´
216
J. Lapic et al. / Journal of Molecular Structure 990 (2011) 209–216
Acknowledgments
Support for this study was provided by the Ministry of Science,
Education and Sport of the Republic of Croatia (Project Nos. # 058-
1191344-3122 and #119-1193079-3069).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
References
[1] (a) Ferrocenes, Homogeneous Catalysis, Organic Synthesis and Materials
Chemistry, in: A. Togni, T. Hayashi (Eds.), VCH, Weinheim, 1995;
(b) Ferrocenes, From Materials and Chemistry to Biology: Ligands, Materials
and Biomolecules, in: P. Stepnicka (Ed.), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2008;
(c) R.G. Arrayás, J. Adrio, J.C. Carretero, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 45 (2006) 7674;
(d) O.B. Sutcliffe, M.R. Bryce, Tetrahedron: asymmetry 14 (2003) 2297;
(e) U. Siemeling, T.-C. Auch, Chem. Soc. Rev. 34 (2005) 584;
Fig. 8. FTIR spectra of FcNHBoc, 7a and 8a in CH2Cl2 solution.
DMSO to CDCl3 (DdNH) provides a measure of the extent to which
an amide proton participates in intramolecular hydrogen bond. If
the shift variation of a particular NH proton is distinctly smaller
than that of the reference compound, the NH proton is considered
to be intramolecularly hydrogen-bonded in CDCl3 solution. 1H
NMR spectra of referent compound (FcNHBoc) displayed the sig-
nals at 5.55 in CDCl3 and 8.50 ppm in [D6]-DMSO solutions what
makes the shift variation of the 2.95 ppm. In 1H NMR spectra of
7a and 8a in [D6]-DMSO solutions the chemical shifts are found
at 8.64 and 8.50 ppm, which means that the shift variations are
2.77 and 2.69 ppm (Tablica 5, see Supplementary data: Fig. S2).
(f) N. Metzler-Nolte, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 40 (2001) 1040;
(g) D.R. van Staveren, N. Metzler-Nolte, Chem. Rev. 104 (2004) 5931;
(h) M.R.F. Fouda, M.M. Abd-Elhazer, R.A. Abdelsamaia, A.A. Labib, Appl.
Organomet. Chem. 21 (2007) 613.
[2] (a) K. Schlögl, Monatsh. Chem. 88 (1957) 601;
(b) K. Heinze, M. Schlenker, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. (2004) 2974;
(c) H. Brunner, W. König, B. Nuber, Tetrahedron: asymmetry 4 (1993) 699;
ˇ ´
(d) S. Maricic, U. Berg, T. Frejd, Tetrahedron 58 (2002) 3085;
(e) H. Dialer, W. Steglich, W. Beck, Tetrahedron 57 (2001) 4855;
(f) R.M. Moreno, M. Catasús, C. Lpez, A. Moyano, Eur. J. Org. Chem. (2008) 2388;
(g) L. Tebben, K. Bussmann, M. Hegemann, G. Kehr, R. Frohlich, G. Erker,
Organometallics 17 (2008) 4269;
(h) T. Okamura, K. Sakauye, N. Ueyama, A. Nakamura, Inorg. Chem. 37 (1998)
6731.
The
DdNH of compounds 7a and 8a was almost the same as the ref-
erence compound (FcNHBoc), so indicating the presence of NH
groups which are not hydrogen-bonded in CDCl3 solution, what
is in accordance with FTIR data. In the 1H NMR spectrum of 8a in
CDCl3 solution a hydroxyl proton is assigned at 3.26 ppm which
means a shift to a lower field in comparison with the chemical shift
for reference compound FcCH(OH)CH3 (1.89 ppm) [22] indicating
the hydrogen-bonded hydroxyl function in 8a.
On the basis of the spectral analysis it can be concluded that the
hydroxyl group as a new donor/acceptor of hydrogen bond is in-
volved in formation of intra- and/or intermolecular hydrogen bond.
In the compound 3 all OH groups are IHB0d in solutions, as well as
in solid state, but a hydrogen-bonded and non-hydrogen-bonded
species are registered in alcohol–amide 8a. The intensities of these
absorption bands are approximately equal, indicating the same ra-
tio of the free and associated hydroxyl functions. The performed
structural and spectroscopic characterization of these compounds
is important because they are precursors of asymmetric substi-
tuted bioconjugates with natural amino acids which will be elabo-
rated in our further researches.
[3] T. Hirao, J. Organomet. Chem. 694 (2009) 806.
[4] (a) R.S. Herrick, R.M. Jarret, T.P. Curran, D.R. Dragoli, M.B. Flaherty, S.E.
Lindyberg, R.A. Slate, L.C. Thornton, Tetrahedron Lett. 37 (1996) 5289;
(b) W. Bauer, K. Polborn, W. Beck, J. Organomet. Chem. 579 (1999) 269;
(c) M. Salmain, N. Metzler-Nolte, Bioorganometallic chemistry of ferrocene, in:
P. Stepnicka (Ed.), Ferrocenes, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2008, pp. 499–
639.
[5] (a) A. Nomoto, T. Moriuchi, S. Yamazaki, A. Ogawa, T. Hirao, Chem. Commun.
(1998) 1963;
(b) T. Moriuchi, K. Yoshida, T. Hirao, J. Organomet. Chem. 637-639 (2001) 75;
(c) T. Moriuchi, T. Fujiwara, T. Hirao, J. Organomet. Chem. 692 (2007) 1353.
[6] T. Moriuchi, T. Nagai, T. Hirao, Org. Lett. 8 (2006) 31–34.
[7] D.R. van Staveren, T. Weyhermüller, N. Metzler-Nolte, Dalton Trans. (2003)
210.
[8] S. Chowdhury, K.A. Mahmoud, G. Shatte, H.-B. Kraatz, Org. Biomol. Chem. 3
(2005) 3018.
ˇ
[9] L. Barišic´, M. Cakic´, K.A. Mahmoud, Y.-N. Liu, H.-B. Kraatz, H. Pritzkow, S.I. Kirin,
N. Metzler-Nolte, V. Rapic´, Chem. Eur. J. 12 (2006) 4965.
[10] (a) K. Heinze, M. Beckmann, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. (2005) 3450;
(b) J. Lapic´, D. Siebler, K. Heinze, V. Rapic´, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. (2007) 2014;
´
´
´
´
(c) J. Lapic, S. Djakovic, I. Kodrin, Z. Mihalic, M. Cetina, V. Rapic, Eur. J. Org.
Chem. 2010 (2010) 2512.
[11] S. Djakovic´, D. Siebler, M. Cakic´ Semencic, K. Heinze, V. Rapic, Organometallics
ˇ
ˇ ´
´
27 (2008) 1447.
[12] W.F. Little, R. Eisenthal, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 82 (1960) 1577.
[13] (a) W.F. Little, R. Eisenthal, J. Org. Chem. 26 (1961) 3609;
(b) M. Cetina, S. Djakovic´, A. Hergold-Brundic´, V. Rapic´, Acta Cryst. E E61
(2005) m307.
[14] Oxford Diffraction, Xcalibur CCD System. CrysAlisPro, Oxford Diffraction Ltd.,
Abingdon, England, 2010.
[15] G.M. Sheldrick, Acta Crystallogr. A64 (2008) 112.
[16] A.L. Spek, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 36 (2003) 7–13.
[17] G. Ferguson, J.F. Gallagher, C. Glidewell, C.M. Zakaria, J. Organomet. Chem. 464
(1994) 95.
[18] A.J. Locke, N. Gouti, C.J. Richards, D.E. Hibbs, M.B. Hursthouse, Tetrahedron 52
(1996) 1461.
4. Conclusions
Synthesis and conformation analysis of heteroannularly substi-
tuted ferrocene derivative 3 and 8 with hydroxyl group as potential
hydrogen donor/acceptor in intra- or intermolecular hydrogen
bonds have been performed. Results of FTIR spectroscopy con-
firmed the findings from NMR spectroscopy in all investigated
compounds. All hydroxyl protons in 3b were included in intramo-
lecular hydrogen-bonded species in solutions, as well as in solid
state, what was established by FTIR and NMR spectroscopy. The
presence of OAHꢀꢀꢀO intramolecular hydrogen bond in 3b is also
confirmed by X-ray crystal structure analysis. In alcohol–amide
8a the situation is more complicated because of a presence of OH
and NH groups with similar spectroscopic behavior. In accordance
with our findings, suggest that in solid state hydroxyl protons are
mostly included in hydrogen-bonds, while in solutions OH groups
only partly participated in hydrogen-bonded interactions.
[19] J. Bernstein, R.E. Davis, L. Shimoni, N.-L. Chang, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 34
(1995) 1555.
ˇ
ˇ ´
´
[20] M. Cetina, S. Djakovic´, M. Cakic´ Semencic, V. Rapic, J. Mol. Struct. 920 (2009)
134.
[21] L. Lin, A. Berces, H.-B. Kraatz, J. Organomet. Chem. 556 (1998) 11.
[22] (a) S.I. Goldberg, D.W. Mayo, J.A. Alford, J. Org. Chem. 28 (1963) 1708–1710;
(b) C. Glidewell, R.B. Klar, P. Lightfoot, C.M. Zakaria, G. Ferguson, Acta Cryst.
B52 (1996) 110;
ˇ
´
(c) M. Kovacevic, (unpublished data) (2010).