Jump to main content
Jump to site search
Access to RSC content Close the message box

Continue to access RSC content when you are not at your institution. Follow our step-by-step guide.


Issue 7, 2012
Previous Article Next Article

Rethinking the term “pi-stacking”

Author affiliations

Abstract

It has become common to reference “pi-stacking” forces or “pi–pi interactions” when describing the interactions between neighbouring aromatic rings. Here, we review experimental and theoretical literature across several fields and conclude that the terms “pi-stacking” and “pi–pi interactions” do not accurately describe the forces that drive association between aromatic molecules of the types most commonly studied in chemistry or biology laboratories. We therefore propose that these terms are misleading and should no longer be used. Even without these terms, electrostatic considerations relating to polarized pi systems, as described by Hunter and Sanders, have provided a good qualitative starting place for predicting and understanding the interactions between aromatics for almost two decades. More recent work, however, is revealing that direct electrostatic interactions between polarized atoms of substituents as well as solvation/desolvation effects in strongly interacting solvents must also be considered and even dominate in many circumstances.

Graphical abstract: Rethinking the term “pi-stacking”

Back to tab navigation

Article information


Submitted
11 Jan 2012
Accepted
23 Apr 2012
First published
24 Apr 2012

Chem. Sci., 2012,3, 2191-2201
Article type
Perspective

Rethinking the term “pi-stacking”

C. R. Martinez and B. L. Iverson, Chem. Sci., 2012, 3, 2191
DOI: 10.1039/C2SC20045G

Social activity

Search articles by author

Spotlight

Advertisements