Y-aromaticity: Why is the trimethylenemethane dication more stable than the butadienyl dication?
Journal of Organic Chemistry, ISSN: 0022-3263, Vol: 70, Issue: 19, Page: 7605-7616
2005
- 34Citations
- 28Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations34
- Citation Indexes34
- 34
- CrossRef21
- Captures28
- Readers28
- 28
Article Description
Resonance energies of the trimethylenemethane dication (1) and the butadienyl dication (4) were evaluated using two independent computational methodologies to provide insight into the validity of Y-aromaticity. One methodology employed density functional theory calculations and examined the resonance contribution of the C=C double bond toward the double hydride abstraction enthalpies of methylpropene (6) and 2-butene (8), yielding 1 and 4, respectively. These resonance contributions by the double bond were determined by calculating the double hydride abstraction enthalpies of both the parallel and perpendicular conformations of vinylogues of 6 and 8, in which n = 1-4 vinyl units were inserted between the central carbon-carbon double bond and each of the reaction centers. Extrapolation of the resonance contribution in each vinylogue to n = 0 yielded the resonance contribution in the respective parent molecules. The second methodology employed an orbital deletion procedure (ODP), which effectively allowed us to examine the energies of individual resonance structures. The resonance energy of each dication is computed as the difference between the most stable resonance structure and that of the delocalized species. The two methodologies are in agreement, suggesting that the resonance energy of the trimethylenemethane dication is substantially greater than that of the butadienyl dication. The origin of this difference in resonance stabilization is discussed. © 2005 American Chemical Society.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know