Y-Aromaticity: Why Is the Trimethylenemethane Dication More Stable than the Butadienyl Dication?
Publication type: Journal Article
Publication date: 2005-07-12
scimago Q2
wos Q1
SJR: 0.737
CiteScore: 6.1
Impact factor: 3.6
ISSN: 00223263, 15206904
PubMed ID:
16149789
Organic Chemistry
Abstract
[reactions: see text] 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.
Found
Nothing found, try to update filter.
Found
Nothing found, try to update filter.
Top-30
Journals
|
1
2
|
|
|
Molecules
2 publications, 6.06%
|
|
|
Journal of the Iranian Chemical Society
2 publications, 6.06%
|
|
|
Journal of Organic Chemistry
2 publications, 6.06%
|
|
|
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics
2 publications, 6.06%
|
|
|
New Journal of Chemistry
2 publications, 6.06%
|
|
|
Current Organocatalysis
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Journal of Chemical Sciences
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Tetrahedron
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Computational and Theoretical Chemistry
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Journal of Molecular Liquids
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Chemistry - A European Journal
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Angewandte Chemie
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Angewandte Chemie - International Edition
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
European Journal of Organic Chemistry
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Journal of Physical Organic Chemistry
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Journal of the American Chemical Society
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Annual Reports Section B (Organic Chemistry)
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Materials Chemistry Frontiers
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Journal of Materials Chemistry C
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung - Section B Journal of Chemical Sciences
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Journal of Ionic Liquids
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Current Organic Synthesis
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
RSC Advances
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Russian Chemical Bulletin
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
CrystEngComm
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Mendeleev Communications
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
Structural Chemistry
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
1
2
|
Publishers
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
|
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
9 publications, 27.27%
|
|
|
Wiley
6 publications, 18.18%
|
|
|
Springer Nature
5 publications, 15.15%
|
|
|
Elsevier
4 publications, 12.12%
|
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
3 publications, 9.09%
|
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
2 publications, 6.06%
|
|
|
MDPI
2 publications, 6.06%
|
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
OOO Zhurnal "Mendeleevskie Soobshcheniya"
1 publication, 3.03%
|
|
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
|
- We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
- Statistics recalculated weekly.
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
33
Total citations:
33
Citations from 2025:
2
(6.06%)
Cite this
GOST |
RIS |
BibTex |
MLA
Cite this
GOST
Copy
Dworkin A. et al. Y-Aromaticity: Why Is the Trimethylenemethane Dication More Stable than the Butadienyl Dication? // Journal of Organic Chemistry. 2005. Vol. 70. No. 19. pp. 7605-7616.
GOST all authors (up to 50)
Copy
Dworkin A., Naumann R., Seigfred C., Karty J. M., Mo Y. Y-Aromaticity: Why Is the Trimethylenemethane Dication More Stable than the Butadienyl Dication? // Journal of Organic Chemistry. 2005. Vol. 70. No. 19. pp. 7605-7616.
Cite this
RIS
Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1021/jo0508090
UR - https://doi.org/10.1021/jo0508090
TI - Y-Aromaticity: Why Is the Trimethylenemethane Dication More Stable than the Butadienyl Dication?
T2 - Journal of Organic Chemistry
AU - Dworkin, Amy
AU - Naumann, Rachel
AU - Seigfred, Christopher
AU - Karty, Joel M
AU - Mo, Yirong
PY - 2005
DA - 2005/07/12
PB - American Chemical Society (ACS)
SP - 7605-7616
IS - 19
VL - 70
PMID - 16149789
SN - 0022-3263
SN - 1520-6904
ER -
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors)
Copy
@article{2005_Dworkin,
author = {Amy Dworkin and Rachel Naumann and Christopher Seigfred and Joel M Karty and Yirong Mo},
title = {Y-Aromaticity: Why Is the Trimethylenemethane Dication More Stable than the Butadienyl Dication?},
journal = {Journal of Organic Chemistry},
year = {2005},
volume = {70},
publisher = {American Chemical Society (ACS)},
month = {jul},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1021/jo0508090},
number = {19},
pages = {7605--7616},
doi = {10.1021/jo0508090}
}
Cite this
MLA
Copy
Dworkin, Amy, et al. “Y-Aromaticity: Why Is the Trimethylenemethane Dication More Stable than the Butadienyl Dication?.” Journal of Organic Chemistry, vol. 70, no. 19, Jul. 2005, pp. 7605-7616. https://doi.org/10.1021/jo0508090.