Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RECEIVED: October 18, 2015 REVISED: January 13, 2016 ACCEPTED: January 14, 2016
Abstract: Due to the presence of the carbonyl and imide groups in the structure of 5,5-diphenylhydantoin (DPH), the possibility for this com-
pound to be involved in hydrogen bonding intermolecular interactions is obvious. Even though such interactions are presumably responsible
for the mechanism of action of this drug, however, to the best of our knowledge, the self-hydrogen bonding interactions between the DPH
monomers have not been addressed till now. Furthermore, studies reporting on the spectroscopic characteristics of this molecule are scarcely
reported in the literature.
Here we report on the possible dimers of DPH, investigated by quantum chemical calculations at B3LYP/6-31+G(2d,2p) level of theory.
Twelve unique DPH dimers were structurally optimized in gas-phase, as well as in ethanol and DMSO and then were used to compute the
population-averaged UV-Vis and NMR spectra using Boltzmann statistics. UV-Vis and NMR techniques were employed to assess experimentally
the spectroscopical response of this compound. DFT calculations are also used to investigate the structural transformations between the solid
and liquid phase, as well as for describing the electronic transitions and for the assignment of NMR spectra of DPH.
Computational Details
The optimization of DPH geometry and single point calcula-
tions were performed with the Gaussian 09, revision C.01
software package[26] by using DFT approaches. The hybrid
B3LYP exchange-correlation functional[2730] was used in
conjunction with Poples split-valence 6-31+G(2d,2p) basis
set.[31,32] Default criteria were used to define the conver-
gence of both the electronic density and molecular geome-
tries. Stationary points were characterized by analytical
frequency calculations.
Absorption spectra of DPH were calculated using the
time-dependent DFT (TD-DFT) methodology,[33] imple-
mented in the Gaussian09 package, which describes the ex-
cited states in terms of all possible single excitations from
occupied to virtual orbital. These spectra have been calcu-
Figure 1. B3LYP/6-31+G(2d,2p) optimized molecular lated on DPH optimized structures at B3LYP /6-31+G(2d,2p)
structure of the most stable conformer of phenytoin in gas- level of theory. The nature of the excited states has been
phase and the atom numbering scheme analyzed using the Natural Transition Orbitals (NTO) for-
malism proposed by Martin.[34] This formalism offers com-
N3-H31 and carbonyl C4=O7 groups seems to be responsi- pact description of the electronic excitations with the
ble for its anticonvulsant activity, whereas the amine N1- advantage that only one or two occupied/virtual pairs of
H30 and carbonyl C2=O6 groups have mutagenic activity.[15] orbitals are enough for a clear interpretation of the physical
Previously, UV-Vis measurements were used for de- nature of the excited states involved in absorption and
termining the phenytoin quantity alone[16,17] or in the pres- emission processes.[3539]
ence of other drugs.[18,19] Moreover, such data give The calculation of NMR chemical shifts for DPH was
information about the solubility in different solvents.[20,21] performed using the GIAO (Gauge-Including Atomic Or-
Also, NMR measurements were used to study DPH in solu- bital) method,[40,41] implemented in the Gaussian09 pack-
tion[2224] and its binding to model peptide corresponding age, with the B3LYP exchange-correlation functional, in
to a segment of sodium channel.[25] conjunction with 6-31+G(2d,2p) basis set. In order to ex-
All these findings prompted us to study the dimeri- press the chemical shifts in terms of the total computed
zation process of DPH through hydrogen bonding interac- NMR shielding tensors, TMS (tetramethylsilane) shielding
tions. Thus, a thorough conformational analysis of the tensors were calculated at the same level of theory.
dimeric species following the Boltzmann's distribution law The solvent effects have been considered by using the im-
is presented in this work. Moreover, combining the experi- plicit Polarizable Continuum Model (PCM)[42] using the inte-
mental UV-Vis and NMR techniques with quantum chemi- gral equation formalism (IEFPCM) variant.[43]
cal calculations we addressed the effect of such hydrogen
bonding interactions on the electronic transitions as well as RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
on the NMR chemical shifts of DPH.
Table 1 Dihedral angles and hydrogen bond lengths characterizing the DPH monomer and dimers in gas-phase, ethanol and
DMSO (first, second and third entry, respectively) at B3LYP/6-31+G(2d,2p). The dihedral angles 1 and 2 correspond to the
first monomer and 1 and 2 correspond to the second monomer in the dimer. Experimental data for the known solid state
structure of DPH are included for comparison purposes.
Figure 2. B3LYP/6-31+G(2d,2p) optimized structures for the twelve dimers of 5,5-diphenylhydantoin in gas-phase.
of dimers because they are significantly more stable than The angles between the planes defined by the phe-
other types of dimers, formed for instance by dispersion in- nyl groups and the hydantoin unit are presented in Table 2.
teractions. Moreover, only the double hydrogen bonded di- The best agreement between the experimental and calcu-
mers were considered because it is expected that the lated data is again noted for the gas-phase molecule, par-
geometry of single hydrogen bonded dimers will converge ticularly for the (Ph2,Hyd) dihedral angle. According to
to a double H bonded structure. quantum chemical calculations, in liquid phase, the angle
A total number of 12 double hydrogen bonded between the Ph1 and Hyd planes is only slightly changed
unique dimers can be formed, of which 6 are of AA type and with respect to gas-phase. On the other hand, the dihedral
6 of AB type. The BB and BA type dimers were not consid- angle (Ph1,Ph2) decreases in solution, simultaneously with
ered because they are mirror images of the AA and AB a slight increase of the (Ph2,Hyd) angle.
types, respectively. The conformations of the 12 unique di- An improved description for the solid state structure
mers are shown in Figure 2 and some of their selected could be achieved by using a cluster of molecules able to des-
structural parameters are reported in Table 1 (see Table S2 cribe all the four hydrogen bonds involving at least one mono-
in the Electronic Supplementary Information for Cartesian mer and also, by considering the dispersion interactions; such
coordinates of their optimized geometries). an analysis is, however, beyond the scope of this study.
The geometries of the dimers were fully optimized According to Carter et al.,[44] the distance between
and all of them correspond to minima on the potential en- the centroids of the phenyl rings and the carbonyl oxygen
ergy surface. It is worth mentioning that the geometries of atoms seem to play a dominant role for the binding mech-
the 2AA, 4AA and 6AA dimers have C2 symmetry, while anism of DPH to the receptor in the sodium channel.
those of the 2AB, 4AB and 6AB dimers are of Ci symmetry. As seen in Table 2, these distances are not much af-
We shall first briefly discuss the structural character- fected by the transition between the gas-phase and liquid
istics of the monomer for which geometrical parameters phase. With respect to the solid state structure,[1] in ethanol
have been reported by Camerman et al.[1] and discussed and DMSO, the distances between the O7 atom and the two
also by Tamir et al.[22] As seen in Table 1, for the gas-phase centroids X1 and X2 increase very slightly. The same trend is
molecule, the calculated angles which define the relative observed for the distances from O6 to the two centroids.
orientation of the two phenyl rings with respect to the hy- Regarding the dimers of DPH, the hydrogen bond
dantoin unit (1 = C4C5C8C9, 2 = C4C5C14C19) are in length reported in the last column of Table 1 is the distance
qualitative agreement with the experimental data, as al- between the corresponding nitrogen and oxygen atoms.
ready observed by Tamir et al.[22] Even a quantitative agree- First, as it comes out from Table 1, there is no qualitative
ment is observed for 2, while 1 is slightly worse difference between the geometric al parameters that char-
reproduced. These calculated angles do not change appre- acterize the relative orientation of the phenyl rings to the
ciably in the two solvents, a very small increase (cca. 4 ) hydantoin unit for the dimeric structures in gas-phase and
being observed for both angles. Even though the dissolu- ethanol. Moreover, for ethanol and DMSO solutions, the
tion of the compound is likely to be accompanied by a con- angles and hydrogen bonding distances are almost identi-
formational change of the molecule, however, the present cal. On the other hand, the hydrogen bond distances for the
results suggest only a minor modification of the 1 angle gas-phase structures are constantly shorter than for corre-
when going from solid to liquid state. sponding solvated dimers.
Table 2. Calculated angles between planes and distances between the ring centroids and oxygen atoms for DPH monomer in
gas-phase, ethanol and DMSO
Thus, the same geometry is predicted for the same where Ei are the relative energies corrected for zero-point
kind of dimers in the two solvents, which is slightly different vibrational energies (EZPVE), kB is the Boltzmann constant,
from that predicted for the gas-phase. T is the temperature (T = 298 K) and gi are the degeneracy
It is reasonable to assume that the strength of the HB degrees for each conformer (gi = 2 for C1 symmetry and
interactions will play a major role in the stability of the gi = 1 for C2 and Ci symmetries).[4547]
dimers. This is indeed true for the solvated dimers in which As shown in Table 3, our calculations predict a dra-
case the dimeric structures with the shortest (averaged) HB matic change in the pattern of relative energies of some di-
distance (2AB dimer) are the most stable, the situation being mers when going from gas-phase to liquid-phase. However,
is mirrored for the gas-phase structures. For the latter ones, the two 2AA and 2AB dimers are the most stable both, in
the most stable, nearly isoenergetic dimers 2AA and 2AB gas-phase and liquid phase. On the other hand, due to the
have an averaged HB distance of 2.837 , significantly shorter symmetry degeneracy, the largest relative Boltzmann pop-
than the immediately higher in energy dimers 6AB and 5AB. ulations are predicted for the 5AB and 5AA dimers in gas
The intermolecular hydrogen bonding in the most phase, but the largest contributions to the spectroscopic
stable dimer 2AA lead to the increase of the N-H and C=O properties in solution are predicted for the dimers of type
bond lengths by about 0.021 and 0.014 , respectively, with 2, 3 and 5, either AA or AB. Particularly, the 2AB and 2AA
respect to the monomer. For example, the N1-H30 bond is dimers, which are the most stable in liquid phase contrib-
lengthened from 1.009 to 1.030 and C2=O6 bond from ute together almost 30 % of the total population in solu-
1.210 to 1.224 . The X-ray study[1] shows that in the crys- tion. In ethanol and DMSO solvents, the dimers 2AB, 2AA,
tal lattice, the N1-H30 bond and N3-H31 bond is 0.93 and 3AA, 3AB, 5AA and 5AB are within a 0.59 kcal mol1, which is
0.809 respectively and C4=O7 bond and C2=O6 bond is less than the room temperature energy. Even though signifi-
1.222 and 1.209 respectively. The differences appear cantly higher in energy, due to the symmetry degeneracy,
because DPH molecule is involved in two hydrogen bonds the dimers 1AA and 1AB have appreciable relative popula-
in all the investigated dimers but in solid state each mono- tions higher, than 5 %. In such cases, the calculated spectra
mer is connected to four neighbor molecules, making two must include the responses from all species, weighted by
pairs of equivalent hydrogen bonds of 2.784 and 2.884 their Boltzmann factors.[4552] For this reason we calculated
(see Figure S1 in ESI). the electronic absorption and NMR spectra of DPH consid-
Relative Boltzmann populations are calculated using ering the dimers with relative populations greater than 5 %.
the formula:
UV-Vis Spectrum
Ei
k T
The UV-Vis spectra of DPH in ethanol (see Figure 3) were
B
gi e recorded at five concentrations, ranging from 105 M to 10
Pi Ei 4 M. A slight red-shift from 204 nm to 211 nm was observed
k T
ge
i i
B
for max by increasing the concentration.
Table 3. Relative energies (ZPE corrected) and Boltzmann populations of the twelve DPH dimers in gas-phase (B3LYP/6-
31+G(2d,2p) level of theory) and in ethanol and DMSO (PCM-B3LYP/6-31+G(2d,2p) level of theory), at room temperature
Table 4. Theoretical UV-Vis absorption spectral data calculated for the DPH monomer and dimer 2AB in ethanol at B3LYP/6-
31+G(2d,2p) level of theory
The intermediate UV curve with the peak at = 208 nm is are also included). The computed chemical shifts for each
the result of absorption of a mixed population of 50 % of the eight most stable dimers are given in Table 6 (their
monomers and 50 % dimers. The experimental peak at = cumulated Boltzmann population is 92.7 %). The experi-
211 nm is due to a 100 % population of dimers. mental 1H NMR spectrum of DPH in DMSO shows two peaks
(each of integral 1) located at 9.39 and 11.18 ppm which
NMR Analysis are due to the H31 and H30 protons, respectively (see Fig-
The optimized structure of DPH conformer in gas phase was ure 1 for atom numbering scheme).
re-optimized in DMSO by considering the solvent effect us- The other two peaks at 7.35 ppm (integral: 2) and
ing the polarized continuum model (PCM). Calculation of vi- 7.41 ppm (integral: 8) can easily be assigned to the phenyl
brational frequencies has confirmed that the unique protons, as shown in Table 5.
structure is a stationary point with no negative eigenvalue When the 13C NMR spectrum of the molecule is con-
observed in the force constant matrix. The theoretical sidered, it is seen that two downfield peaks due to the most
chemical shifts are derived from the total computed NMR de-shielded carbon nuclei C4 and C2 are located at 174.81
shielding tensors by using the TMS (tetramethylsilane) ppm and 156.00 ppm, while the most shielded C5 nucleus
shielding tensors as reference. The experimental and calcu- gives a peak at 70.22 ppm. In this spectrum, the peak due
lated (population averaged) chemical shifts, both for mon- to equivalent alkenal carbon atoms C8 and C14 (in the phe-
omer and the twelve investigated dimers of DPH in DMSO, nyl rings) bonded to the carbon atom in hydantoin is lo-
are listed in Table 5 (the mean absolute error (MAE) values cated at 139.90 ppm, while for the remaining carbon nuclei
S1 0.97
S9 0.67
S12 0.56
S13 0.51
S14 0.46
S15 0.46
S16 0.48
S18 0.66
Figure 4. B3LYP/6-31+G(2d,2p) calculated hole (HOTO) and particle (LUTO) natural transition orbitals (isovalue 0.04 a.u.), as
well as their coefficients, involved in the electronic transitions with appreciable oscillator strength for DPH monomer in ethanol.
Shown are only the HOTO-LUTO pairs which contribute the most to each particular excitation. The NTO coefficients represent
the extent to which the excitation can be written as a single configuration[35].
Table 5. Experimental and theoretical chemical shifts (in bonding interactions can affect the shielding of H30 and
ppm) for DPH in DMSO H31 protons. This is indeed the case, and dimer calculations
show that these intermolecular interactions modify the
Experimental Theoretical data(b) charge density of the hydantoin unit, having as a result the
Atoms significant change of the chemical shift of C2 and H31 nuclei
data(a) Monomer Dimer
and to a smaller extent for the H30 nucleus. The value of
C4 174.81 174.73 174.40 chemical shift for the C5 nucleus in dimer improves only
C2 156.00 153.99 156.32 slightly compared to the monomer case. The reason must
C8, C14 139.90 138.87 139.71 be that the C5 nucleus is shielded by the phenyl rings more
strongly than predicted by the PCM continuum solvation
C10, C12, C16, C18 128.45 126.89 126.46
model. As seen in Table 6, the 5AB and 1AB dimers provide
C11, C17 127.98 126.70 126.48 an improved agreement between the experimental and cal-
C9, C13, C15, C19 126.57 126.14 126.11 culated chemical shift for H30 proton, at the expense of a
C5 70.22 77.70 76.96 worse agreement for the H31 proton. Nevertheless, the
corresponding calculated values for the individual dimers,
H31 11.18 8.40 11.50
as well as the weighted average are unacceptably away
H30 9.39 6.67 5.64 from the experimental counterparts. This discrepancy can
H22, H27 7.35 7.99 7.75 be attributed to the non-inclusion of the specific solute-sol-
H20, H21, H23-H26, 7.41 7.84 7.70 vent interactions in the computational model.
H28, H29
MAE 1.86 1.49
(a) The NMR 1H and 13C data of DPH in DMSO with respect to the TMS CONCLUSIONS
reference values.
(b) The chemical shifts calculated at B3LYP/6-31+G(2d,2p) level of theory with The geometrical structures of the monomer and twelve
respect to TMS reference values; dimer data were derived as a weighted
average of the chemical shifts calculated for the eight most stable dimers unique dimers of 5,5-diphenylhydantoin have been investi-
of DPH in DMSO whose cumulated Boltzmann population is 92.7 % (see gated by DFT approach at B3LYP/6-31+G(2d,2p) level of
Table 6).
theory. Calculated relative ZPE-corrected energies for the
in the phenyl rings, the corresponding three peaks are DPH dimers show that the same two dimers (2AA and 2AB)
found between 126.57 and 128.45 ppm. As can be seen in are most stable in gas-phase and in solution, as well, but an
Table 5, the main differences between experimental values important change in relative stabilities is noted for the re-
and those calculated for monomer are noted for the C5 nu- maining set of 10 dimers. Almost identical geometries are
cleus as well as for the H30 and H31 protons. The hydrogen- predicted for the same kind of dimers in liquid phase,
Table 6. Experimental and theoretical chemical shifts (in ppm) for the most stable eight DPH dimers in DMSO
Atoms Experimental 2AB 3AA 2AA 3AB 5AA 5AB 1AA 1AB Weighted
Data average
C4 174.81 173.57 175.81 173.71 174.72 173.07 173.41 178.98 176.4 174.40
C2 156.00 158.29 154.25 157.9 155.59 156.14 156.3 154.36 155.7 156.32
C8, C14 139.90 140.13 139.12 140.22 139.9 139.15 139.66 139.51 139.64 139.71
C10, C12, 128.45 126.41 126.23 126.75 126.5 126.61 126.37 126.15 126.69 126.46
C16, C18
C11, C17 127.98 126.98 126.74 126.12 126.23 126.38 126.53 126.11 126.33 126.48
C9, C13,
C15, C19 126.57 126.62 125.91 125.43 126.03 126.66 126.08 126.1 125.53 126.11
C5 70.22 77.53 77.22 76.89 76.53 76.36 76.89 77.41 77.09 76.96
H31 11.18 11.65 11.88 11.59 11.69 12.15 9.6 11.94 9.53 11.50
H30 9.39 5.48 5.24 5.47 5.29 5.3 7.47 5.31 7.3 5.64
H22, H27 7.41 7.73 7.72 7.69 7.72 7.69 7.71 7.61 7.66 7.70
H20, H21,
H23-H26, 7.35 7.71 7.73 7.78 7.77 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.71 7.75
H28, H29
Population / % 15.66 14.41 14.19 13.93 11.81 11.63 5.54 5.50
[21] N. Triovi, N. Valenti, M. Erovi, T. Dakovi-Sekuli, [36] F. Lachaud, C. Jeandon, M. Beley, R. Ruppert, P. C.
G. Uumli, Monatsh Chem. 2011, 142, 1227. Gros, A. Monari, X. Assfeld, J. Phys. Chem. A 2012,
[22] I. Tamir, R. Mchoulam, A. Y. Meyer, J. Med. Chem. 116, 10736.
1980, 23, 220. [37] G. Velmurugan, B. K. Ramamoorthi, P.
[23] G. M. Hannaa, Drug. Dev. Ind. Pharm. 1984, 10, 341. Venuvanalingam, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2014,
[24] O. B. Ibrahim, M. M. AL-Majthoub, M. A. Mohamed, 16, 21157.
A. M. A. Adam, M. S. Refat, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. [38] T. Etienne, C. Michaux, A. Monari, X. Assfeld, E. A.
2015, 10, 1065. Perpte, Dyes Pigm. 2014, 100, 24.
[25] B. S. Lou, T. H. Lin, C. Z. Lo, J. Pept. Res. 2005, 66, 27. [39] S. Markovi, J. Toovi, J. Phys. Chem. A 2015, 119,
[26] Gaussian 09, Revision C. 01, M. J. Frisch, G. W. 9352.
Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria, M. A. Robb, J. [40] R. Ditchfield, Mol. Phys. 1974, 27, 789.
R. Cheeseman, G. Scalmani, V. Barone, B. Mennucci, [41] K. Wolinski, J. F. Hilton, P. Pulay, J. Am. Chem. Soc.
G. A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, M. Caricato, X. Li, H. P. 1990, 112, 8251.
Hratchian, A. F. Izmaylov, J. Bloino, G. Zheng, J. L. [42] J. Tomasi, B. Mennucci, R. Cammi, Chem. Rev. 2005,
Sonnenberg, M. Hada, M. Ehara, K. Toyota, R. 105, 2999.
Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y. [43] G. Scalmani, M. J. Frisch, J. Chem. Phys. 2010, 132,
Honda, O. Kitao, H. Nakai, T. Vreven, J. A. 114110.
Montgomery, Jr., J. E. Peralta, F. Ogliaro, M. [44] M. Carter, V. Stephenson, D. Weaver, J. Mol. Struct.
Bearpark, J. J. Heyd, E. Brothers, K. N. Kudin, V. N. (Theochem.) 2003, 638, 57.
Staroverov, T. Keith, R. Kobayashi, J. Normand, K. [45] L. Ducasse, F. Castet, A. Fritsch, I. Huc, T. Buffeteau,
Raghavachari, A. Rendell, J. C. Burant, S. S. Iyengar, J. Phys. Chem. A 2007, 111, 5092.
J. Tomasi, M. Cossi, N. Rega, J. M. Millam, M. Klene, [46] P. H. Willoughby, M. J. Jansma, T. R. Hoye, Nat.
J. E. Knox, J. B. Cross, V. Bakken, C. Adamo, J. Protoc. 2014, 9, 643.
Jaramillo, R. Gomperts, R. E. Stratmann, O. Yazyev, [47] A. J. Lopes Jesus, S. Jarmelo, R. Fausto, I. Reva,
A. J. Austin, R. Cammi, C. Pomelli, J. W. Ochterski, R. Spectrochim. Acta A 2015, 140, 54.
L. Martin, K. Morokuma, V. G. Zakrzewski, G. A. Voth, [48] A. Halasa, L. Lapinski, I. Reva, H. Rostkowska, R.
P. Salvador, J. J. Dannenberg, S. Dapprich, A. D. Fausto, M. J. Nowak, J. Phys. Chem. A 2015, 119,
Daniels, O. Farkas, J. B. Foresman, J. V. Ortiz, J. 1037.
Cioslowski, D. J. Fox, Gaussian, Inc., Wallingford CT, [49] T. Mori, Y. Inoue, S. Grimme, J. Org. Chem. 2006, 71,
2010. 9797.
[27] A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 98, 5648. [50] T. Buffeteau, D. Cavagnat, A. Bouchet, T. Brotin, J.
[28] C. Lee, W. Yang, R. G. Parr, Phys. Rev. B 1988, 37, Phys. Chem. A 2007, 111, 1045.
785. [51] M. Montejo, F. P. Urea, G. Mrquez, J. J. L.
[29] S. H. Vosko, L. Wilk, M. Nusair, Can. J. Phys. 1980, 58, Gonzlez, J. Phys. Chem. A 2008, 112, 1545.
1200. [52] E. Vineler, N. -F. Stan, R. Luchian, C. Cinap, J. P.
[30] P. J. Stephens, F. J. Devlin, C. F. Chabalowski, M. J. Prates-Ramalho, V. Chi, J. Mol. Model. 2015, 21, 84.
Frisch, J. Phys. Chem. 1994, 98, 11623. [53] J. B. Foresman, . Frisch, Exploring Chemistry with
[31] W. J. Hehre, R. Ditchfield, J. A. Pople, J. Chem. Phys. Electronic Structure Methods (third edition),
1972, 56, 2257. Gaussian Inc., Wallingford, CT USA, 2015.
[32] M. J. Frisch, J. A. Pople, J. S. Binkley, J. Chem. Phys. [54] X. Zheng, Q. Peng, J. Lin, Y. Wang, J. Zhou, Y. Jiao, Y.
1984, 80, 3265. Bai, Y. Huang, F. Li, X. Liu, X. Pua, Z. Lu, J. Mater.
[33] M. R. Casida, C. Jamorski, K. C. Casida, D. R. Salahub, Chem. C 2015, 3, 6970.
J. Chem. Phys. 1988, 108, 4439. [55] Gaussian Tech Notes. Plotting UV/Vis Spectra from
[34] R. L. Martin, J. Chem. Phys. 2003, 118, 4775. Oscillator & Dipole Strengths.
[35] A. E. Clark, J. Phys. Chem. A 2006, 110, 3790. [56] P. J. Stephens, N. Harada, Chirality 2010, 22, 229.
1
Babe-Bolyai University, Faculty of Physics,1 Koglniceanu, RO-400084 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Iuliu Haieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 8 Victor Babe, RO-400012 Cluj-Napoca,
Romania
Fig.S1 Intermolecular hydrogen bonding pattern in DPH single crystals (data from ref.
[1]). Hydrogen atoms have been removed for the sake of clarity.
1
Electronic Supplementary Information
Table S1 Theoretical UV-Vis absorption spectral data calculated for DPH dimers in ethanol, with
populations greater than 5% (data for 2AB dimer are given in Table 4)
Dimer Excited state (nm) fa) transitionsb) Contributions (%)c)
S1 H-1L 28
247.9 0.054
HL+1 22
S2 H-1L+1 22
247.6 0.081
HL 28
2AA
S22 216.0 0.106 H-3L+2 13
S40 207.6 0.295 HL+9 11
S45 204.4 0.112 HL+8 12
S46 204.2 0.062 H-5L+7 20
S1 H-1L 51
247.9 0.057
HL 35
S2 HL+1 32
247.8 0.065
H-2L+1 18
S15 HL+3 43
224.3 0.047
3AA H-1L+2 18
S24 H-2L+3 22
215.6 0.055
H-2L+5 17
S37 210.1 0.065 H-10L 17
S41 207.7 0.197 H-2L+5 15
S47 204.0 0.062 H-5L+7 20
S1 HL+1 23
248.3 0.046
HL 20
S2 H-1L 51
247.7 0.079
HL+1 20
S24 216.0 0.048 H-2L+3 25
3AB S34 211.1 0.047 HL+4 18
S37 H-11L 18
210.1 0.048
H-10L 17
S44 205.1 0.069 H-6L+4 16
S46 204.7 0.049 H-9L 44
S47 204.0 0.046 H-9L 15
S1 H-1L 30
248.4 0.071
HL+1 30
S2 HL+1 28
247.6 0.058 H-1L+1 19
H-2L+1 19
S15 H-7L+1 27
224.6 0.040 HL+2 26
H-1L+2 17
5AA
S23 H-2L+2 25
216.2 0.048
H-2L+4 20
S24 H-3L+3 32
215.6 0.042
H-3L+5 19
S40 207.8 0.093 H-3L+5 15
S41 207.7 0.200 H-2L+4 14
S42 207.3 0.069 H-2L+9 15
S45 205.3 0.074 H-6L+5 25
2
Electronic Supplementary Information
S46 H-7L+4 19
204.8 0.072
H-4L+2 17
S1 248.6 0.059 HL 51
H-1L+1 37
S2 247.5 0.071
H-2L+1 18
H-2L+2 24
S23 216.2 0.049
H-2L+4 20
5AB H-3L+3 32
S24 215.6 0.046
H-3L+5 18
H-2L+3 34
S45 205.3 0.043
H-6L+5 17
S46 204.9 0.042 H-4L+2 39
S47 204.5 0.047 H-4L+2 25
HL 32
S1 248.7 0.069
HL+1 23
H-1L 44
S2 247.4 0.049
H-1L+1 17
1AA
S24 216.2 0.048 H-3L+2 18
S29 213.3 0.044 H-1L+5 18
S37 210.3 0.099 H-10L 20
S52 204.8 0.081 H-6L+5 20
HL 35
S1 249.1 0.068
HL+1 19
H-1L 46
S2 247.6 0.047
HL+1 17
1AB
S25 216.0 0.054 H-2-L+2 12
S38 209.9 0.075 H-10L 19
S41 208.1 0.059 L-4H+5 10
S43 207.7 0.224 HL+7 8
a)
only transitions with f > 0.04 are included
b)
H HOMO and L LUMO
c)
only contributions >15% are included
3
Electronic Supplementary Information
Table S2 Cartesian coordinates of the optimized structures of the monomer and the twelve dimers of 5,5-
diphenylhydantoin in gas-phase at B3LYP/6-31+G(2d,2p) level of theory
Monomer
N -0.1212 1.4452 -1.085
C -0.313 2.7205 -0.6213
N -0.167 2.6438 0.7745
C -0.0293 1.3597 1.2411
C -0.0131 0.4391 -0.0189
O -0.5525 3.7235 -1.2538
O 0.0664 1.0175 2.3945
C -1.2211 -0.507 -0.0678
C -2.3317 -0.3484 0.7667
C -3.4475 -1.1751 0.6243
C -3.4696 -2.1662 -0.3549
C -2.3636 -2.3332 -1.1896
C -1.2467 -1.5135 -1.0427
C 1.3259 -0.3107 -0.0471
C 2.3441 0.0428 -0.9355
C 3.5629 -0.6401 -0.9218
C 3.7781 -1.6734 -0.0128
C 2.767 -2.0223 0.8852
C 1.5489 -1.3481 0.868
H -2.3308 0.4053 1.544
H -4.2969 -1.0424 1.2846
H -4.3369 -2.8074 -0.4634
H -2.3654 -3.1062 -1.9498
H -0.3841 -1.666 -1.6821
H 2.1891 0.8529 -1.6368
H 4.3412 -0.3579 -1.6218
H 4.7243 -2.2023 -0.0011
H 2.9262 -2.8209 1.6008
H 0.772 -1.6218 1.5709
H -0.472 1.2114 -2.001
H -0.2089 3.4595 1.367
Dimers
1AA 1AB
4
Electronic Supplementary Information
2AA 2AB
C 0.2537 4.8667 1.2538 C -4.8623 -1.3028 0.0724
C -0.4587 4.5763 2.4209 C -4.5099 -2.3905 -0.7326
5
Electronic Supplementary Information
6
Electronic Supplementary Information
3AA 3AB
7
Electronic Supplementary Information
4AA 4AB
C -0.161 -4.2987 1.2375 C -4.2586 1.2326 -0.0102
8
Electronic Supplementary Information
5AA 5AB
9
Electronic Supplementary Information
10
Electronic Supplementary Information
6AA 6AB
C -0.068 -3.714 1.2822 C -3.7584 -1.3196 0.0043
11
Electronic Supplementary Information
12