X-Ray crystal and ab initio structure of 3-ethynylcyclopropene: a curiously short carbon–carbon double bond

Abstract

The X-ray crystal structure of 3-ethynylcyclopropene shows that the carbon–carbon double bond of the molecule is unusually short [1.255(2) Å], whereas theoretical calculations suggest a relative insensitivity of the bond length to adjacent orbital interactions.

References

1. R. Boese, in Advances in Strain in Organic Chemistry, ed. B. Halton, JAI Press, London, 1992, vol. 2, p. 191.
2. (a) R. Boese, D. Bläser, R. Gleiter, K.-H. Pfeifer, W. E. Billups and M. M. Haley, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1993, 115, 743; (b) R. Boese, D. Bläser, W. E. Billups, M. M. Haley, W. Luo and B. E. Arney, Jr., J. Org. Chem., 1994, 59, 8125.
3. M. M. Haley, B. Biggs, W. A. Looney and R. D. Gilbertson, Tetrahedron Lett., 1995, 36, 3457.
4. R. Boese and M. Nussbaumer, in Organic Crystal Chemistry, IUCr Crystallographic Symposia, ed. D. W. Jones and A. Katrusiak, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1994, vol. 7, p. 20.
5. R. Boese, D. Osswald, D. Brodalla and D. Mootz, J. Appl. Crystallogr., 1985, 18, 316.
6. F. Allen, O. Kennard, D. G. Watson, L. Brammer, A. G. Orpen and R. Taylor, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans 2, 1987, S1.
7. With high bond orders, e.g. triple bonds, X-ray methods tend to determine bond distances too short because in the refinement procedure the atom positions are shifted towards the bonding electrons. In such cases the ellipsoids are streched in the bonding direction; however, this is not the case with 1(Fig. 1). This effect can be reduced by high angle refinements or applying a weighted scheme which increases the weights for high angle data. In our case this had only a very small effect.
8. A search of the Cambridge crystallographic data base revealed the previous record holder of shortest C=C bond in a hydrocarbon to be 3-ethenylcyclopropene 2[ref. 2(b)].
9. Reported here are Restricted Hartree–Fock (RHF), density functional (DFT), hybrid density functional (HDFT), Moller–Plesset perturbation theory (MP2)(ref. 10) and coupled cluster doubles (CCD)(ref. 11) theories. These calculations were performed using CADPAC (ref. 12) and GAUSSIAN94 (ref. 13) programs. Basis sets are reported including 6-31G(ndqf,mp)(ref. 14), 6-31GE, DZ(nd,mp), (ref. 15) and the 8s6p3d basis set, where the number of f functions (q= 0–1), d functions (n= 0–3) and p functions (m= 0–3). The 6-31GE and 8s6p3d basis sets are special to CADPAC. The former basis is obtained from the 6-31G basis by (i) adding diffuse s and p functions with exponents 1/3 that of the lowest exponent in the parent basis, and (ii) using two sets of polarization functions, which are slightly on the diffuse side. The result is a basis set between DZP and TZ + 2P type basis sets in quality which is biased towards property calculations. The latter basis is one of the largest polarized double-z sets used in this study. The DFT method employed was Beck's 1988 functional (ref. 16) along with Perdew and Wang's 1991 gradient-corrected correlation functional (ref. 17), denoted BPW91. The HDFT method includes a mixture of Hartree–Fock exchange with DFT exchange-correlation, denoted B3PW91. This is Becke's 3 parameter functional (ref. 18) where the nonlocal correction is provided by the Perdew 91 expression (ref. 17). A B3LYP [correlation functional including both local and nonlocal terms provided by Lee, Yang and Parr (refs. 18, 19)] calculation is done for comparison purposes. The nature of each stationary point was uniquely characterized by analytically calculating and diagonalizing the matrix of energy second derivatives (Hessian) to determine the number of imaginary frequencies.
10. B. I. Dunlap, J. W. D. Connolly and J. R. Sabin, J. Chem. Phys., 1979, 71, 3396.
11. J. A. Pople, R. Krishnan, H. B. Schlegel and J. S. Binkley, Int. J. Quant. Chem., XIV, 1978, 545.
12. R. D. Amos and J. E. Rice, ‘CADPAC: The Cambridge Analytic Derivatives Package’, issue 5.2, Cambridge, 1987.
13. M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, P. M. W. Gill, B. G. Johnson, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, T. A. Keith, G. A. Petersson, J. A. Montgomery, K. Raghavachari, M. A. Al-Laham, V. G. Zakrzewski, J. V. Ortiz, J. B. Foresman, J. Cioslowski, B. B. Stefanov, A. Nanayakkara, M. Challacombe, C. Y. Peng, P. Y. Ayala, W. Chen, M. W. Wong, J. L. Andres, E. S. Replogle, R. Gomperts, R. L. Martin, D. J. Fox, J. S. Binkley, D. J. DeFrees, J. Baker, J. P. Stewart, M. Head-Gordon, C. Gonzalez and J. A. Pople, Gaussian, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1994.
14. R. Ditchfield, W. J. Hehre and J. A. Pople, J. Chem. Phys., 1971, 54, 724; W. J. Hehre, R. Ditchfield and J. A. Pople, J. Chem. Phys., 1972, 56, 2257.
15. T. H. Dunning, Jr. and P. J. Hay, Modern Theoretical Chemistry, Plenum, New York, 1976, p. 1.
16. A. D. Becke, Phys. Rev. A., 1988, 38, 3098.
17. J. P. Perdew and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. B, 1992, 45, 13 244.
18. A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 1993, 98, 5648.
19. C. Lee, W. Yang and R. G. Parr, Phys. Rev. B, 1988, 37, 785.