Cargando…

Identifying Molecular Structural Aromaticity for Hydrocarbon Classification

[Image: see text] Determination of aromaticity in hydrocarbons may be as simple as determining the average bond length for the molecule of interest. This would greatly assist in classifying the nature of hydrocarbon chemistry, especially for large molecules such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fortenberry, Ryan C., Novak, Carlie M., Lee, Timothy J., Bera, Partha P., Rice, Julia E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2018
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6643553/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31458241
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b02734
_version_ 1783437137231740928
author Fortenberry, Ryan C.
Novak, Carlie M.
Lee, Timothy J.
Bera, Partha P.
Rice, Julia E.
author_facet Fortenberry, Ryan C.
Novak, Carlie M.
Lee, Timothy J.
Bera, Partha P.
Rice, Julia E.
author_sort Fortenberry, Ryan C.
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] Determination of aromaticity in hydrocarbons may be as simple as determining the average bond length for the molecule of interest. This would greatly assist in classifying the nature of hydrocarbon chemistry, especially for large molecules such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) where today’s aromatic classification methods are prohibitively expensive. The average C–C bond lengths for a test set of known aromatic, antiaromatic, and aliphatic cyclic hydrocarbons are computed here, and they show strong delineating patterns for the structural discernment of these aromaticity classifications. Aromatic molecules have average C–C bond lengths of 1.41 Å or less with the largest molecules, PAHs, having the longest average C–C bond lengths; aliphatic species have such lengths of 1.50 Å or more; and antiaromatic species fall between the two. Consequently, a first-order guess as to the aromaticity of a system may simply arise from its geometry. Although this prediction will likely have exceptions, such simple screening can easily classify most cases, and more advanced techniques can be brought to bear on the cases that lie in the boundaries. Benchmarks for hydrocarbons are provided here, but other classes of molecular structural aromaticity likely will have to be defined on an ad hoc basis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6643553
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66435532019-08-27 Identifying Molecular Structural Aromaticity for Hydrocarbon Classification Fortenberry, Ryan C. Novak, Carlie M. Lee, Timothy J. Bera, Partha P. Rice, Julia E. ACS Omega [Image: see text] Determination of aromaticity in hydrocarbons may be as simple as determining the average bond length for the molecule of interest. This would greatly assist in classifying the nature of hydrocarbon chemistry, especially for large molecules such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) where today’s aromatic classification methods are prohibitively expensive. The average C–C bond lengths for a test set of known aromatic, antiaromatic, and aliphatic cyclic hydrocarbons are computed here, and they show strong delineating patterns for the structural discernment of these aromaticity classifications. Aromatic molecules have average C–C bond lengths of 1.41 Å or less with the largest molecules, PAHs, having the longest average C–C bond lengths; aliphatic species have such lengths of 1.50 Å or more; and antiaromatic species fall between the two. Consequently, a first-order guess as to the aromaticity of a system may simply arise from its geometry. Although this prediction will likely have exceptions, such simple screening can easily classify most cases, and more advanced techniques can be brought to bear on the cases that lie in the boundaries. Benchmarks for hydrocarbons are provided here, but other classes of molecular structural aromaticity likely will have to be defined on an ad hoc basis. American Chemical Society 2018-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6643553/ /pubmed/31458241 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b02734 Text en Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society This is an open access article published under an ACS AuthorChoice License (http://pubs.acs.org/page/policy/authorchoice_termsofuse.html) , which permits copying and redistribution of the article or any adaptations for non-commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Fortenberry, Ryan C.
Novak, Carlie M.
Lee, Timothy J.
Bera, Partha P.
Rice, Julia E.
Identifying Molecular Structural Aromaticity for Hydrocarbon Classification
title Identifying Molecular Structural Aromaticity for Hydrocarbon Classification
title_full Identifying Molecular Structural Aromaticity for Hydrocarbon Classification
title_fullStr Identifying Molecular Structural Aromaticity for Hydrocarbon Classification
title_full_unstemmed Identifying Molecular Structural Aromaticity for Hydrocarbon Classification
title_short Identifying Molecular Structural Aromaticity for Hydrocarbon Classification
title_sort identifying molecular structural aromaticity for hydrocarbon classification
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6643553/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31458241
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.8b02734
work_keys_str_mv AT fortenberryryanc identifyingmolecularstructuralaromaticityforhydrocarbonclassification
AT novakcarliem identifyingmolecularstructuralaromaticityforhydrocarbonclassification
AT leetimothyj identifyingmolecularstructuralaromaticityforhydrocarbonclassification
AT beraparthap identifyingmolecularstructuralaromaticityforhydrocarbonclassification
AT ricejuliae identifyingmolecularstructuralaromaticityforhydrocarbonclassification