Empirical polarity parameters are recommended as useful characteristics for describing the internal and external surface properties of various solid materials, e. g. synthetic polymers, native polymers, inorganic oxides, sol‐gel hybrids, and composites. The polarity properties of a macromolecule have been expressed by three independent terms: the α value (the hydrogen bond donating, HBD, capacity or acidity), the β value (the hydrogen bond accepting, HBA, capacity or basicity), and the π* value (the dipolarity/polarizability). These terms can be defined using the Kamlet‐Taft solvents parameter set as the reference system. A complex property, XYZ, of a macromolecular material under study, with reference to a standard system (XYZ)0 (i. e. gas phase or a nonpolar polymer), can then be described by a simplified Kamlet‐Taft LSE (linear solvation energy) equation: XYZ = (XYZ)0 + sπ* + aα + bβ. a, b, and s are coefficients reflecting the susceptibility of the polarity terms upon XYZ. Empirical solvatochromic polarity parameters [α, β, π*, ET (30)] for synthetic polymers, copolymers, native polymers, inorganic oxidic materials, functionalized silica particles, hybrids, and composite materials have been determined by means of the following solvatochromic probe dyes: 2,6‐diphenyl‐(2,4,6‐triphenyl‐1‐pyridinio)‐4‐phenolate (1 a), Michler's ketone (2), dicyano‐bis(1,10‐phenanthrolin)iron II (3), and a novel aminobenzodifuranone dye (7). The solvatochromic band shifts of these indicators correlate precisely with the Kamlet‐Taft solvent parameters α, β, and π*. The results are compared with each other, with related solvent model compounds, and literature values. The relation of the well established ET (30) solvent polarity scale to the Kamlet‐Taft parameters α and π* of solid materials is demonstrated. Hence, a general polarity scale for solid materials is suggested.

No abstract

No abstract

Solvatochromism and sorptiochromism of the dye 3-(4-amino-3-methylphenyl)-7-phenyl-benzo1,2b:4,5b‘difuran-2,6-dione (1) are studied with an extended set of solvents and various solid acids including silicas, aluminas, and alumosilicates. 1 shows a positive solvatochromism with increasing basicity and dipolarity/polarizability of the solvent; its solvent-induced bathochromic UV−vis absorption band shift ranges from formic acid (υmax = 21 630 cm-1) to hexamethylphosphoric acid triamide (υmax = 14 200 cm-1). Multiple square analyses of υmax of the solvent-dependent solvatochromic UV−vis absorption band of 1 with several empirical solvent polarity parameters prove that a composite of basicity, acidity, and dipolarity/polarizability of the environment must be taken into account. For the analysis of the solvent-dependent UV−vis shift of 1, the Kamlet−Taft and Catalán solvent parameters have been evaluated. It could be shown that the Catalán solvent parameter set is more suitable to reflect multiple solvation processes involving both strong basic and strong acidic solvents. Quantum chemical calculations indicate that an interaction of the silanol oxygen atom with the protons of the amino group is clearly favored over various acidic attacks of silanol groups upon 1. Accordingly, surface basicity of silica, alumina, and alumosilicates can be determined using the linear solvation energy relationship derived from the solvent-dependent UV−vis band of 1. An unambiguous interpretation of the UV−vis spectroscopic data of 1 adsorbed on surfaces containing Lewis-acid sites is sometimes difficult. UV−vis monitoring of 1-loaded solid acids during surface titration with 2,6-di-tert-butyl pyridine allows the discrimination of whether Brønsted- or Lewis-acid sites interfere with 1. Additionally, adsorbed water has an important influence on the actual surface basicity of solid acids. 1 is recommended as a sensitive probe for checking both basicity and acidity when directly compared with solvatochromism of the established hydrogen-bond-donating indicator (cis-dicyano)bis(1,10-phenanthroline)iron(II) (2).

No abstract