Novel cyclen-polyiodide complexes: a reappraisal of I-I covalent and secondary bond limits
Dalton Transactions, ISSN: 1477-9234, Vol: 51, Issue: 28, Page: 10728-10739
2022
- 9Citations
- 3Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting 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
- Citations9
- Citation Indexes9
- CrossRef4
- Captures3
- Readers3
Article Description
Supramolecular stabilization of polyiodides and iodine-dense phases is of high interest: this study explores the possibilities offered in this sense by diprotonated cyclen, affording two novel crystal structures. One of them contains at least one peculiar I⋯I interatomic distance (3.305(1) Å), falling well below the region commonly described by secondary bonding (3.4-3.7 Å) and essentially equal to the accepted limit for covalent bonding (3.30 Å): in other words, according to threshold distance values, we are relatively free to regard this interaction either as a bond or as contact. Lest the flip of a coin decides if we should or should not draw a bond in a polyiodide, statistical insights based on CSD surveys were used to put in perspective literature material and work out a meaningful assignment (as I). In doing so, we address how currently accepted threshold distance values came to be in the first place, their significance, soundness, and shortcomings in describing I and its formal fragments (I, I, I). Discussion of the chemical meaning of the line representing bonding in I-I fragments in similar fringe cases, relating CSD data herein presented with the previous literature, is provided. Available information coincides quite well in supporting the necessity of a revision of broadly accepted threshold distance values.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85127790637&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/d2dt00185c; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35293413; https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=D2DT00185C; https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/d2dt00185c; https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/dt/d2dt00185c
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know