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 (...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |