Aromaticity of tropylium derivatives: When and why might captodative structures be preferred over the isomeric push‐pull structures?

Abstract

AbstractAn intriguing question in the general problem of aromaticity is whether captodative aromatic systems with the donor and acceptor substituents at the same carbon of the CC bond can be more stable than the π‐conjugated push‐pull counterparts? The analysis of electronic, magnetic, and structural criteria of aromaticity showed that for conventional organic substituents XO, TfN, (NC)2C, (NO2)2C, Tf2C, the push‐pull tropylidene derivatives [tropylium]+CHCHX− are expectedly more stable than their captodative isomers [tropylium]+C(X−)CH2, with the lowest ΔE for the most strong acceptor Tf2C. A different behavior is observed for XMHlg3 (MB, Al; HlgF, Cl). They are not only structurally and magnetically most aromatic in both series but show the inverse stability of the push‐pull and captodative isomers, the latter being more stable by up to 10 kcal/mol (in gas).The difference between the MHlg3 groups and conventional organic groups is that in the latter the electron density is transferred to the π‐system of the substituent, while the former can accept it only to the σ*(CM) orbital. Thus, when the electron donor and acceptor effects are separated between the σ and π systems, captodative isomers can be more stable than their push‐pull isomers with more extended conjugation.