Recognition in Aqueous Media by Cyclopeptides and Other Synthetic Receptors. Acc. Chem. Res. 2017, 50, 28702878,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.7b00458
    (b) Langton, M. J.; Serpell, C. J.; Beer, P. D. Anion Recognition in Water: Recent Advances from a Supramolecular and Macromolecular Perspective. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2016, 55, 19741987,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201506589

    and references therein

  9. 9
    Carnegie, R. S.; Gibb, C. L. D.; Gibb, B. C. Anion Complexation and the Hofmeister Effect. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 1149811500,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201405796
  10. 10
    Jagleniec, D.; Dobrzycki, Ł.; Karbarz, M.; Romański, J. Ion-Pair Induced Supramolecular Assembly Formation for Selective Extraction and Sensing of Potassium Sulfate. Chem. Sci. 2019, 10, 95429547,  DOI: 10.1039/C9SC02923K
  11. 11
    Wichmann, K.; Antonioli, B.; Söhnel, T.; Wenzel, M.; Gloe, K.; Gloe, K.; Price, J. R.; Lindoy, L. F.; Blake, A. J.; Schröder, M. Polyamine-based anion receptors: Extraction and structural studies. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2006, 250, 29873003,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.07.010
  12. 12
    (a) Wu, X.; Howe, E. N. W.; Gale, P. A. Supramolecular Transmembrane Anion Transport: New Assays and Insights. Acc. Chem. Res. 2018, 51, 18701879,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00264

    and references therein

    (b) Grauwels, G.; Valkenier, H.; Davis, A. P.; Jabin, I.; Bartik, K. Repositioning Chloride Transmembrane Transporters: Transport of Organic Ion Pairs. Angew. Chem. Int Ed. 2019, 58, 69216925,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201900818
  13. 13
    Bowman-James, K. Supramolecular Cages Trap Pesky Anions. Science 2019, 365, 124125,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aax9369
  14. 14
    Liu, Y.; Zhao, W.; Chen, C.-H.; Flood, A. H. Chloride Capture Using a C–H Hydrogen Bonding Cage. Science 2019, 365, 159161,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw5145
  15. 15
    (a) He, Q.; Williams, N. J.; Oh, J. H.; Lynch, V. M.; Kim, S. K.; Moyer, B. A.; Sessler, J. L. Selective Solid–Liquid and Liquid–Liquid Extraction of Lithium Chloride Using Strapped Calix[4]Pyrroles. Angew. Chem. Int Ed. 2018, 57, 1192411928,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201805127
    (b) Ji, X.; Wu, R.-T.; Long, L.; Guo, C.; Khashab, N. M.; Huang, F.; Sessler, J. L. Physical Removal of Anions from Aqueous Media by Means of a Macrocycle-Containing Polymeric Network. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 27772780,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.7b13656
    (c) He, Q.; Vargas-Zúñiga, G. I.; Kim, S. H.; Kim, S. K.; Sessler, J. L. Macrocycles as Ion Pair Receptors. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 97539835,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00734

    and references therein

  16. 16
    Fowler, C. J.; Haverlock, T. J.; Moyer, B. A.; Shriver, J. A.; Gross, D. E.; Marquez, M.; Sessler, J. L.; Hossain, M. A.; Bowman-James, K. Enhanced Anion Exchange for Selective Sulfate Extraction: Overcoming the Hofmeister Bias. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 1438614387,  DOI: 10.1021/ja806511b
  17. 17
    Qin, L.; Vervuurt, S. J. N.; Elmes, R. B. P.; Berry, S. N.; Proschogo, N.; Jolliffe, K. A. Extraction and transport of sulfate using macrocyclic squaramide receptors. Chem. Sci. 2020, 11, 201207,  DOI: 10.1039/C9SC04786G
  18. 18
    Baragaña, B.; Blackburn, A. G.; Breccia, P.; Davis, A. P.; de Mendoza, J.; Padrón-Carrillo, J. M.; Prados, P.; Riedner, J.; de Vries, J. G. Enantioselective Transport by a Steroidal Guanidinium Receptor. Chem. - Eur. J. 2002, 8, 29312936,  DOI: 10.1002/1521-3765(20020703)8:13<2931::AID-CHEM2931>3.0.CO;2-H
  19. 19
    Urban, C.; Schmuck, C. Active Transport of Amino Acids by a Guanidiniocarbonyl-Pyrrole Receptor. Chem. - Eur. J. 2010, 16, 95029510,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.201000509
  20. 20
    Xie, G.-Y.; Jiang, L.; Lu, T.-B. Discrimination of Cis-Trans Isomers by Dinuclear Metal Cryptates at Physiological PH: Selectivity for Fumarate vs Maleate. Dalton Trans. 2013, 42, 1409214099,  DOI: 10.1039/c3dt51501j
  21. 21
    (a) Wiskur, S. L.; Ait-Haddou, H.; Lavigne, J. J.; Anslyn, E. V. Teaching Old Indicators New Tricks. Acc. Chem. Res. 2001, 34, 963972,  DOI: 10.1021/ar9600796
    (b) Anzenbacher, P., Jr.; Lubal, P.; Buček, P.; Palacios, M. A.; Kozelkova, M. E. A practical approach to optical cross-reactive sensor arrays. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2010, 39, 39543979,  DOI: 10.1039/b926220m
    (c) Nguyen, B. T.; Anslyn, E. V. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2006, 250, 31183127,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.04.009
    (d) Mako, T. L.; Racicot, J. M.; Levine, M. Supramolecular Luminescent Sensors. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 322477,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00260
    (e) Aletti, A. B.; Gillen, D. M.; Gunnlaugsson, T. Luminescent/Colorimetric Probes and (Chemo-) Sensors for Detecting Anions Based on Transition and Lanthanide Ion Receptor/Binding Complexes. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2018, 354, 98120,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2017.06.020
    (f) Minami, T.; Liu, Y.; Akdeniz, A.; Koutnik, P.; Esipenko, N. A.; Nishiyabu, R.; Kubo, Y.; Anzenbacher, P., Jr. Intramolecular Indicator Displacement Assay for Anions: Supramolecular Sensor for Glyphosate. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 1139611401,  DOI: 10.1021/ja504535q
  22. 22
    (a) Boiocchi, M.; Bonizzoni, M.; Fabbrizzi, L.; Piovani, G.; Taglietti, A. A Dimetallic Cage with a Long Ellipsoidal Cavity for the Fluorescent Detection of Dicarboxylate Anions in Water. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 38473852,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.200460036
    (b) Merli, D.; La Cognata, S.; Balduzzi, F.; Miljkovic, A.; Toma, L.; Amendola, V. A Smart Supramolecular Device for the Detection of t,t-Muconic Acid in Urine†. New J. Chem. 2018, 42, 1546015465,  DOI: 10.1039/C8NJ02156B
    (c) Miljkovic, A.; La Cognata, S.; Bergamaschi, G.; Freccero, M.; Poggi, A.; Amendola, V. Towards Building Blocks for Supramolecular Architectures Based on Azacryptates. Molecules 2020, 25, 1733,  DOI: 10.3390/molecules25071733
  23. 23
    Mobili, R.; La Cognata, S.; Merlo, F.; Speltini, A.; Boiocchi, M.; Recca, T. Liquid-liquid extraction of succinate using a dicopper cryptate. ChemRxiv 2020,  DOI: 10.26434/chemrxiv.11786784.v1
  24. 24
    Gans, P.; Sabatini, A.; Vacca, A. Investigation of equilibria in solution. Determination of equilibrium constants with the HYPERQUAD suite of programs. Talanta 1996, 43, 17391753,  DOI: 10.1016/0039-9140(96)01958-3
  25. 25
    Duggan, M.; Ray, N.; Hathaway, B.; Tomlinson, G.; Brint, P.; Pelin, K. Crystal Structure and Electronic Properties of Ammine[tris(2-aminoethyl)amine]copper(I) Diperchlorate and Potassium Penta-amminecopper(II) Tris( hexafluorophosphate). J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1980, 13421348,  DOI: 10.1039/dt9800001342
  26. 26
    Addison, A. W.; Rao, T. N.; Reedijk, J.; van Rijn, J.; Verschoor, G. C. Synthesis, structure, and spectroscopic properties of copper(II) compounds containing nitrogen–sulphur donor ligands; the crystal and molecular structure of aqua[1,7-bis(N-methylbenzimidazol-2′-yl)-2,6-dithiaheptane]copper(II) perchlorate. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1984, 13491356,  DOI: 10.1039/DT9840001349
  27. 27
    Urban, M.; Durka, K.; Jankowski, P.; Serwatowski, J.; Luliński, S. Highly Fluorescent Red-Light Emitting Bis(boranils) Based on Naphthalene Backbone. J. Org. Chem. 2017, 82, 82348241,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.joc.7b01001
  28. 28
    Allen, C. R.; Richard, P. L.; Ward, A. J.; van de Water, L. G. A.; Masters, A. F.; Maschmeyer, T. Facile synthesis of ionic liquids possessing chiral carboxylates. Tetrahedron Lett. 2006, 47, 73677370,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tetlet.2006.08.007
  29. 29
    Gran, G. Determination of the equivalence point in potentiometric titrations Part II. Analyst 1952, 77, 661671,  DOI: 10.1039/an9527700661
  30. 30
    (a) Thordarson, P. Determining association constants from titration experiments in supramolecular chemistry. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2011, 40, 13051323,  DOI: 10.1039/C0CS00062K
    (b) Wilcox, C. S. Frontiers in Supramolecular Chemistry and Photochemistry; VCH Weinheim: Germany, 1991, 123143.
  31. 31
    Bruker; SMART & SAINT Software Reference Manual; Version 6, Bruker AXS Inc.: Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 2003.
  32. 32
    Krause, L.; Herbst-Irmer, R.; Sheldrick, G. M.; Stalke, D. Comparison of silver and molybdenum microfocus X-ray sources for single-crystal structure determination. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2015, 48, 310,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576714022985
  33. 33
    Altomare, A.; Burla, M. C.; Camalli, M.; Cascarano, G. L.; Giacovazzo, C.; Guagliardi, A.; Moliterni, A. G. G.; Polidori, G.; Spagna, R. SIR97: a new tool for crystal structure determination and refinement. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1999, 32, 115119,  DOI: 10.1107/S0021889898007717
  34. 34
    Sheldrick, G. M. Crystal structure refinement with SHELXL. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. C 2015, 71, 38,  DOI: 10.1107/S2053229614024218

Cited By

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article is cited by 6 publications.

  1. Karolína Salvadori, Alessia Onali, Gregory Mathez, Václav Eigner, Marcela Dendisová, Pavel Matějka, Monika Mullerová, Andrea Brancale, Petra Cuřínová. An Insight into Anion Extraction by Amphiphiles: Hydrophobic Microenvironments as a Requirement for the Extractant Selectivity. ACS Omega 2023, 8 (46) , 44221-44228. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c06767
  2. Sonia La Cognata, Valeria Amendola. Recent applications of organic cages in sensing and separation processes in solution. Chemical Communications 2023, 59 (92) , 13668-13678. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3CC04522F
  3. Riccardo Mobili, Sonia La Cognata, Marcello Monteleone, Mariagiulia Longo, Alessio Fuoco, Stefano A. Serapian, Barbara Vigani, Chiara Milanese, Donatella Armentano, Johannes C. Jansen, Valeria Amendola. Gas Permeation through Mechanically Resistant Self‐Standing Membranes of a Neat Amorphous Organic Cage. Chemistry – A European Journal 2023, 29 (56) https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202301437
  4. Priyanka Kashyap, Patrick Fernandes, Dushyantsingh Rajpurohit, Divya Mishra. Fluorometric sensing, Mechanism and Extraction of Cu (II) ions on a single platform using benzene sulfonyl appended Thiacalix [4]arene. Tetrahedron 2023, 144 , 133582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tet.2023.133582
  5. Zhengning Shu, Shitao Sun, Ning Gu, Zhichao Yang, Yongxin Shang, Yi Yang, Mingyu Xia, Bin Lin, Peng Yang. An amphiphilic macrocyclic acylhydrazone dimer: Facile synthesis and dual channel detection and removal of phthalate anion. Analytica Chimica Acta 2023, 1253 , 341093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2023.341093
  6. Sonia La Cognata, Donatella Armentano, Nicoletta Marchesi, Pietro Grisoli, Alessia Pascale, Marion Kieffer, Angelo Taglietti, Anthony P. Davis, Valeria Amendola. A Benzimidazolium-Based Organic Cage with Antimicrobial Activity. Chemistry 2022, 4 (3) , 855-864. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemistry4030061
  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Azacryptands L1 and L2 and the series of polycarboxylates studied in this work.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Distribution diagram showing species present at the equilibrium over the course of the potentiometric titration of L1 (0.4 mM) in the presence of 2 equiv of Cu(CF3SO3)2; the pH-spectrophotometric profiles of Mol Abs at 877 and 667 nm (red and green triangles, respectively) vs pH are superimposed (MeOH/water 30% v/v, 0.05 M NaNO3; T = 25 °C). The lines in the diagram correspond to the species: H6L16+, gray; H5L15+, purple; H4L14+, orange; [Cu(L1H3)]5+, cyan; [Cu2(L1)]4+, red; [Cu2(L1)(OH)]3+, green; [Cu2(L1)(OH)2]2+, blue.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. From the left, pairs of simplified sketches of [Cu2(L1)(glut)]2+, [Cu2(L1)(α-keto)]2+, and [Cu2(L1)(ace)]2+ species. The bridging portion of each dicarboxylate anion is drawn as large spheres, in order to emphasize similitudes and differences among the guests. Hydrogen atoms are omitted for clarity, and atom names are reported only for Cu, N, and O.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Spectra taken over the course of the titration of [Cu2(L1)]4+ (0.5 mM) with an aqueous solution of fumaric acid in 0.05 M HEPES at pH 7. Inset: profiles of ε (i.e., Mol Abs) at 691 (blue triangles) and 903 nm (red triangles) vs equivalents of the added guest.

    Scheme 1

    Scheme 1. Displacement of 5-FAM from the [Cu2(L1)]4+ Cavity Promoted by the Fumarate Anion

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Spectra taken over the course of the fluorimetric titration of 5-FAM (1 μM) with a solution of [Cu2(L1)]4+ in 0.05 M HEPES at pH 7. Inset: profile of I/I0 at 520 nm (triangles) vs equivalents of the dicopper complex superimposed to the distribution diagram of the species (as % abundance vs equivalents of dicopper complex): red line = % free 5-FAM; gray line = % [Cu2(L1)(5-FAM)]+ .

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Profiles of the spectrofluorimetric titrations of the indicator displacement assay (0.1 μM 5-FAM, 5 μM [Cu2(L1)]4+) with solutions of the anionic guests in 0.05 M HEPES at pH 7 (fum2– = red triangles, suc2– = blue triangles; α-keto2– = dark blue triangles; glut2– = green triangles; adi2– = dark green triangles; diamonds = citrate). I = emission intensity; Imax = emission intensity of a solution of 5-FAM in the absence of the dicopper complex (λexc = 473 nm; λem = 520 nm).

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Family of spectra taken over the course of the UV–vis titration of [Cu2(L2)]4+ (50 μM) with a solution of H2suc in dioxane/water (20% v/v) at pH 7 (0.025 M HEPES, path length: 10 cm). Initial spectrum and final spectrum: red and blue lines, respectively. Inset figure: plot of ε (i.e., Mol Abs) at 687 nm vs equiv of the added guest (triangles), superimposed to the distribution diagram of the species calculated for a log K11 = 5.60; % [Cu2(L2)]4+ (red line) and [Cu2(L2)(suc)]2+ (blue line) vs equiv of succinate. (23) See the Supporting Information for more details.

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 34 other publications.

    1. 1
      (a) Bowman-James, K.; Bianchi, A.; García-Espana, E. Anion Coordination Chemistry; Eds.John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2012.
      (b) Teresa Albelda, M.; Frías, J. C.; García-España, E.; Schneider, H. J. Supramolecular Complexation for Environmental Control. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41, 38593877,  DOI: 10.1039/c2cs35008d
      (c) Sessler, J. L.; Gale, P. A.; Cho, W.-S. Anion Receptor Chemistry. Monographs in supramolecular Chemistry; Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, 2006;
      (d) Ngo, H. T.; Liu, X.; Jolliffe, K. A. Anion recognition and sensing with Zn(ii)–dipicolylamine complexes. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41, 49284965,  DOI: 10.1039/c2cs35087d
      (e) Maeda, H.; Anzenbacher, P., Jr. In Supramolecular Chemistry: From Molecules to Nanomaterials; Steed, J. W., Gale, P. A., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, 2012, pp. 25812610.
      (f) Zhao, J.; Yang, D.; Yang, X. J.; Wu, B. Anion Coordination Chemistry: From Recognition to Supramolecular Assembly. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2019, 378, 415444,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2018.01.002
      (g) Wu, X.; Gilchrist, A. M.; Gale, P. A. Prospects and Challenges in Anion Recognition and Transport. Chem 2020, 6, 12961309,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chempr.2020.05.001
    2. 2
      (a) Zhao, T.; Mu, X.; You, Q. Succinate: An Initiator in Tumorigenesis and Progression. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 5381953828,  DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.17734
      (b) Her, Y. F.; Maher, L. J., III Succinate Dehydrogenase Loss in Familial Paraganglioma: Biochemistry, Genetics, and Epigenetics. Int. J. Endocrinol. 2015, 2015, 1,  DOI: 10.1155/2015/296167
    3. 3
      (a) Hosseini, M. W.; Lehn, J.-M. Anion Coreceptor Molecules. Linear Molecular Recognition in the Selective Binding of Dicarboxylate Substrates by Ditopic Polyammonium Macrocycles. Helv. Chim Acta 1986, 69, 587603,  DOI: 10.1002/hlca.19860690308
      (b) Lehn, J.-M.; Méric, R.; Vigneron, J.-P.; Bkouche-Waksman, I.; Pascard, C. Molecular Recognition of Anionic Substrates. Binding of Carboxylates by a Macrobicyclic Coreceptor and Crystal Structure of Its Supramolecular Cryptate with the Terephthalate Dianion. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1991, 2, 6264,  DOI: 10.1039/C39910000062
      (c) Wang, Q.-Q.; Day, V. W.; Bowman-James, K. Tunable, Shape-Shifting Capsule for Dicarboxylates. Chem. Sci. 2011, 2, 17351738,  DOI: 10.1039/c1sc00292a
      (d) Santos, M. M.; Marques, I.; Carvalho, S.; Moiteiro, C.; Félix, V. Recognition of Bio-Relevant Dicarboxylate Anions by an Azacalix[2]Arene[2]Triazine Derivative Decorated with Urea Moieties. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2015, 13, 30703085,  DOI: 10.1039/C4OB02283A
    4. 4
      (a) Mateus, P.; Delgado, R.; André, V.; Duarte, M. T. Dicarboxylate Recognition Properties of a Dinuclear Copper(II) Cryptate. Inorg. Chem. 2015, 54, 229240,  DOI: 10.1021/ic502230q
      (b) Esteves, C. V.; Mateus, P.; André, V.; Bandeira, N. A. G.; Calhorda, M. J.; Ferreira, L. P.; Delgado, R. Di- versus Trinuclear Copper(II) Cryptate for the Uptake of Dicarboxylate Anions. Inorg. Chem. 2016, 55, 70517060,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.6b00945
      (c) Chakraborty, S.; Saha, S.; Lima, L. M. P.; Warzok, U.; Sarkar, S.; Akhuli, B.; Nandi, M.; Bej, S.; Adarsh, N. N.; Schalley, C. A.; Delgado, R.; Ghosh, P. Polyamide–Polyamine Cryptand as Dicarboxylate Receptor: Dianion Binding Studies in the Solid State, in Solution, and in the Gas Phase. J. Org. Chem. 2017, 82, 1000710014,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.joc.7b01431
    5. 5
      Curiel, D.; Más-Montoya, M.; Sánchez, G. Complexation and Sensing of Dicarboxylate Anions and Dicarboxylic Acids. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2015, 284, 1966,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2014.09.010

      and references therein

    6. 6
      (a) Fabbrizzi, L. Cryptands and Cryptates; World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd., London.
      (b) Amendola, V.; Bergamaschi, G.; Miljkovic, A. Azacryptands as Molecular Cages for Anions and Metal Ions. Supramol. Chem. 2018, 30, 236242,  DOI: 10.1080/10610278.2017.1339885
      (c) Thevenet, A.; Marie, C.; Tamain, C.; Amendola, V.; Miljkovic, A.; Guillaumont, D.; Boubals, N.; Guilbaud, P. Perrhenate and pertechnetate complexation by an azacryptand in nitric acid medium. Dalton Trans. 2020, 49, 14461455,  DOI: 10.1039/C9DT04314D
    7. 7
      (a) Busschaert, N.; Caltagirone, C.; Van Rossom, W.; Gale, P. A. Applications of Supramolecular Anion Recognition. Chem. Rev. 2015, 115, 80388155,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00099
      (b) Gale, P. A.; Caltagirone, C. Fluorescent and Colorimetric Sensors for Anionic Species. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2018, 354, 227,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2017.05.003
    8. 8
      (a) Kubik, S. Anion Recognition in Aqueous Media by Cyclopeptides and Other Synthetic Receptors. Acc. Chem. Res. 2017, 50, 28702878,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.7b00458
      (b) Langton, M. J.; Serpell, C. J.; Beer, P. D. Anion Recognition in Water: Recent Advances from a Supramolecular and Macromolecular Perspective. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2016, 55, 19741987,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201506589

      and references therein

    9. 9
      Carnegie, R. S.; Gibb, C. L. D.; Gibb, B. C. Anion Complexation and the Hofmeister Effect. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 1149811500,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201405796
    10. 10
      Jagleniec, D.; Dobrzycki, Ł.; Karbarz, M.; Romański, J. Ion-Pair Induced Supramolecular Assembly Formation for Selective Extraction and Sensing of Potassium Sulfate. Chem. Sci. 2019, 10, 95429547,  DOI: 10.1039/C9SC02923K
    11. 11
      Wichmann, K.; Antonioli, B.; Söhnel, T.; Wenzel, M.; Gloe, K.; Gloe, K.; Price, J. R.; Lindoy, L. F.; Blake, A. J.; Schröder, M. Polyamine-based anion receptors: Extraction and structural studies. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2006, 250, 29873003,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.07.010
    12. 12
      (a) Wu, X.; Howe, E. N. W.; Gale, P. A. Supramolecular Transmembrane Anion Transport: New Assays and Insights. Acc. Chem. Res. 2018, 51, 18701879,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00264

      and references therein

      (b) Grauwels, G.; Valkenier, H.; Davis, A. P.; Jabin, I.; Bartik, K. Repositioning Chloride Transmembrane Transporters: Transport of Organic Ion Pairs. Angew. Chem. Int Ed. 2019, 58, 69216925,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201900818
    13. 13
      Bowman-James, K. Supramolecular Cages Trap Pesky Anions. Science 2019, 365, 124125,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aax9369
    14. 14
      Liu, Y.; Zhao, W.; Chen, C.-H.; Flood, A. H. Chloride Capture Using a C–H Hydrogen Bonding Cage. Science 2019, 365, 159161,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw5145
    15. 15
      (a) He, Q.; Williams, N. J.; Oh, J. H.; Lynch, V. M.; Kim, S. K.; Moyer, B. A.; Sessler, J. L. Selective Solid–Liquid and Liquid–Liquid Extraction of Lithium Chloride Using Strapped Calix[4]Pyrroles. Angew. Chem. Int Ed. 2018, 57, 1192411928,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201805127
      (b) Ji, X.; Wu, R.-T.; Long, L.; Guo, C.; Khashab, N. M.; Huang, F.; Sessler, J. L. Physical Removal of Anions from Aqueous Media by Means of a Macrocycle-Containing Polymeric Network. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 27772780,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.7b13656
      (c) He, Q.; Vargas-Zúñiga, G. I.; Kim, S. H.; Kim, S. K.; Sessler, J. L. Macrocycles as Ion Pair Receptors. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 97539835,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00734

      and references therein

    16. 16
      Fowler, C. J.; Haverlock, T. J.; Moyer, B. A.; Shriver, J. A.; Gross, D. E.; Marquez, M.; Sessler, J. L.; Hossain, M. A.; Bowman-James, K. Enhanced Anion Exchange for Selective Sulfate Extraction: Overcoming the Hofmeister Bias. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 1438614387,  DOI: 10.1021/ja806511b
    17. 17
      Qin, L.; Vervuurt, S. J. N.; Elmes, R. B. P.; Berry, S. N.; Proschogo, N.; Jolliffe, K. A. Extraction and transport of sulfate using macrocyclic squaramide receptors. Chem. Sci. 2020, 11, 201207,  DOI: 10.1039/C9SC04786G
    18. 18
      Baragaña, B.; Blackburn, A. G.; Breccia, P.; Davis, A. P.; de Mendoza, J.; Padrón-Carrillo, J. M.; Prados, P.; Riedner, J.; de Vries, J. G. Enantioselective Transport by a Steroidal Guanidinium Receptor. Chem. - Eur. J. 2002, 8, 29312936,  DOI: 10.1002/1521-3765(20020703)8:13<2931::AID-CHEM2931>3.0.CO;2-H
    19. 19
      Urban, C.; Schmuck, C. Active Transport of Amino Acids by a Guanidiniocarbonyl-Pyrrole Receptor. Chem. - Eur. J. 2010, 16, 95029510,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.201000509
    20. 20
      Xie, G.-Y.; Jiang, L.; Lu, T.-B. Discrimination of Cis-Trans Isomers by Dinuclear Metal Cryptates at Physiological PH: Selectivity for Fumarate vs Maleate. Dalton Trans. 2013, 42, 1409214099,  DOI: 10.1039/c3dt51501j
    21. 21
      (a) Wiskur, S. L.; Ait-Haddou, H.; Lavigne, J. J.; Anslyn, E. V. Teaching Old Indicators New Tricks. Acc. Chem. Res. 2001, 34, 963972,  DOI: 10.1021/ar9600796
      (b) Anzenbacher, P., Jr.; Lubal, P.; Buček, P.; Palacios, M. A.; Kozelkova, M. E. A practical approach to optical cross-reactive sensor arrays. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2010, 39, 39543979,  DOI: 10.1039/b926220m
      (c) Nguyen, B. T.; Anslyn, E. V. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2006, 250, 31183127,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.04.009
      (d) Mako, T. L.; Racicot, J. M.; Levine, M. Supramolecular Luminescent Sensors. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 322477,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00260
      (e) Aletti, A. B.; Gillen, D. M.; Gunnlaugsson, T. Luminescent/Colorimetric Probes and (Chemo-) Sensors for Detecting Anions Based on Transition and Lanthanide Ion Receptor/Binding Complexes. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2018, 354, 98120,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2017.06.020
      (f) Minami, T.; Liu, Y.; Akdeniz, A.; Koutnik, P.; Esipenko, N. A.; Nishiyabu, R.; Kubo, Y.; Anzenbacher, P., Jr. Intramolecular Indicator Displacement Assay for Anions: Supramolecular Sensor for Glyphosate. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 1139611401,  DOI: 10.1021/ja504535q
    22. 22
      (a) Boiocchi, M.; Bonizzoni, M.; Fabbrizzi, L.; Piovani, G.; Taglietti, A. A Dimetallic Cage with a Long Ellipsoidal Cavity for the Fluorescent Detection of Dicarboxylate Anions in Water. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 38473852,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.200460036
      (b) Merli, D.; La Cognata, S.; Balduzzi, F.; Miljkovic, A.; Toma, L.; Amendola, V. A Smart Supramolecular Device for the Detection of t,t-Muconic Acid in Urine†. New J. Chem. 2018, 42, 1546015465,  DOI: 10.1039/C8NJ02156B
      (c) Miljkovic, A.; La Cognata, S.; Bergamaschi, G.; Freccero, M.; Poggi, A.; Amendola, V. Towards Building Blocks for Supramolecular Architectures Based on Azacryptates. Molecules 2020, 25, 1733,  DOI: 10.3390/molecules25071733
    23. 23
      Mobili, R.; La Cognata, S.; Merlo, F.; Speltini, A.; Boiocchi, M.; Recca, T. Liquid-liquid extraction of succinate using a dicopper cryptate. ChemRxiv 2020,  DOI: 10.26434/chemrxiv.11786784.v1
    24. 24
      Gans, P.; Sabatini, A.; Vacca, A. Investigation of equilibria in solution. Determination of equilibrium constants with the HYPERQUAD suite of programs. Talanta 1996, 43, 17391753,  DOI: 10.1016/0039-9140(96)01958-3
    25. 25
      Duggan, M.; Ray, N.; Hathaway, B.; Tomlinson, G.; Brint, P.; Pelin, K. Crystal Structure and Electronic Properties of Ammine[tris(2-aminoethyl)amine]copper(I) Diperchlorate and Potassium Penta-amminecopper(II) Tris( hexafluorophosphate). J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1980, 13421348,  DOI: 10.1039/dt9800001342
    26. 26
      Addison, A. W.; Rao, T. N.; Reedijk, J.; van Rijn, J.; Verschoor, G. C. Synthesis, structure, and spectroscopic properties of copper(II) compounds containing nitrogen–sulphur donor ligands; the crystal and molecular structure of aqua[1,7-bis(N-methylbenzimidazol-2′-yl)-2,6-dithiaheptane]copper(II) perchlorate. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1984, 13491356,  DOI: 10.1039/DT9840001349
    27. 27
      Urban, M.; Durka, K.; Jankowski, P.; Serwatowski, J.; Luliński, S. Highly Fluorescent Red-Light Emitting Bis(boranils) Based on Naphthalene Backbone. J. Org. Chem. 2017, 82, 82348241,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.joc.7b01001
    28. 28
      Allen, C. R.; Richard, P. L.; Ward, A. J.; van de Water, L. G. A.; Masters, A. F.; Maschmeyer, T. Facile synthesis of ionic liquids possessing chiral carboxylates. Tetrahedron Lett. 2006, 47, 73677370,  DOI: 10.1016/j.tetlet.2006.08.007
    29. 29
      Gran, G. Determination of the equivalence point in potentiometric titrations Part II. Analyst 1952, 77, 661671,  DOI: 10.1039/an9527700661
    30. 30
      (a) Thordarson, P. Determining association constants from titration experiments in supramolecular chemistry. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2011, 40, 13051323,  DOI: 10.1039/C0CS00062K
      (b) Wilcox, C. S. Frontiers in Supramolecular Chemistry and Photochemistry; VCH Weinheim: Germany, 1991, 123143.
    31. 31
      Bruker; SMART & SAINT Software Reference Manual; Version 6, Bruker AXS Inc.: Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 2003.
    32. 32
      Krause, L.; Herbst-Irmer, R.; Sheldrick, G. M.; Stalke, D. Comparison of silver and molybdenum microfocus X-ray sources for single-crystal structure determination. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2015, 48, 310,  DOI: 10.1107/S1600576714022985
    33. 33
      Altomare, A.; Burla, M. C.; Camalli, M.; Cascarano, G. L.; Giacovazzo, C.; Guagliardi, A.; Moliterni, A. G. G.; Polidori, G.; Spagna, R. SIR97: a new tool for crystal structure determination and refinement. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1999, 32, 115119,  DOI: 10.1107/S0021889898007717
    34. 34
      Sheldrick, G. M. Crystal structure refinement with SHELXL. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. C 2015, 71, 38,  DOI: 10.1107/S2053229614024218
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.0c03337.

    • Synthesis of L2; potentiometric and pH-spectrophotometric titrations of L1 and L2; spectrophotometric titrations of [Cu2(L1)] and [Cu2(L2)]; X-ray diffraction studies; extraction experiments; and characterization of L2 (PDF)

    • Crystallographic information file of [Cu2(L1)(glut)](CF3SO3)2·4(H2O) (CIF)

    • Crystallographic information file of [Cu2(L1)(α-keto)](CF3SO3)2·5(H2O) (CIF)

    • Crystallographic information file of [Cu2(L1)(ace)](CF3SO3)2·4(H2O) (CIF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect