Abstract

| Urea and tetramethylurea, TMU, are studied as solutes in
13 pure organic solvents, polar and non-polar, protic and
aprotic. It is shown that the most important parameter determining
the magnitude of the solvent induced shift in C=O stretching
band is the ability of the solvent to interact with the solute
as a Lewis acid. The C=O stretching vibration of the
considered solutes in different pure solvents have been correlated
to Gutmanns acceptor number, AN, and donor number, DN,
of the solvents. These analyses provide detailed information
about the extent of preferential solvation of the C=O
group within the solutes and upon the whole solute molecules
in each solvent. A new simple spectroscopic method is introduced
relating the spectroscopic results on the solute in pure solvents
to the degree of preferential solvation in mixed solvent systems.
We include preferential solvation for the whole molecule at
various points on the surface of the molecule individually. |

Introduction

Infrared spectra of methyl acetate, [1] acetone,[2]
and several amides [3-4] including N, N-dimethylacetamide, in aqueous
DMSO mixtures, have been reported previously. In mixed solvents, these
spectra commonly show several carbonyl stretching bands, assigned
to differently hydrogen bonded species.
The spectroscopic studies of C=O groups in
a range of amides [3-4] in mixed aqueous and non-aqueous solvent systems have
shown clearly the existence of di-, mono- and non-hydrogen bonded
examples of protic solvent (such as water or methanol) interaction
with the C=O group. The frequency of this band depends on the
nature and strength of the intermolecular interactions (such as a
hydrogen bond). Thus, when the aprotic solvent is dissolved as a dilute
solute in a second solvent, the solvent induced frequency shift, SIFS,
may be used to characterize the intermolecular interactions.
In the following paper, one single band was found
for C=O stretch for all of the solvents considered, but the
position of the band shifted to higher values in the more aprotic
solvents. These measurements provide information about the solvation
of the oxygen atom of C=O group and also other surfaces of the
solute molecules as well as the whole solute molecules.
Experimental

Spectra were collected using a Bomem Research Series
FTIR spectrometer with a resolution of 0.5 cm-1. All experiments
were carried out at 25°C. The solvents used were HPLC grade, at least
99.9% pure with a residual water level less than 0.005%. Solutions
were made up with a constant molar ratio of 1 mole of solution to
12 moles of solvent. They were handled in a dry box under a nitrogen
atmosphere to prevent contamination by water. The spectra were analyzed
by subtracting the spectrum of the pure solvent from that of the solution.
The data were analyzed using Quattro Pro software.
Results and Discussion

The C=O stretch band in urea and trimethyl
urea were observed in 13 pure solvents namely water, methanol, ethanol,
1-propanol, 2-propanol, t-butanol, DMSO, MeCN, Nitromethane, Diethylether,
CCl4, Benzene and Hexane.
Studies on solvation in these systems have shown
that the acidity and basicity of the solvent have significantly effects
the SIFS. The Gutmann donor number, DN [7], and the Gutmann acceptor number, AN, were chosen for
the solvent basicity and the solvent acidity [8]
respectively. Detailed arguments for the choice of these scales were
given previously [5, 6].
Equation 1 can be written for the solvents AN and
DN as follows:
(1)
The overal preferential solvation parameter, p,
for the whole solute molecule can be defined through:
(2)
This parameter has been determined from previously
calorimetric studies [9-11]. The partial preferential
solvation factors,
, ¾ the
specific preferential solvation of the oxygen atom of the C=O
group for the solvents considered and,
,
¾ an indicator of preferential solvation
to other sites on the solute molecule can be defined as follows:
(3)
(4)
If we divide the values calculated from Equations
2-4 by that of a reference solvent (such as water in the cases considered),
we can deduce the relative preferential solvation factors in binary
solvent systems as follows:
(5)
(6)
Where
and
are the coefficients describing
the response of the band to the values of ANR and
DNR of the reference solvent respectively. The wave
number values have been measured for the C=O group of urea and
trimethyl urea in the solvents selected. The equation for the least
squares fit is
(7)
with a standard deviation of 8.17 cm-1
and correlation coefficient of 0.956. When the electron density associated
with the C=O group interacts with a protic solvent, the frequency
of the C=O stretching band is decreased. The fit to the experimental
data is improved somewhat by adding the solvent DN as a second variable.
There is a clear correlation between the frequency of this band and
the solvent's AN as can be seen in Table 4. The description of the
solvent effect is then
(8)
resulting in a standard deviation of 0.58 cm-1
and correlation coefficient of 0.9998. On the basis of the partial
regression coefficients solvent acidity accounts for 62% of the explained
variation in
and solvent basicity for 38%. In other words, the
probability that the solvents interact with the oxygen atom of the
C=O group is 62% and the probability that the solvent interaction
occurs with other sites on the urea molecule (i.e. -
NH2 groups) is 38%. The variance indicates that interaction of the
solvent with the electronegative C=O group in urea results in
a reduction in the bond frequency. The relative overall preferential
solvation factor for the whole urea molecule, pR,
and the relative partial preferential solvation factors,
,
, using water as a reference solvent
for urea in the considered solvents is listed in Table 2. It should
be stated that the value of unity for the preferential solvation factors
of the solute in the reference solvent (water in these cases) does
not mean that random solvation occurs. p<1 or p>1
indicate preferential solvation of the solute by the reference solvent
or by the co-solvent respectively; p=1 (with the exception
of the reference solvent) indicates random solvation. We can presumably
relate the preferential solvation parameters for the solutes in pure
solvents to those in mixed binary solvent systems. For example the
preferential solvation factors (Table 2) indicate that in the aqueous
MeCN solvent system, both the C=O and N-
H protons of the urea are preferentially solvated by water (both
and
are less than
one indicating preferential solvation by water), but that in the aqueous
DMSO solvent system, preferential solvation of the C=O is by
water (as
=0.352) whilst
that of the N- H protons of urea
is by DMSO (as
=1.656) . In the aqueous MeCN solvent
system, it is possible to predict that urea residues in the aqueous
structure as both sides of the urea molecule are preferentially solvated
by water.
In the case urea in aqueous DMSO, one presumes that
urea is accommodated at the interface between water and DMSO aggregating
with one side of the urea (C=O) preferentially hydrated while
the other surface of the molecule (N- H protons) is preferentially solvated by DMSO. Therefore,
solvent-solvent bond disruption by urea in aqueous DMSO is more than
that of in aqueous MeCN. The overall preferential solvation factors
for urea (
on Table 2), indicate the preferential solvation of
the whole urea molecule by water.
The wave numbers for the C=O stretching band
of TMU in the solvents considered have been measured and a correlation
with the solvent's acceptor number may be deduced as follows:
(9)
with a standard deviation of 0.399 cm-1
and a correlation coefficient of 0.9987. The fit is considerably improved
by adding DN to the description of the solvent effect. The result
is then
(10)
generating then a standard deviation of 0.183 cm-1
and an excellent correlation coefficient of 0.9998. No further improvement
is found when the solvent polarity, Y, is added as a third variable.
The role of each individual parameters is computed by calculating
the partial regression coefficients. Thus, the solvent acidity accounts
for 94% of the variation in
and solvent basicity for 6%. The agreement between the experimental
values of
and the estimated values by equation
10 is excellent and are tabulated in Table 4. Due to the steric effect
of the CH3 groups, all interactions are related to the solvent oxygen
of C=O group and interaction with other sites on the TMU molecule
(i.e. CH3 groups) are almost negligible.
Significant contribution to AN (-0.784) versus a small one from DN
(+0.047) in equation 10 is excellent support for this interpretation.
In those solutes considered, the interaction of the
C=O group with a protic solvent leads to a decrease in the frequency
of the C=O stretching mode. This is attributed to the formation
of mono- and di-hydrogen-bonded species involving the protic solvent
with the C=O group of the solutes. It is possible to relate
the solvation parameters of the TMU molecule in pure solvents to those
of for this molecule in mixed binary solvent systems. For example,
the preferential solvation factors in Table 3 indicate that in the
all the aqueous solvent systems both the C=O and N-
H protons of the TMU are preferentially solvated by water (both
and
for all solvents are less than one indicating preferential
solvation by water). The overall preferential solvation factors for
TMU (
on Table 3), indicate the preferential
solvation of the whole TMU molecule by water.
|
Table 1.
Important properties of the organic solvents
|
|
Solvent
|
Acceptor Number
AN
|
Donor
Number
DN
|
|
H2O
|
54.8
|
18
|
|
MeOH
|
41.3
|
19.1
|
|
EtOH
|
37.1
|
19.2
|
|
1-Propanol
|
37.7
|
19.8
|
|
2-Propanol
|
33.8
|
21.1
|
|
t-Butanol
|
27.1
|
21.9
|
|
DMSO
|
19.3
|
29.8
|
|
MeCN
|
18.9
|
14.1
|
|
Nitromethane
|
20.5
|
2.7
|
|
Diethyl ether
|
3.9
|
19.2
|
|
CCl4
|
8.6
|
0.0
|
|
Benzene
|
8.2
|
0.0
|
|
Hexane
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
Table
2.
Relative preferential solvation factors for urea
in considered solvents using water as the reference solvent. |
| Solvent |
 |
 |
 |
| H2O |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| MeOH |
0.805 |
0.754 |
1.061 |
| EtOH |
0.742 |
0.677 |
1.067 |
| 1-propanol |
0.757 |
0.688 |
1.100 |
| 2-propanol |
0.710 |
0.617 |
1.172 |
| t-butanol |
0.615 |
0.494 |
1.217 |
| DMSO |
0.571 |
0.352 |
1.656 |
| MeCN |
0.418 |
0.345 |
0.783 |
| Nitromethane |
0.337 |
0.374 |
0.150 |
| Diethyleter |
0.238 |
0.071 |
1.067 |
| CCl4 |
0.131 |
0.157 |
0.00 |
| Benzene |
0.124 |
0.150 |
0.00 |
| Hexane |
0.002 |
0.00 |
0.014 |
Table
3.
Relative preferential solvation factors for TMU in the
solvents considered using water as reference solvent. |
| solvent |
 |
 |
 |
| H2O |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| MeOH |
0.754 |
0.754 |
0.754 |
| EtOH |
0.677 |
0.677 |
0.677 |
| 1-propanol |
0.688 |
0.688 |
0.688 |
| 2-propanol |
0.617 |
0.617 |
0.617 |
| t-butanol |
0.495 |
0.495 |
0.495 |
| DMSO |
0.352 |
0.352 |
0.352 |
| MeCN |
0.345 |
0.345 |
0.345 |
| Nitromethane |
0.374 |
0.374 |
0.374 |
| CCl4 |
0.157 |
0.157 |
0.157 |
| Benzene |
0.150 |
0.150 |
0.150 |
| Diethyleter |
0.071 |
0.071 |
0.071 |
| Hexane |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
|
Table 4.
Comparison of the experimental and calculated (using
equations 8 and 10) frequencies of the C=O stretching
band of urea and TMU in different pure solvents
|
| solvents |
Experimental C=O
stretching band of TMU in different pure solvents (cm-1) |
calculating C=O
stretching band of TMU in different pure solvents (cm-1) |
Experimental C=O
stretching band of urea in different pure solvents (cm-1) |
calculating C=O
stretching band of urea in different pure solvents (cm-1) |
| D2O |
1590.0000 |
1614.14 |
1606.00 |
1600.09 |
| MeOD |
1624.80 |
1624.78 |
1625.00 |
1625.63 |
| EtOD |
1628.20 |
1628.08 |
1634.00 |
1633.87 |
| 1-Propanol |
1627.80 |
1627.64 |
1632.00 |
1631.95 |
| 2-Propanol |
1630.80 |
1630.76 |
1638.00 |
1638.12 |
| t-Butanol |
1636.00 |
1636 .05 |
1650.12 |
1650.49 |
| DMSO |
1642.50 |
1642.55 |
1657.00 |
1656.37 |
| Nitromethane |
1640.00 |
1640.33 |
1687.50 |
1687.07 |
| MeCN |
1641.90 |
1642.12 |
1677.05 |
1676.33 |
| CCl4 |
1649.50 |
1649.54 |
1714.00 |
1714.06 |
| Benzene |
1650.00 |
1649.85 |
1715.00 |
1714.85 |
| Hexane |
1656.50 |
1656.29 |
1730.00 |
1730.87 |
| Diethylethane |
1654.13 |
1654.13 |
1699.60 |
1699.97 |
References
- K. B. Patel, G. Eaton, and M. C. R. Symon, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday
Trans. I, (1985), 85, 2775.
- M. C. R. Symon and G. Eaton, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans.
I, (1985), 81, 1963.
- G. Eaton, and M. C. R. Symon, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans.
I, (1988), 84, 3429.
- G. Eaton, and M. C. R. Symon, and P. P. Rastogi, J. Chem. Soc.
Faraday Trans. I, 85, (1989), 3257.
- W. R. Fawcett, in Theoretical and Computational Chemistry: Quantitative
Treatments of Solute/Solvent Interactions, P. Politzer and J. S.
Murray, editors, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Volume 1, p. 183.
- W. R. Fawcett, J. Phys. Chem., 97 (1993)
9540.
- V. Gutmann, Coord. Chem. Rev., 19 (1976)
225.
- U. Mayer, V. Gutmann, and W. Gerger, Monatsch. Chem.,
(1975), 106 , 1235.
- D. Feakins, C. ODuinn and W. E. Waghorne, J. Solution
Chem., (1987), 16, 907.
- A. Costigan, D. Feakins, I. McStravick, C. ODuinn, J. Ryan
and W. E. Waghorne, J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. (1991),
87, 2443.
- D. Feakins, P. Hogan, C. ODuinn, and W. E. Waghorne, J.
Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. (1992), 88, 423.
Received 14th December 2001, received in revised format 18th January
2002, accepted 19th January 2002.
REF: G. Rezaei Behbehani, M. Hamedi, F. Hoseinpour
Rajabi.
Int.J.Vibr.Spec., [www.ijvs.com] 5, 6, 5 (2001)

[IJVS Home]
[Hot Sources]
[Links] [Bookshelf]
[Contents]
[Publication
Details] [Help]
[Back Issues]
[Feedback] [Announcements]
Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd