Issue 17, 2016

Electron conjugation versus π–π repulsion in substituted benzenes: why the carbon–nitrogen bond in nitrobenzene is longer than in aniline

Abstract

Gas-phase electron diffraction experiments show that the C–N bond in aniline (1.407 Å) is significantly shorter than in nitrobenzene (1.486 Å). It is known that the amino group is electron-donating and the nitro group is electron-withdrawing, and both substitution groups can effectively conjugate with benzene. Thus, it is puzzling why the C–N bond in nitrobenzene is even longer than the single C–N bond in methylamine (1.472 Å). In this work, we performed computations by strictly localizing the π electrons with the block-localized wavefunction (BLW) method, which is a variant of ab initio valence bond theory. Geometry optimizations of electron-localized states, where the conjugation over the C–N bond is quenched, show that the conjugation in nitrobenzene is only half of the conjugation in aniline. But even in optimal electron-localized states, the C–N bond in nitrobenzene is still 0.074 Å longer than in aniline. As a consequence, it is indeed not the π conjugation which is responsible for the disparity of the C–N bond distances in these systems. Instead, we demonstrated that the π–π repulsion, which is contributed by both Pauli exchange and electrostatic interaction, plays the key role in this “abnormal” behavior. Notably, the π resonance within the nitro group generates a considerable dipole, which repels the π electrons in the benzene ring. The deactivation of the resonance within the nitro group significantly shortens the C–N bond by 0.06 Å. The unfavorable π–π electrostatic repulsion is further exemplified by N2O4. In fact, the destabilizing π–π repulsion is ubiquitous but largely neglected in conjugated systems where only the stabilizing conjugation is the focus. Experimental phenomena such as the C–N bond distances in aniline and nitrobenzene result from the balance of both stabilizing and destabilizing forces.

Graphical abstract: Electron conjugation versus π–π repulsion in substituted benzenes: why the carbon–nitrogen bond in nitrobenzene is longer than in aniline

Article information

Article type
Paper
Submitted
21 ene. 2016
Accepted
25 ene. 2016
First published
28 ene. 2016

Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2016,18, 11821-11828

Electron conjugation versus π–π repulsion in substituted benzenes: why the carbon–nitrogen bond in nitrobenzene is longer than in aniline

H. Zhang, X. Jiang, W. Wu and Y. Mo, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2016, 18, 11821 DOI: 10.1039/C6CP00471G

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content.

Social activity

Spotlight

Advertisements