Abstract
Photolabile protecting groups (PPGs) that enable real-time monitoring of uncaging processes are highly sought after for tracking product release during and after photolysis. Few PPGs facilitate direct detection of uncaging events through a fluorescence signal, with o-nitrobenzyl (o-NB) PPG derivatives being the only known examples exhibiting pro-fluorescent properties. In this study, we broaden the scope of accessible pro-fluorescent o-NB PPGs for direct monitoring of product release by reporting two new pro-fluorescent, ethynylthiophene-based, and visible light-absorbing o-NB PPGs, referred to as NPETs 1 and 2. UV-Vis spectroscopy confirmed the complete cleavage of hydroxamic acid (HA) derivatives from NPETs 1 and 2, as evidenced by a blue shift and reduced absorbance intensity. This step likely proceeds through an aci-nitro intermediate, supported by both spectroscopic and computational examinations. We also assessed the released HA products by monitoring the corresponding increase in fluorescence intensity, which corresponds to the co-generated nitrosoketone by-product. The 4-fold and 3-fold increase in fluorescent intensity for NPETs 1 and 2, respectively, was easily observable with the naked eye. Time-course 1H NMR experiments revealed that NPET 2 exhibits greater stability than NPET 1, showing only minor degradation after 30 days at ambient conditions. (TD)-DFT calculations revealed that the nitrosoketone by-product emission occurs from the S2 singlet excited state, violating Kasha’s rule. This study highlights the efficacy of pro-fluorescent, ethynylthiophene-based o-NB PPGs in facilitating precise photoreactions under mild acidic conditions. Their pro-fluorescence response and minimal degradation under ambient conditions indicate their potential for application in releasing synthetically difficult-to-synthesize functional groups.
Introduction
In chemistry and materials research, selectively protecting and deprotecting functional groups are critical, especially for lengthy synthetic routes where the number of functional groups requiring protecting groups (PGs) typically increases. Conventional methods such as strongly acidic, strongly basic, reductive, and oxidative conditions, are generally used to remove traditional PGs, which can potentially degrade the protected molecule. However, this drawback is circumvented by the alternative use of photolabile protecting groups (PPGs), which allow selective removal of PGs using light as the activator. This light-triggered functionality enables selective, spatially controlled release of molecules of interest under mild conditions.1–7 Such light-triggered functionalities have paved the way for transformative advances, ranging from fine-tuned drug delivery systems to the controlled construction of biomolecular architectures.8
The first example of PPGs, the ortho-nitrobenzyl (o-NB) group containing a C–H bond at the ortho-position, was developed in 1966 by Barltrop et al. as a more desirable approach to addressing the issue of potential degradation of the protected molecule during the deprotection of PGs using conventional methods.9–13 This approach was later improved by incorporating a methyl (–CH3) group at the benzylic position orthogonal to the −NO2 group in response to the formation of an unwanted nitrobenzaldehyde by-product during PPG deprotection. This detrimental by-product underwent a side reaction with amine-release products, resulting in low yields of released products.9,14,15 Since Barltrop’s discovery, chemists have been working on developing new pro-fluorescent PPGs and increasing their uncaging efficiency.8,16–25 Formation of a fluorescent by-product is advantageous because it provides a direct method for monitoring and quantifying the released products during and after photolysis.26,27
There are currently limited examples of PPGs, such as cinnamate-based28–31 or thiochromone-based molecules,31–34 that enable the detection of uncaging events through the appearance of a fluorescence signal. Similarly, we know of only one series of o-NB PPG with pro-fluorescent properties from the literature: the 1-(2-nitrophenyl)-2-phenylethan-1-ol PPG derivatives developed by Specht et al.35,36 Therefore, it is important to expand the range of available o-NB PPGs to include those with pro-fluorescent properties capable of directly monitoring and quantifying the released products of photo-cleavage. In this study, we are reporting the first and sole example of a pro-fluorescent, ethynylthiophene-based o-NB PPG that absorbs light in the near-visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum for the synthesis of hydroxamic acids (HAs) in high yields. It also co-generates a readily detectable fluorescent by-product that can be used to indicate the formation of HA products. HAs, a class of organic compounds, have garnered extensive attention due to their diverse applications as metal chelators for the removal of toxic metals from seawater, precursors of several anti-cancer drugs, dyes, optoelectronic devices, and polymer architectures.37–45 However, the synthesis of HAs is widely recognized as challenging, and their purification can be difficult because HAs are highly reactive and often form a mixture of poly-substituted by-products under conventional reaction conditions.46–48 In this report, we present the design, synthesis, and application of two new ethynylthiophene-based o-NB PPGs, referred to as NPETs 1 and 2, with a nitrosoketone pro-fluorescent by-product as a more promising approach to addressing the issues associated with HA synthesis and their purification. These findings will contribute to the development of future ethynylthiophene-based o-NB PPGs with pro-fluorescent uncaging properties, capable of photo-releasing other difficult-to-synthesize functional groups such as carboxylic acids bonded to poor leaving groups like alcohols, phenols, and thiols, wherein the initially photo-cleaved carbonic or thiocarbonic acid would be unstable and undergo decarboxylation, resulting in the more readily obtainable free alcohols or thiols.
Results and discussion
Design
Designing the 2(2-(4-nitrophenyl)ethynyl)thiophene (NPET) PPG to absorb near the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum involved three important considerations: (1) the core of the PPG should possess a coplanar geometry and be composed of an extended conjugated π-system; (2) a push–pull character needs to exist throughout the PPG by incorporating electron-donating and/or -withdrawing groups; and (3) the conformation of the PPG should be rigid by regulating a linker between the electron-donating and -withdrawing groups, hindering free rotation throughout the PPG scaffold. This last requirement can be achieved by incorporating alkyne or alkene moieties as linkers.49–51
The planarity of the PPGs can significantly impact the flow and overall distribution of π-electrons, influencing PPGs’ performance. To achieve this desired geometry, we incorporated an alkyne group (pink in Fig. 1) as a bridge between the thiophene and the o-NB moieties. Additionally, we used a −NO2 group (red in Fig. 1) as an electron-withdrawing moiety at the para-position to the electron-rich thiophene (orange in Fig. 1) to create a push–pull effect throughout the conjugated π-system. This combination has been shown to lead to important optical properties, such as increased absorption and emission wavelengths.52 Incorporating a non-carbon atom (sulfur in our case) into the scaffold of the PPG not only enhanced its structural integrity but also lead to significance optical properties such as red-shifting both the maxima of absorption and emission.52,53 Thiophenes are particularly valuable for manipulating the electronic properties of various organic molecules, making them an ideal choice for controlling the absorbance and the photo reactivity of our novel PPGs.53
Fig. 1.

Molecular structure of NPET PPG scaffold.
Syntheses
The NPET PPGs were synthesized in two steps. Initially, the NPET PPG scaffold, which contained a hydroxylamine moiety, was synthesized (Scheme 1A). Subsequently, this scaffold was reacted with two carboxylic acid derivatives to generate NPETs 1 and 2, respectively (Scheme 1B).
Scheme 1.

Synthetic route to synthesize NPETs 1 and 2. (A) Reagents and conditions to synthesize hydroxylamine 7: (i) 1-(5-bromo-2-nitrophenyl)ethan-1-one, PdCl2(PPh3)2, CuI, Et3N, N2, (85 °C, 2 h, 79%); (ii) NaBH4, 5 : 1 THF : MeOH, (−78 °C – rt, 15 min, 79%); (iii) N-hydroxyphthalimide, PPh3, DIAD, THF, (−5 °C – rt, 14 h, 94%); (iv) NH2NH2·H2O, MeOH (rt, 4 h, 81%). (B) Reagents and conditions to synthesize NPETs 1 and 2 from hydroxylamine 7: (v) 4-ethylmorpholine, PyBOP, DMF (rt, 24 h, 58% and 87%, respectively).
The multistep synthesis began with a simple Sonogashira coupling reaction between 3 and 1-(5-bromo-2-nitrophenyl)ethan-1-one, catalyzed by copper iodide (CuI), yielded 4 in good yields.54 This ketone was then reduced to alcohol 5, which was subsequently coupled to N-hydroxyphthalimide to produce 6. Finally, 6 was hydrolyzed with hydrazine hydrate, facilitating deprotection and the formation of hydroxylamine 7.
The hydroxylamine 7 served as the starting material for the synthesis of the two new NPETs 1 and 2, which are functionalized with an alkyl 855 and phenyl group 956 respectively. Notably, compound 7 can also be coupled with any number of carboxylic acid derivatives to generate any HA derivatives, highlighting the versatility of the hydroxylamine 7. The structures of previously unreported compounds and NPETs 1 and 2 were confirmed by 1H, 13C{1H} NMR spectroscopies, 2D NMRs (COSY, DEPT 135, HSQC, HMBC) for NPETs 1 and 2, high resolution mass spectrometry, LCMS for NPETs 1 and 2, and FT-IR (see SI). All compounds were stable under ambient conditions.
Photophysical and photochemical characterization
After successfully synthesizing and fully characterizing NPETs 1 and 2, their photolytic release properties were investigated by irradiating both samples in a 4/1 (v/v) acetonitrile/1 M HCl mixture, and the absorbance and emission wavelengths were observed to change over time using UV-Vis and emission spectroscopies. Acetonitrile (MeCN) was selected as the solvent for photolysis due to its relatively inertness under photolysis conditions.57 It is also well established in the literature that polar aprotic solvent like MeCN stabilize charged species and promote intramolecular charge transfer, leading to a red-shift in emission,52,58 which is particularly beneficial when photolysis involves charge separated intermediates like NPETs 1 and 2. To promote hydrolysis during photolysis, 1 M HCl was added to the sample, as the HAs were not fully cleaving and the reaction was stalling at intermediate D.
Before irradiation (at time = 0 second), an absorbance scan was taken with a λmax of 340 nm (ε = 2.12 × 104 M−1 cm−1) corresponding to the caged NPET 1 (Fig. S41) and 345 nm (ε = 2.38 × 104 M−1 cm−1) corresponding to the caged NPET 2 (Fig. 2A), respectively. The samples were then irradiated with a 365 nm UV lamp (30 watt 4-core LED) at 5-seconds interval, followed by 1-minute intervals for 8 minutes while recording the λmax and relevant absorbances.
Fig. 2.

(A) Photolysis absorbance spectra for NPET 2 in 4 : 1 (v/v) MeCN : 1 M HCl after intervals of irradiation at 365 nm (concentration = 10−6 M). (B) Emission spectra for NPET 2 during and after irradiation at 365 nm showing an increase in fluorescence intensity (concentration = 10−5 M).
After the initial 5 seconds, a new red-shifted absorbance band with a λmax of 400 nm (ε = 2.14 × 104 M−1 cm−1) was observed for NPET 1 (Fig. S41) and 395 nm (ε = 2.38 × 104 M−1 cm−1) for NPET 2 (Fig. 2A), indicating the formation of the aci-nitro intermediate (intermediate B). It is well-established in the literature that the primary photoreaction of 2-nitrobenzyl compounds involves an intramolecular hydrogen atom-transfer, leading to the formation of aci-nitro tautomers, which are easily identified by their strong absorption near 400 nm.59,60 These tautomers are also known to represent the rate-limiting step in product release, as their decay is commonly used to estimate the release kinetics of the protected species.59,60 Generation of this intermediate was monitored, with a gradual decrease in absorbance intensity until remaining constant after 8 minutes of constant irradiation, indicating complete cleavage of the N-hydroxy-4-(((tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2-yl)oxy) methyl)benzamide from the NPET 2 and benzyl (5-(hydroxyamino)-5-oxopentyl)carbamate from NPET 1 (Fig. S41). The resulting by-product is a nitrosoketone with a λmax of 305 nm (ε = 8.91 × 103 M−1 cm−1) and 310 nm (ε = 7.32 × 103 M−1 cm−1) (Fig. S41 and 2A, respectively). The presence of an isosbestic point at 330 nm (the intermediate photoproduct and nitrosoketone by-product) indicates that a clean, degradation-free photo-cleavage occurred with stable released photoproducts.
The proposed mechanism for the photolysis of NPET PPGs is provided in Scheme 2. We hypothesize that the photolysis mechanism of NPETs 1 and 2 is similar to that of o-NB deprotection, which has been extensively explored and reviewed.6,61–71 In brief, when exposed to irradiation, the NPET PPG molecule is excited from its ground state to an excited state (Scheme 2A). Subsequently, the −NO2 group from this excited species abstracts a hydrogen intramolecularly, forming the aci-nitro intermediate (Scheme 2B). The aci-nitro intermediate then undergoes irreversible cyclization to produce the cyclic intermediate (Scheme 2C). Following ring-opening, the hemiacetal intermediate (Scheme 2D) is formed, releasing the nitrosoketone by-product and ultimately resulting in the HA products.59,60
Scheme 2.

Proposed mechanism for the cleavage of NPET PPGs.
We also monitored the photo-induced changes in fluorescence emission changes for NPETs 1 and 2 in a 4/1 (v/v) MeCN/1 M HCl mixture. The photolysis emission spectra for NPET 1 are shown in Fig. S42 of the SI. Prior to photolysis, both NPET PPGs displayed no fluorescence, with an emission λmax at 447 and 443 nm for NPETs 1 and 2, respectively. These emissions were not detectable with the naked eye (see inset photographs in Fig. 2B and S42). Upon 5 seconds of irradiation, NPET 1 exhibits an increase in emission intensity which continued to rise and then plateaued after 3 minutes with an emission λmax of 448 nm. At 5 minutes, the emission intensity began to decrease and remand stable through 8 minutes with an emission λmax of 448 nm (QY = 0.20%). This final emission band is attributed to the nitrosoketone by-product, showing a 4-fold increase in emission intensity. A similar trend was observed for NPET 2, which showed a 3-fold increase in emission after 8 minutes of irradiation, also with an emission λmax of 449 nm (QY = 1.30%) corresponding to the same nitrosoketone by-product (Fig. 2B). A side-by-side visual comparison of caged and uncaged NPET 2 is displayed in the inset photo in Fig. 2B, highlighting the fluorescent enhancement. Initially, both NPET PPGs are non-emissive to the naked eye, however, upon full photolysis, they yielded a distinctly fluorescent nitrosoketone by-product, demonstrating the pro-fluorescent quality of these PPGs (Fig. 2B and S42).
To investigate the formation of the HA derivatives and the nitrosoketone fluorescent by-product, 1H NMR spectroscopy analysis was conducted on NPETs 1 and 2 (see Fig. 3 for NPET 2 and Fig. S27 for NPET 1). The structures of N-hydroxy-4-(((tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2-yl)oxy)methyl)benzamide and the nitrosoketone fluorescent by-product derived from NPET 2 were confirmed by acquiring 1H NMR in CD3CN : 1 M HCl (4 : 1) before and after 8 minutes of irradiation with a 365 nm UV lamp (30-watt 4-core LED).
Fig. 3.

1H NMR overlay photolysis of NPET PPG 2 in CD3CN : 1 M HCl (4 : 1) before (t = 0 min) and after irradiation (t = 8 min) with a 365 nm UV lamp (30-watt 4-core LED). (A) 1H NMR cleavage trace from 8.5 ppm–5.00 ppm and (B) 1H NMR cleavage trace from 3.00 ppm–0.5 ppm. (NPET 2 concentration = 5.14 mM).
Consistent with the UV-vis spectroscopy results, the HA from NPET 2 underwent complete cleavage after 8 minutes, as evidenced by the disappearance of the H7 proton signal at 5.57 ppm, directly bonded to the benzylic carbon (red) in the position ortho to the nitro group. Before photolysis, this signal displayed a quartet splitting at 5.57 ppm since it is directly bonded to the methyl group. Following 8 minutes of photolysis, the signal at 5.57 ppm disappeared, confirming the formation of the ketone in the nitrosoketone by-product. Additionally, the H8 proton from the methyl group, which originally resonated at 1.61 ppm, became deshielded and shifted from a doublet to a singlet at 2.62 ppm, further supporting the formation of the ketone in the nitrosoketone fluorescent by-product.
A similar trend was observed for the 1H NMR analysis of NPET 1 post-irradiation (see Fig. S27). The formation of benzyl (5-(hydroxyamino)-5-oxopentyl)carbamate and the nitrosoketone fluorescent by-product was confirmed by 1H NMR in CD3CN : 1 M HCl (4 : 1) before and after irradiation with a 365 nm UV lamp (30-watt 4-core LED) for 8 minutes. Complete HA release from NPET 1 was indicated by the disappearance of the benzylic proton in the position ortho to the nitro group. Before photolysis, this signal displayed a quartet splitting at 5.41 ppm. After photolysis and the formation of the nitrosoketone by-product, the signal disappeared due to the loss of that hydrogen. Additionally, the hydrogen from the methyl group at 1.53 ppm deshielded and shifted to 2.62 ppm as a singlet. The 1H NMR experiment revealed that photo-conversion of NPETs 1 and 2 resulted in a quantitative release of HA (>95%). FT-IR spectra further confirmed the presence of key functional groups (Fig. S55 and S56).
Stability testing of NPET PPGs 1 and 2
Following the completion of photolysis studies for NPETs 1 and 2, we assessed the stability of both PPGs using time-course 1H NMR experiments in CD3CN to evaluate their shelf life under ambient conditions. NPET 1 showed minimal degradation after one day, with progressive degradation observed over 30 days (Fig. S29). A similar stability study was conducted for NPET 2 in CD3CN (Fig. 4), which revealed minimal degradation after one day. Notably, even after thirty days, NPET 2 exhibited negligible degradation, with all proton signals in the 1H NMR spectra remaining clearly identifiable. These results demonstrate that NPET 2 remain stable under ambient conditions for at least 30 days. Time-course 1H NMR data indicates that NPET 2 exhibits greater stability than NPET 1, likely due to the aromatic phenyl ring directly attached to the HA moiety. Aromatic rings are known to absorb UV/visible light without undergoing decomposition and dissipate absorbed energy through non-destructive relaxation pathways, thereby helping prevent photodegradation.72–74
Fig. 4.

1H NMR spectral overlay (in CD3CN, 400 MHz) of NPET 2, stability test over thirty days under ambient conditions.
Computational investigation of the reactant, product, and possible intermediates of the NPET PPG cleavage
To investigate the origin of the ~310 nm, ~345 nm, and ~400 nm bands in Fig. 2A and S41 spectra, we conducted TD-DFT calculations on the putative reactant, product, and some intermediates of the photo-cleavage reaction. For the intermediates, we model B, C, and D from Scheme 2 and their deprotonated forms. We focused on NPET 2 and associated products, assuming that the R group of the HA does not strongly influence the absorption wavelengths. Calculations were carried out using the wB97X-D functional and the ccpVDZ basis set and a continuum solvation model to account for acetonitrile. The choice of functional, as well as tests using a different functional are included in the SI Computational details section (Table S57). All calculations were carried out using Q-Chem 6.0.75 Table 1 presents the vertical excitation energies (VEEs) for some of the low-lying excited states.
Table 1.
TD-DFT computed vertical excitation energies (VEEs) for the first three singlet excited states computed with wB97X-D in acetonitrile PCM. Energies are provided in units of eV (and in nm in parentheses). The associated oscillator strength for each excitation is also shown. The truncated model of NPET 2 replaces the R group of the NPET PPG in Scheme 2 with a methyl group. The same truncation was applied for computing intermediates B, C, and D. Hydroxamic acid 2 is the photo-cleavage product for NPET 2
| Molecule | S1, eV (nm) | Strength (f) | S2, eV (nm) | Strength (f) | S3, eV (nm) | Strength (f) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPET PPG 2 | 3.78 (328) | 0.84 | 4.11 (302) | 0.26 | 4.52 (274) | 0.03 |
| NPET PPG – truncated acid | 3.78 (328) | 0.80 | 4.12 (301) | 0.29 | 4.51 (275) | 0.03 |
| Hydroxamic acid 2 | 5.20 (238) | 0.01 | 5.25 (236) | 0.40 | 5.45 (227) | 0.04 |
| Intermediate B | 2.97 (418) | 0.25 | 4.07 (305) | 1.29 | 4.35 (285) | 0.01 |
| Intermediate B – deprotonated | 2.61 (476) | 0.13 | 3.94 (314) | 0.94 | 4.05 (306) | 0.30 |
| Intermediate C | 4.11 (302) | 1.07 | 4.92 (252) | 0.01 | 5.17 (240) | 0.01 |
| Intermediate C – deprotonateda | 3.06 (405) | 0.08 | 3.12 (398) | 1.36 | 3.97 (312) | 0.01 |
| Intermediate D | 1.51 (822) | 0.00 | 3.60 (345) | 1.05 | 4.25 (292) | 0.05 |
| Intermediate D – deprotonated | 1.72 (719) | 0.01 | 3.06 (406) | 0.10 | 3.68 (337) | 0.01 |
| Nitrosoketone product | 1.53 (812) | 0.00 | 3.57 (347) | 0.91 | 3.90 (318) | 0.15 |
The deprotonated form of C could be optimized in vacuo but was unstable when optimized in PCM (it rearranged to form deprotonated intermediate D). Therefore, this TD-DFT calculation was carried out using PCM for a structure that was optimized in the gas phase.
First, we simulate the UV/visible excitation energy for the full NPET 2 model. We obtain a first excited state at 328 nm, in reasonably good agreement with the experimental λmax (340–345 nm). We then truncated the model by replacing the R group of the NPET PPG in Scheme 2 with a methyl group and repeated the calculation. When it was verified that such a truncation has a limited effect on the low-lying excitation energies, we applied the same truncation for modeling intermediates B, C, and D. We also computed the excitation energies of the hydroxamic acid to verify that it has no absorption in the near-UV or visible range, as expected for a molecule that contains a single aromatic ring.
The appearance of an intermediate state with an absorption at 395 nm after irradiation warrants further investigation, so we computed the low-lying excited states of intermediates B, C, and D, and their deprotonated forms. Out of all the intermediates, only a few present a potentially red-shifted absorption compared to the nitrosoketone product. Intermediate B, the aci-nitro tautomer, has a first excited state (S1) predicted computationally at near 418 nm, which would be in reasonable agreement with the experimental wavelength observed experimentally (395–400 nm). Previously reported transient absorption studies also find that such an intermediate has an absorption close to 400 nm.71 However, in the nitroaromatic compounds studied, the intermediate B was found to be very short-lived. Here, it could be that electronic factors contribute to the stability of intermediate B, allowing it to be longer lived. That said, the aci-nitro group is likely to be deprotonated to the nitronate form in the presence of water, but calculations indicate that this will give rise to a further redshift in the absorption.
TD-DFT calculations on the cyclic intermediate C indicate that it does not absorb near 395 nm, although the S1 and S2 states of its deprotonated form might (similar energy absorption wavelengths: ~405 and 398 nm, respectively). When attempting to optimize the deprotonated form of intermediate C in PCM, the structure spontaneously rearranged to deprotonated D form, which is energetically downhill (a frequency calculation on the two structures indicates that intermediate D is lower by 1.34 kcal mol−1 than intermediate C). Intermediate D, also a nitroso compound, has similar absorption properties to the nitrosoketone fluorescent product. The computations predict that the protonated form of intermediate D has a similar absorption wavelength as the nitrosoketone. The deprotonated form has a red-shifted and bright S2 state compared to the nitrosoketone and may explain the experimentally red-shifted band at 395 nm, but this would involve deprotonation of the hemiacetal hydroxy group, which is not expected to be acidic.
There is a possibility that the 310 nm band and shoulder may be explained by intermediate D; while the energies of the S2 and S3 states resemble those of the nitrosoketone product, the oscillator strength of the S2 state is larger while S3 is smaller.
This is consistent with intermediate D having absorption bands at the same position of the nitrosoketone absorption spectrum (Fig. 2A), but with different intensities. This explanation would also be consistent with the experimental observation that the hemiacetal is typically the long-lived intermediate in these photoreactions71 and that D is the last intermediate before photo-cleavage is completed.
We next analyzed the excited states of the nitrosoketone product. The TD-DFT calculations using both functionals revealed a very low-lying excited state (S1). This state has a very low oscillator strength, but if it were bright, its absorption would have appeared at around 812 nm in the UV/visible spectrum. Instead, we find that the experimentally measured spectral peak at ~310 nm and shoulder spanning ~350–450 nm (Fig. 2A and S41) are due to absorption to the third and second singlet excited states (S3 and S2), respectively. While the calculations are again not in exact quantitative agreement with the experiment, they correctly predict a blue-shifted band and a red-shifted shoulder on either side of the reactant absorption band. We also note that the calculations indicate that S2 is more intense than S3, while experimentally the S3 band at 310 nm appears more intense. However, oscillator strength calculations can often be strongly influenced by the solvent model and nature of the transition.76,77 The same TD-DFT calculation carried out in the gas phase, for instance, gives a slightly more intense S3 band (f = 0.50) than S2 (f = 0.40).
Together, the TD-DFT calculations on the intermediates indicate that the short-lived observed experimentally with a λmax of ca. 395 nm is not likely to be the acetal C, but may be either intermediate B or D.
To provide further detail on the electronic nature of these transitions for the nitrosoketone product, we computed Natural Transition Orbitals (NTOs) (Fig. 5). We find that the S1 state can best be described as a (n,π*) excitation of a lone pair on the nitroso group. S2 and S3, on the other hand are both (π,π*) states involving orbitals delocalized across the thiophene and aromatic nitroso moieties.
Fig. 5.

The most representative natural transition orbitals (NTOs) of the first three excited states of the nitrosoketone product. The contribution of each NTO pair to the excitation is indicated as a percentage.
Experimentally, the nitrosoketone fluorescence shows a relatively large Stokes shift with an absorbance at ~310 nm and emission at ~475 nm. To better understand the nature of this transition, the geometries were optimized using the gradients of the first and second excited states. The S1 state optimization led to a diminishing energy gap and convergence errors consistent with the presence of a non-adiabatic crossing with the ground state. Surprisingly, we find that the S2 state is the one responsible for the emission; upon optimization of S2 and calculation of the vertical emission energy, we obtain 2.73 eV with wB97X-D, corresponding to 454 nm and in good agreement with the observed fluorescence wavelength in Fig. 2B. These results clearly indicate that this fluorescent dye violates Kasha’s rule, which instead predicts that fluorescence typically occurs from the lowest excited state (S1). In the nitrosoketone, the separation between S1 and S2 is large enough to prevent fast internal conversion. These calculations agree with previous studies reporting a violation of Kasha’s rule in aromatic nitroso compounds.78
Conclusions
Photolabile protective groups (PPGs) are particularly desirable because they offer a simple method for real-time monitoring of the cleavage process of main and by-products. To address this need, we designed, synthesized, and characterized two new pro-fluorescent ethynylthiophene-based o-NB PPGs, NPETs 1 and 2. These PPGs provide an appealing strategy for directly monitoring photolysis through changes in fluorescence intensity, which correlates with the release of photo-cleavage products: hydroxamic acids (HAs) and a pro-fluorescent nitrosoketone by-product. This method addresses the conventional challenges in synthesizing and purifying HA derivatives by facilitating the efficient release of HAs alongside a readily detectable nitrosoketone by-product.
We demonstrate the complete release of HA derivatives from NPETs 1 and 2 using UV-Vis spectroscopy, as indicated by a decrease in absorbance intensity accompanied with a blue shift in wavelength. Fluorescence spectroscopy studies further revealed that the cleavage of HA derivatives from NPETs 1 and 2 can be directly monitored and observable to the naked eye. Upon photolysis, NPET 1 exhibits a 4-fold increase in fluorescent intensity, NPET 2 displays a 3-fold increase, both corresponding to the formation of a new emissive nitrosoketone by-product. TD-DFT calculations indicate that this product fluoresces from its second excited singlet state, S2.
1H NMR investigations on NPETs 1 and 2 and their photolysis products confirmed the quantitative release of HA (>95%) and the generation of nitrosoketone by-product. FT-IR analysis of irradiated samples for NPETs 1 and 2 revealed a new −NvO band at 1524 cm−1 with corresponding disappearance of the −NO2 band, indicating formation of nitroso species, and a new broad absorption band at 3337 cm−1 corresponds to O–H stretch of benzyl (5-(hydroxyamino)-5-oxopentyl)carbamate for cleaved PPG 1, while a broad absorption band at 3467 cm−1 corresponds to the O–H stretch of N-hydroxy-4-(((tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2-yl)oxy)methyl)benzamide for cleaved PPG 2 (see Fig. S55 and S56). Additionally, 1H NMR time-course investigations revealed that NPET 2 exhibits greater stability than NPET 1, showing only minor degradation after 30 days at ambient conditions.
This study highlights the effectiveness of pro-fluorescent, ethynylthiophene-based o-NB PPGs in facilitating precise photoreactions under mild acidic conditions. These findings represent a significant advancement in the development of o-NB PPGs and establish a promising framework for future investigations targeting hard-to-synthesize but spectroscopically well-suited functional groups like carboxylic acids, sulfonates, and phosphates in derivatization targets for the development of absorption-tuned PPGs.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation-Launching Early-Career Academic Pathways in the Mathematical and Physical Sciences (NSF-LEAPS-MPS) (CHE2137454). We thank the Peach State Bridges to the Doctorate Program from Kennesaw State University (NIH-1T32GM150548-01) for supporting A. D. C. and B. W. We also gratefully acknowledge NSF-LEAPS-MPS (CHE2137454) for supporting for O. A. S. and A. D. C. L. G. gratefully acknowledges support from the Office of Research at Kennesaw State University. S. G. is grateful to the NSF (Grant CHE-2047667) and Expanse at SDSC through allocation CHE180027 from the Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Coordination Ecosystem: Services and Support (ACCESS) program, which is supported by National Science Foundation grants #2138259, #2138286, #2138307, #2137603, and #2138296. The authors would like to thank Dr Thomas H. Hester for assisting with the review and editing of this manuscript.
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare the following competing financial interest (s): A provisional patent (No. 63/688,682) has been filed by Kennesaw State University on technology related to ethynylthiophene-based o-nitrobenzyl photolabile protecting groups.
Data availability
The authors declare that the main data supporting the findings of this study, including experimental procedures and compound characterization, are available within the article and its SI files, or from the corresponding author upon request.
Experimental section: synthetic protocols, characterizations (1H NMR, 13C{1H} NMR, 2D NMRs (COSY, DEPT 135, HSQC, HMBC)) for NPETs 1 and 2, high resolution mass spec, LCMS for NPETs 1 and 2, FT-IR spectra, UV-visible and emission spectra of NPETs 1 and 2 in various solvents. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d5ob00859j.
References
- 1.Bochet CG, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans 1, 2002, 125–142. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Klán P, Šolomek T, Bochet CG, Blanc A, Givens R, Rubina M, Popik V, Kostikov A and Wirz J, Chem. Rev, 2013, 113, 119–191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Rajasekharan Pillai VN, Org. Photochem, 1987, 225–323. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Rajasekharan Pillai VN, Synthesis, 1980, 1980, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Binkley RW and Flechtner TW, in Synthetic Organic Photochemistry, Springer; US, Boston, MA, 1984, pp. 375–423. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Wang P, Asian J Org. Chem, 2013, 2, 452–464. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Wang P and Lim C, Photochem. Photobiol, 2023, 99, 221–234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Weinstain R, Slanina T, Kand D and Klán P, Chem. Rev, 2020, 120, 13135–13272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Barltrop JA, Plant PJ and Schofield P, Chem. Commun, 1966, 822–823. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Romano A, Roppolo I, Rossegger E, Schlögl S and Sangermano M, Materials, 2020, 13, 2777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Tebikachew BE, Börjesson K, Kann N and Moth-Poulsen K, Bioconjugate Chem., 2018, 29, 1178–1185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Štacko P and Šolomek T, Chimia, 2021, 75, 873. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Schaper K, Madani Mobarekeh SA, Doro P and Maydt D, Photochem. Photobiol, 2010, 86, 1247–1254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Patchornik A, Amit B and Woodward RB, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 1970, 92, 6333–6335. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Barth A and Corrie JET, Biophys. J, 2002, 83, 2864–2871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Cruz FG, Koh JT and Link KH, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2000, 122, 8777–8778. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kiskin NI, Chillingworth R, McCray JA, Piston D and Ogden D, Eur. Biophys. J, 2002, 30, 588–604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Cheng Q, Steinmetz MG and Jayaraman V, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2002, 124, 7676–7677. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Veldhuyzen WF, Nguyen Q, McMaster G and Lawrence DS, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2003, 125, 13358–13359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ghosh M, Ichetovkin I, Song X, Condeelis JS and Lawrence DS, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2002, 124, 2440–2441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Clarke KM, La Clair JJ and Burkart MD, J. Org. Chem, 2005, 70, 3709–3711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Abbruzzetti S, Sottini S, Viappiani C and Corrie JET, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2005, 127, 9865–9874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Aujard I, Benbrahim C, Gouget M, Ruel O, Baudin J-B, Neveu P and Jullien L, Chem. – Eur. J, 2006, 12, 6865–6879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.O’Hagan MP, Duan Z, Huang F, Laps S, Dong J, Xia F and Willner I, Chem. Rev, 2023, 123, 6839–6887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Cummings RT and Krafft GA, Tetrahedron Lett., 1988, 29, 65–68. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Gagey N, Neveu P, Benbrahim C, Goetz B, Aujard I, Baudin J-B and Jullien L, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2007, 129, 9986–9998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Gagey N, Neveu P and Jullien L, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed, 2007, 46, 2467–2469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Paul A, Mengji R, Chandy OA, Nandi S, Bera M, Jana A, Anoop A and Singh NDP, Org. Biomol. Chem, 2017, 15, 8544–8552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Koenigs PM, Faust BC and Porter NA, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 1993, 115, 9371–9379. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Gagey N, Neveu P and Jullien L, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed, 2007, 46, 2467–2469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Klán P, Šolomek T, Bochet CG, Blanc A, Givens R, Rubina M, Popik V, Kostikov A and Wirz J, Chem. Rev, 2013, 113, 119–191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Zhang Y, Zhang H, Ma C, Li J, Nishiyama Y, Tanimoto H, Morimoto T and Kakiuchi K, Tetrahedron Lett., 2016, 57, 5179–5184. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Kitani S, Sugawara K, Tsutsumi K, Morimoto T and Kakiuchi K, Chem. Commun, 2008, 2103–2105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Hikage S, Nishiyama Y, Sasaki Y, Tanimoto H, Morimoto T and Kakiuchi K, ACS Omega, 2017, 2, 2300–2307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Abou Nakad E, Bolze F and Specht A, Org. Biomol. Chem, 2018, 16, 6115–6122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Abou Nakad E, Chaud J, Morville C, Bolze F and Specht A, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci, 2020, 19, 1122–1133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Keth J, Johann T and Frey H, Biomacromolecules, 2020, 21, 2546–2556. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Li Z and Yamamoto H, Acc. Chem. Res, 2013, 46, 506–518. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Muri E, Nieto M, Sindelar R and Williamson J, Curr. Med. Chem, 2002, 9, 1631–1653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Folkers JP, Gorman CB, Laibinis PE, Buchholz S, Whitesides GM and Nuzzo RG, Langmuir, 1995, 11, 813–824. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Derasp JS, Barbera EA, Séguin NR, Brzezinski DD and Beauchemin AM, Org. Lett, 2020, 22, 7403–7407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Bauer L and Exner O, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl, 1974, 13, 376–384. [Google Scholar]
- 43.Marmion CJ, Griffith D and Nolan KB, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem, 2004, 2004, 3003–3016. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Kreye O, Wald S and Meier MAR, Adv. Synth. Catal, 2013, 355, 81–86. [Google Scholar]
- 45.Lossen W, Justus Liebigs Ann. Chem, 1872, 161, 347–362. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Sonntag NOV, Chem. Rev, 1953, 52, 237–416. [Google Scholar]
- 47.Porcheddu A and Giacomelli G, J. Org. Chem, 2006, 71, 7057–7059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Ho CY, Strobel E, Ralbovsky J and Galemmo RA, J. Org. Chem, 2005, 70, 4873–4875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Donato L, Mourot A, Davenport CM, Herbivo C, Warther D, Léonard J, Bolze F, Nicoud J-F, Kramer RH, Goeldner M and Specht A, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed, 2012, 51, 1840–1843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Becker Y, Unger E, Fichte MAH, Gacek DA, Dreuw A, Wachtveitl J, Walla PJ and Heckel A, Chem. Sci, 2018, 9, 2797–2802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Pawlicki M, Collins HA, Denning RG and Anderson HL, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed, 2009, 48, 3244–3266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Saint-Louis CJ, Shavnore RN, McClinton CDC, Wilson JA, Magill LL, Brown BM, Lamb RW, Webster CE, Schrock AK and Huggins MT, Org. Biomol. Chem, 2017, 15, 10172–10183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Andrade CD, Yanez CO, Rodriguez L and Belfield KD, J. Org. Chem, 2010, 75, 3975–3982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Mohajer F, Heravi MM, Zadsirjan V and Poormohammad N, RSC Adv., 2021, 11, 6885–6925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Wang S, Tao Y, Wang J, Tao Y and Wang X, Chem. Sci, 2019, 10, 1531–1538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Chanthad C, Xu K, Huang H and Wang Q, J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem, 2010, 48, 4800–4810. [Google Scholar]
- 57.Hirakawa K, Acetonitrile: Properties, Applications and Health Effects, 2012, pp. 109–119. [Google Scholar]
- 58.Campbell AD, Ellis K, Gordon LK, Riley JE, Le V, Hollister KK, Ajagbe SO, Gozem S, Hughley RB, Boswell AM, Adjei-sah O, Baruah PD, Malone R, Whitt LM, Gilliard RJ and Saint-Louis CJ, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2023, 11, 13740–13751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Corrie JET, Barth A, Munasinghe VRN, Trentham DR and Hutter MC, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2003, 125, 8546–8554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Il’ichev YV, Schwörer MA and Wirz J, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2004, 126, 4581–4595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Pelliccioli AP and Wirz J, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci, 2002, 1, 441–458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Loudwig S, Bayley H, Peng L, Goeldner M, Condeelis JS and Lawrence DS, in Dynamic Studies in Biology, 2005, pp. 253–340. [Google Scholar]
- 63.Mayer G and Heckel A, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed, 2006, 45, 4900–4921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Casey JP, Blidner RA and Monroe WT, Mol. Pharm, 2009, 6, 669–685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Yu H, Li J, Wu D, Qiu Z and Zhang Y, Chem. Soc. Rev, 2010, 39, 464–473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Ciesienski KL and Franz KJ, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed, 2011, 50, 814–824. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Brieke C, Rohrbach F, Gottschalk A, Mayer G and Heckel A, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed, 2012, 51, 8446–8476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Klán P, Šolomek T, Bochet CG, Blanc A, Givens R, Rubina M, Popik V, Kostikov A and Wirz J, Chem. Rev, 2013, 113, 119–191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Corrie JET, Barth A, Munasinghe VRN, Trentham DR and Hutter MC, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2003, 125, 8546–8554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Gaplovsky M, Il’ichev YV, Kamdzhilov Y, Kombarova SV, Mac M, Schwörer MA and Wirz J, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci, 2005, 4, 33–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Il’ichev YV, Schwörer MA and Wirz J, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2004, 126, 4581–4595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Tokmachev AM, Boggio-Pasqua M, Bearpark MJ and Robb MA, J. Phys. Chem. A, 2008, 112, 10881–10886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Ward HR and Wishnok JS, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 1968, 90, 5353–5357. [Google Scholar]
- 74.Ghosh D, Spinlove KE, Greene HJM, Lau N, Gómez S, Kao M-H, Whitaker W, Clark IP, Malakar P, Worth GA, Oliver TAA, Fielding HH and Orr-Ewing AJ, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 2024, 146, 30443–30454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Epifanovsky E, Gilbert ATB, Feng X, Lee J, Mao Y, Mardirossian N, Pokhilko P, White AF, Coons MP, Dempwolff AL, Gan Z, Hait D, Horn PR, Jacobson LD, Kaliman I, Kussmann J, Lange AW, Lao KU, Levine DS, Liu J, McKenzie SC, Morrison AF, Nanda KD, Plasser F, Rehn DR, Vidal ML, You Z-Q, Zhu Y, Alam B, Albrecht BJ, Aldossary A, Alguire E, Andersen JH, Athavale V, Barton D, Begam K, Behn A, Bellonzi N, Bernard YA, Berquist EJ, Burton HGA, Carreras A, Carter-Fenk K, Chakraborty R, Chien AD, Closser KD, Cofer-Shabica V, Dasgupta S, de Wergifosse M, Deng J, Diedenhofen M, Do H, Ehlert S, Fang P-T, Fatehi S, Feng Q, Friedhoff T, Gayvert J, Ge Q, Gidofalvi G, Goldey M, Gomes J, González-Espinoza CE, Gulania S, Gunina AO, Hanson-Heine MWD, Harbach PHP, Hauser A, Herbst MF, Hernández Vera M, Hodecker M, Holden ZC, Houck S, Huang X, Hui K, Huynh BC, Ivanov M, Jász Á, Ji H, Jiang H, Kaduk B, Kähler S, Khistyaev K, Kim J, Kis G, Klunzinger P, Koczor-Benda Z, Koh JH, Kosenkov D, Koulias L, Kowalczyk T, Krauter CM, Kue K, Kunitsa A, Kus T, Ladjánszki I, Landau A, Lawler KV, Lefrancois D, Lehtola S, Li RR, Li Y-P, Liang J, Liebenthal M, Lin H-H, Lin Y-S, Liu F, Liu K-Y, Loipersberger M, Luenser A, Manjanath A, Manohar P, Mansoor E, Manzer SF, Mao S-P, Marenich AV, Markovich T, Mason S, Maurer SA, McLaughlin PF, Menger MFSJ, Mewes J-M, Mewes SA, Morgante P, Mullinax JW, Oosterbaan KJ, Paran G, Paul AC, Paul SK, Pavošević F, Pei Z, Prager S, Proynov EI, Rák Á, Ramos-Cordoba E, Rana B, Rask AE, Rettig A, Richard RM, Rob F, Rossomme E, Scheele T, Scheurer M, Schneider M, Sergueev N, Sharada SM, Skomorowski W, Small DW, Stein CJ, Su Y-C, Sundstrom EJ, Tao Z, Thirman J, Tornai GJ, Tsuchimochi T, Tubman NM, Veccham SP, Vydrov O, Wenzel J, Witte J, Yamada A, Yao K, Yeganeh S, Yost SR, Zech A, Zhang IY, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Zuev D, Aspuru-Guzik A, Bell AT, Besley NA, Bravaya KB, Brooks BR, Casanova D, Chai J-D, Coriani S, Cramer CJ, Cserey G, DePrince AE III, DiStasio RA Jr., Dreuw A, Dunietz BD, Furlani TR, Goddard III WA, Hammes-Schiffer S, Head-Gordon T, Hehre WJ, Hsu C-P, Jagau T-C, Jung Y, Klamt A, Kong J, Lambrecht DS, Liang W, Mayhall NJ, McCurdy CW, Neaton JB, Ochsenfeld C, Parkhill JA, Peverati R, Rassolov VA, Shao Y, Slipchenko LV, Stauch T, Steele RP, Subotnik JE, Thom AJW, Tkatchenko A, Truhlar DG, Van Voorhis T, Wesolowski TA, Whaley KB, Woodcock III HL, Zimmerman PM, Faraji S, Gill PMW, Head-Gordon M, Herbert JM and Krylov AI, J. Chem. Phys, 2021, 155, 084801.34470363 [Google Scholar]
- 76.Garcia-Alvarez JC and Gozem S, J. Chem. Theory Comput, 2024, 20, 7227–7243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Garcia-Alvarez JC and Gozem S, J. Chem. Theory Comput, 2025, 21, 3120–3131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Bunce NJ, Chem. Phys. Lett, 1978, 59, 66–67. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The authors declare that the main data supporting the findings of this study, including experimental procedures and compound characterization, are available within the article and its SI files, or from the corresponding author upon request.
Experimental section: synthetic protocols, characterizations (1H NMR, 13C{1H} NMR, 2D NMRs (COSY, DEPT 135, HSQC, HMBC)) for NPETs 1 and 2, high resolution mass spec, LCMS for NPETs 1 and 2, FT-IR spectra, UV-visible and emission spectra of NPETs 1 and 2 in various solvents. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d5ob00859j.
