4.6 Article

Relating nucleus independent chemical shifts with integrated current density strengths

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 23, 期 19, 页码 11240-11250

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1cp00784j

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of education, science and technological development of Serbia [451-03-68/2020-14/200122]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explored the relationship between NICS indices and bond current strengths in 43 monocyclic aromatic molecules, revealing linear correlations between certain indices and bond current strengths while also noting lack of correlation between others.
Indices based on the nucleus independent chemical shift (NICS) are the most frequently used in analysis of magnetic aromaticity. The magnetically induced current density, on the other hand, is a key concept in defining magnetic aromaticity. The integrated current strength (current strength susceptibility) was found to be a very useful tool in aromaticity studies. There is widely accepted notion that the properly chosen NICS-based index can provide information on the current density strength and direction in a molecule of interest. In this work, a detailed numerical testing of the relationship between the integrated bond current strength and the most employed NICS indices was performed for a set of 43 monocyclic aromatic molecules. Based on the statistical data analysis, the relationship between the bond current strength and its pi and sigma electron components, on one side, and the isotropic NICS (NICSiso and NICS pi,iso) and zz-component of the NICS tensor (NICSzz and NICS pi,zz), on the other side, was examined. It was found that between the NICS pi,zz(1) and pi-electron bond current strenghts there is very good linear correlation. Quite surprisingly, it was revealed that the NICSiso(1) and NICSzz(1) are not correlated with the pi electron bond current strengths. On the other hand, a reasonably good linear correlation was found between the NICSzz(1) and total bond current strengths.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据