Reply to the Correspondence on "How Aromatic Are Molecular Nanorings? The Case of a Six‐Porphyrin Nanoring". Issue 36 (11th July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Casademont‐Reig, Irene; Soriano‐Agueda, Luis; Ramos‐Cordoba, Eloy; Torrent‐Sucarrat, Miquel; Matito, Eduard
• Is Part Of: Angewandte Chemie international edition. Volume 61:Issue 36(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-07-11
• Subjects: Aromaticity -- Delocalization Error -- NMR Spectroscopy -- Nanorings -- Ring Currents; Chemistry -- Periodicals; 540
• DOI: 10.1002/anie.202206836
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1433-7851

Abstract

Abstract: A recent article by Anderson and co‐workers challenges our conclusions on the aromaticity of the four oxidation states of a butadyine‐linked six‐porphyrin nanoring, based on the experimental 1 H‐NMR data and some recent calculations they have performed using the BLYP35 functional. Here, we show that BLYP35 should be taken with caution and demonstrate that the indirect evidence of a ring current from experimental 1 H‐NMR data is not a definite proof of aromaticity. Abstract : Ring‐current strengths are a useful aromaticity measure that is obtained indirectly through the ring‐current model using experimental 1 H‐NMR data. The computation of ring currents provides direct visual aid and reveals that the ring‐current model overestimates the ring‐current strength of large molecular rings. Ring‐current plots show that c‐P6[ b 6 ]⋅T6 6+ (left) is much less aromatic than benzene (right).