In the spirit of the mounting interest in noncovalent interactions, the present study was conducted to scrutinize a special type that simultaneously involved both σ-hole and lone pair (lp) interactions with aromatic π-systems. Square-pyramidal pentavalent halogen-containing molecules, including X-Cl-F4, F-Y-F4, and F-I-X4 compounds (where X = F, Cl, Br, and I and Y = Cl, Br, and I) were employed as σ-hole/lp donors. On the other hand, benzene (BZN) and hexafluorobenzene (HFB) were chosen as electron-rich and electron-deficient aromatic π-systems, respectively. The investigation relied upon a variety of quantum chemical calculations that complement each other. The results showed that (i) the binding energy of the X-Y-F4···BZN complexes increased (i.e., more negative) as the Y atom had a larger magnitude of σ-hole, contrary to the pattern of X-Y-F4···HFB complexes; (ii) the interaction energies of X-Y-F4···BZN complexes were dominated by both dispersion and electrostatic contributions, while dispersive interactions dominated X-Y-F4···HFB complexes; and (iii) the X4 atoms in F-I-X4···π-system complexes governed the interaction energy pattern: the larger the X4 atoms were, the greater the interaction energies were, for the same π-system. The results had illuminating facets in regard to the rarely addressed cases of the σ-hole/lp contradictory scene.
In the spirit of the mounting interest in noncovalent interactions, the present study was conducted to scrutinize a special type that simultaneously involved both σ-hole and lone pair (lp) interactions with aromatic π-systems. Square-pyramidal pentavalent halogen-containing molecules, including X-Cl-F4, F-Y-F4, and F-I-X4 compounds (where X = F, Cl, Br, and I and Y = Cl, Br, and I) were employed as σ-hole/lp donors. On the other hand, benzene (BZN) and hexafluorobenzene (HFB) were chosen as electron-rich and electron-deficient aromatic π-systems, respectively. The investigation relied upon a variety of quantum chemical calculations that complement each other. The results showed that (i) the binding energy of the X-Y-F4···BZN complexes increased (i.e., more negative) as the Y atom had a larger magnitude of σ-hole, contrary to the pattern of X-Y-F4···HFB complexes; (ii) the interaction energies of X-Y-F4···BZN complexes were dominated by both dispersion and electrostatic contributions, while dispersive interactions dominated X-Y-F4···HFB complexes; and (iii) the X4 atoms in F-I-X4···π-system complexes governed the interaction energy pattern: the larger the X4 atoms were, the greater the interaction energies were, for the same π-system. The results had illuminating facets in regard to the rarely addressed cases of the σ-hole/lp contradictory scene.
Over recent decades,
noncovalent interactions have been an active
field of interest to the chemical and chemical-related communities.
Studies on this subject have surged dramatically to interpret and
rationalize findings in areas including, but not limited to, materials
science and medicinal chemistry.[1−5] Understanding the nature and attitude of such interactions furnishes
scientists with predictive power over complex systems encountered
in everyday life. Among the essential noncovalent interactions are
π-system-based interactions. The importance of such interactions
is clearly manifested in a multitude of chemical and biological phenomena.[6−9] An aromatic π-system can be electron-rich or electron-deficient,
as in benzene and hexafluorobenzene, respectively. However, no matter
a π-system is electron-rich or electron-deficient, it can be
noncovalently bonded to a σ-hole-containing molecule as in the
case of halogen-containing molecule···π-system
interactions.[10] The σ-hole term is
assigned to the area of positive or less negative electrostatic potential
emerging on the outer surface of the covalently bonded halogen, pnicogen,
chalcogen, and tetrel atoms along the extension of the covalent bond.[11−14] Of all of the types of σ-hole interactions, the halogen bond
is believably the most familiar and well-studied one.[15−18]The strength of halogen···π-system interaction
was reported to correlate with the σ-hole magnitude of the halogen
atom for the same π-system.[10] Aromatic
π-systems would also participate in other interactions, including
hydrogen···, tetrel···, and π-system···π-system
interactions.[19−23] Over and above these types, lone pair···π-system
interactions have been frequently reported.[24−28] A lone pair of electrons (simply, lone pair or lp)
refers to a pair of valence electrons that are not involved in covalent
bonding. Lone pairs constitute an essential aspect of Lewis structures
and VSEPR theory.[29−32] Generally, the nature of lp interactions is elusive and hard to
grasp, not to mention quantifying them. An eminent theory that tackled
this problem and has since been widely accepted to represent electron
pairs is the electron localization function (ELF).[33,34] ELF has been successfully used to visualize electrons shells and
lps in a chemically intuitive way.[35−39]Curious cases of molecules that, in theory,
can simultaneously
engage in both lp and σ-hole interactions from the same molecular
site are pentavalent halogen-bearing compounds. Lewis structure of
pentavalent chlorine compounds (X-Cl-F4), as displayed
in Figure , reveals
the localization of an lp on the extension of the X-Cl covalent bond.
Interestingly, a positive electrostatic region (i.e., σ-hole)
occurs at the same site of the lp. Such cases are problematic since
the σ-hole/lp molecular site can be thought of as both an electrophilic
and a nucleophilic site. Some of these compounds have indeed been
studied as σ-hole donors.[40−42] It has been reported that the
halogen bonding formed by these compounds is dominantly electrostatic
and dispersive in nature; while polarization plays a little role.[43]
Figure 1
(i) Lewis structure of X-Cl-F4 molecule. (ii)
Molecular
electrostatic potential (MEP) maps of F-Cl-F4 molecule
on electron density isosurface value of 0.002 au; the color scale
varies from −0.01 (red) to +0.01 (blue) au. (iii) Electron
localization function (ELF) molecular graph of the F-Cl-F4 molecule with ELF isosurface value of 0.7. (iv) Graphical representations
of the studied X-Cl-F4···, F-Y-F4···, and F-I-X4···π-systems.
(i) Lewis structure of X-Cl-F4 molecule. (ii)
Molecular
electrostatic potential (MEP) maps of F-Cl-F4 molecule
on electron density isosurface value of 0.002 au; the color scale
varies from −0.01 (red) to +0.01 (blue) au. (iii) Electron
localization function (ELF) molecular graph of the F-Cl-F4 molecule with ELF isosurface value of 0.7. (iv) Graphical representations
of the studied X-Cl-F4···, F-Y-F4···, and F-I-X4···π-systems.In this account, pentavalent chlorine compoundsX-Cl-F4 (where X = F, Cl, Br, and I) with C4 symmetry will be investigated as both
σ-hole
and lp donors. The models will first be studied in light of molecular
electrostatic potential surfaces and ELF representations. To study
the σ-hole/lp···π-system interactions,
potential energy surfaces (PESs) scan will be performed for X-Cl-F4 with two aromatic π-system models—namely, benzene
(BZN) and hexafluorobenzene (HFB). Symmetry-adapted perturbation theory
(SAPT) will be utilized to compute the contributions of different
terms of the interaction energy. The study will also make use of the
quantum theory of atoms in molecules (QTAIM) and noncovalent interaction
index (NCI index) to analyze the noncovalent interactions in terms
of the topology of electron density. The findings of the research
are advantageous to the researchers who seek the chemical foundation
of the ubiquitous biological and physical phenomena that involve aromatic
π-system-based interactions.
Results and Discussion
MEP and
ELF Representations
Molecular electrostatic
potential (MEP) maps enable chemists to anticipate how a molecular
site would react toward different chemical environments.[44−46] Besides, the electron localization function (ELF) is an elegant
tool that helps to locate pairs of electrons, particularly lone pairs
that are of deep chemical interest.[33,34] In this study,
to gain such chemical perspectives for the pentavalent chlorine-containing
molecules (i.e., X-Cl-F4), MEP was exploited along with
ELF. The geometrical structures of X-Cl-F4 molecules were
first optimized in C4 symmetry at the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ level of theory with PP functions
added to Br and I atoms. The optimized structures are depicted in Figure S1. Based on the optimized monomers, MEPs
were generated at the same level of theory and plotted on electron
density contours of 0.002 au (Figure ).
Figure 2
(i) MEP maps of X-Cl-F4 molecules (where X
= F, Cl,
Br, and I) on electron density isosurfaces of 0.002 au. The color
scale varies from −0.01 (red) to +0.01 (blue) au. (ii) ELF
molecular graphs of X-Cl-F4 molecules with an ELF isosurface
value of 0.7.
(i) MEP maps of X-Cl-F4 molecules (where X
= F, Cl,
Br, and I) on electron density isosurfaces of 0.002 au. The color
scale varies from −0.01 (red) to +0.01 (blue) au. (ii) ELF
molecular graphs of X-Cl-F4 molecules with an ELF isosurface
value of 0.7.As seen in Figure , a considerably large σ-hole appeared
on the outer surface
of the pentavalent chlorine atom along the extension of the X-Cl bond.
Conspicuously, the σ-hole size was affected by the attached
X atom such that the more electron-withdrawing X atom was, the larger
the blue region representing the σ-hole size became (Figure ). Also, Vs,max values decreased as the electronegativity
of the X atoms decreased in the order F-Cl-F4 > Cl-Cl-F4 > Br-Cl-F4 > I-Cl-F4 with values
of
52.1, 44.8, 40.4, and 33.7 kcal/mol, respectively. Consistent with
the literature, these results confirmed the favorability of the considered
pentavalent halogen compounds to interact as Lewis acid centers rather
than Lewis base analogs.[41]Moreover,
the ELF isosurface graphs ensured the existence of lone
pairs at the same molecular sites of the σ-holes, a coincidence
which theoretically can have a counteractive effect on the σ-hole
well-known interaction (Figure ).
Point-of-Charge Calculations
The
point-of-charge (PoC)
approach has been proven as a reliable tool for quantifying the predilection
of the molecular site to act as a nucleophilic or electrophilic site.[47−50] It was even proven, in some cases, where polarization was prevalent,
that the PoC approach is more reliable than MEP maps. For X-Cl-F4···PoC systems, molecular stabilization energies
were computed in the presence of ±0.50 au PoCs at a distance
range of 2.0–7.0 Å with a step size of 0.1 Å (see
the Computational Methods section for more
details). The generated molecular stabilization energy graphs are
displayed in Figure , and selected data at Cl···PoC distance of 2.5 Å
are listed in Table .
Figure 3
Molecular stabilization energies of X-Cl-F4 molecules
(where X = F, Cl, Br, and I) in the presence of ±0.50 au PoC
at Cl···PoC distance ranging from 2.0 to 7.0 Å.
Table 1
Molecular Stabilization Energies (Estabilization in kcal/mol) of X-Cl-F4 Molecules (where X = F, Cl, Br, and I) at a Cl ···PoC
Distance of 2.5 Å, Where PoC = ±0.50 and ±1.00 au
stabilization
energy (kcal/mol)
molecule
PoC = −0.50 au
PoC = +0.50 au
PoC = −1.00 au
PoC = +1.00 au
F-Cl-F4
–15.05
8.93
–35.46
10.00
Cl-Cl-F4
–12.34
5.58
–30.70
2.55
Br-Cl-F4
–10.87
3.87
–28.04
–1.09
I-Cl-F4
–8.70
1.43
–24.06
–6.12
Molecular stabilization energies of X-Cl-F4 molecules
(where X = F, Cl, Br, and I) in the presence of ±0.50 au PoC
at Cl···PoC distance ranging from 2.0 to 7.0 Å.At first glance, it was obvious that the σ-hole interaction
had power over the lp interactions. This was strongly affirmed in
the correlation of the σ-hole magnitude with the stabilization
and destabilization energies in the case of incorporating negative
and positive PoCs, respectively. For example, the molecular stabilization
energies resulting from incorporating −0.50 au PoC at a Cl···PoC
distance of 2.5 Å decreased (i.e., less negative) in the order
F-Cl-F4 > Cl-Cl-F4 > Br-Cl-F4 > I-Cl-F4 with values of −15.05, −12.34,
−10.87,
and −8.70 kcal/mol, respectively. When +0.50 au PoC was incorporated
at the same Cl···PoC distance, the destabilization
energy decreased (i.e., less positive) in the order F-Cl-F4 > Cl-Cl-F4 > Br-Cl-F44 > I-Cl-F4 with values of 8.93, 5.58, 3.87, and 1.43 kcal/mol, respectively.The molecular stabilization and destabilization energies were also
found to be inversely correlated with the Cl···PoC
distance for the systems understudy in the presence of negative and
positive PoCs, respectively (Figure ). However, it was observed for Br-Cl-F4 and I-Cl-F4 molecules that after relatively long distances,
the molecules were stabilized by a positive PoC and destabilized by
a negative PoC, as indicated in Figure . For further investigation, molecular stabilization
energies in the presence of ±1.00 au PoC were also calculated
at Cl···PoC distance of 2.5 Å, and the results
are presented in Table . As seen in Table , when +1.00 au PoC was incorporated, Br-Cl-F4 and I-Cl-F4 exhibited stabilization energies of −1.09 and −6.12
kcal/mol, respectively. While this could be attributed to the negative
fluorine atoms interactions, the lp might also have accounted for
some part of the attractive interaction. Possibly, competition occurred
between the electrophilicity of the σ-hole on one side and the
nucleophilicity of the lone pair and fluorine atoms on the other side
such that each side overwhelmed the other at a certain range of distance
or different values of PoC. On the other hand, when a large negative
value of PoC (i.e., −1.00 au) was used at a Cl···PoC
distance of 2.5 Å, it resulted in more stabilized molecules in
the order F-Cl-F4 > Cl-Cl-F4 > Br-Cl-F4 > I-Cl-F4 with stabilization energies values
of −35.46,
−30.70, −28.04, and −24.06 kcal/mol, respectively.
This was consistent with the results obtained in the case of −0.50
au PoC.To better conceive the situation, MEPs of the monomers
were generated
in the presence of ±1.00 au PoCs and are depicted in Figure S2. As obvious in Figure S2, PoC with a value of +1.00 au could induce negative
electrostatic potential regions that replaced the positive σ-hole.
It was obvious also that the size of the negative region correlated
with the size of the X attached atom in X-Cl-F4 monomers
in the order I-Cl-F4 > Br-Cl-F4 > Cl-Cl-F4 > F-Cl-F4. The emerging negative electrostatic
potential region could interpret the stabilization energy values for
Br-Cl-F4 and I-Cl-F4 when +1.00 au PoC was inserted.
PES Scan
While σ-hole···π-system
and lp···π-system interactions have been widely
investigated,[8,51−53] cases of combined
σ-hole/lp interaction with π-systems received no such
consideration. To address this case, σ-hole/lp···π-system
interactions were examined using X-Cl-F4 complexes with
BZN and HFB as an electron-rich and electron-deficient π-systems,
respectively. Potential energy surface (PES) scan at the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP)
level of theory was performed on X-Cl-F4···π-system
complexes in C2 symmetry
(see Figure ) at a
distance range from 2.5 to 7.0 Å with a step size of 0.1 Å.
PES scan graphs are depicted in Figure , and the computed binding energies at the most favorable
Cl···π-system distance are presented in Table .
Figure 4
Binding energies calculated
at the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP) level of
theory for X-Cl-F4···π-system complexes
(where X = F, Cl, Br, and I; π-system = benzene (BZN) and hexafluorobenzene
(HFB)) at a Cl···π-system distance of 2.5–7.0
Å with a step size of 0.1 Å.
Table 2
Binding Energies (in kcal/mol) Calculated
at the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP) and MP2/aug-cc-pVTZ(PP) Levels of Theory
for X-Cl-F4···π-System Complexes (Where
X = F, Cl, Br, and I; π-System = Benzene (BZN) and Hexafluorobenzene
(HFB)) at the Most Favorable Cl···π-System Distance
complex
X-Cl-F4···BZN
X-Cl-F4···HFB
X
bond lengtha (Å)
EMP2/aug-cc-pVDZb (kcal/mol)
EMP2/aug-cc-pVTZb (kcal/mol)
bond lengtha (Å)
EMP2/aug-cc-pVDZb (kcal/mol)
EMP2/aug-cc-pVTZb (kcal/mol)
F
3.12
–6.80
–7.48
3.11
–3.50
–4.19
Cl
3.12
–6.56
–7.29
3.08
–4.43
–5.21
Br
3.13
–6.34
–7.09
3.08
–4.71
–5.50
I
3.13
–6.03
–6.81
3.07
–5.10
–5.93
The most favorable X-Cl-F4···π-system
distance based on PES scan illustrated
in Figure .
PP functions were added to Br and
I atoms.
Binding energies calculated
at the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP) level of
theory for X-Cl-F4···π-system complexes
(where X = F, Cl, Br, and I; π-system = benzene (BZN) and hexafluorobenzene
(HFB)) at a Cl···π-system distance of 2.5–7.0
Å with a step size of 0.1 Å.The most favorable X-Cl-F4···π-system
distance based on PES scan illustrated
in Figure .PP functions were added to Br and
I atoms.According to the
data displayed in Figure , all of the studied σ-hole/lp···π-system
interactions exhibited significant negative binding energies. This
revealed that the pentavalent chlorine-bearing systems had the capacity
to preferentially interact with both electron-rich and electron-deficient
π-systems. From Table , the MP2/aug-cc-PVTZ(PP) binding energies showed very close
values to the MP2/aug-cc-PVDZ(PP) counterparts, ensuring the adequacy
of the implemented level of theory. Quantitatively speaking, as shown
in Table , the binding
energies for X-Cl-F4···BZN complexes decreased
(i.e., became less negative) in the order F-Cl-F4···
> Cl-Cl-F4··· > Br-Cl-F4···
> I-Cl-F4···BZN with values of −6.80,
−6.56, −6.34, and −6.03 kcal/mol, respectively.
This was understandable recalling the order of Vs,max of the X-Cl-F4 monomers. For the electron-deficient
HFB complexes, the pattern was reversed such that the binding energy
increased in the order F-Cl-F4··· < Cl-Cl-F4··· < Br-Cl-F4···
< I-Cl-F4···HFB with values of −3.50,
−4.43, −4.71, and −5.10 kcal/mol, respectively.
In contrast to the Vs,max pattern, the
obtained energetic results could be ascribed to the successive diminution
of the repulsive forces between the electron-deficient regions within
the X-Cl-X4···HFB complexes. While this
seems, ostensibly, reasonable due to the positivity of HFB and the
increasing positivity of the σ-hole, previous studies of σ-hole
interactions with HFB found that the binding energy of σ-hole-containing
molecule···HFB complexes correlated with the value
of Vs,max of the interacting σ-hole,[10] which was not the case here. It was inferred
that other factors besides the σ-hole interaction had affected
the binding energy pattern.
SAPT Analysis
Symmetry-adapted perturbation
theory
(SAPT) is presumably the most familiar and widely used approach among
energy decomposition analysis (EDA) methodologies.[54] SAPT breaks down the binding energy into its constituents,
which means it analyzes the binding energy into its electrostatic
(Eelst), dispersion (Edisp), induction (Eind), and
exchange (Eexch) components.[55] For the studied complexes, SAPT analysis was
carried out at the SAPT2 + (CCD)δMP2 level of truncation, and
the results are summarized in Table .
Table 3
Electrostatic (Eelst), Dispersion (Edisp), Induction
(Eind), and Exchange (Eexch) Interactions Contributions to the Binding Energies
of X-Cl-F4···π-System Complexes (Where
X = F, Cl, Br, and I; π-System = Benzene (BZN) and Hexafluorobenzene
(HFB)) Based on the Symmetry-Adapted Perturbation Theory (SAPT) Analysis
complex
Eelst
Edisp
Eind
Eexch
ESAPT
ΔEa
X-Cl-F4···BZN
F-Cl-F4···π-system
–6.39
–8.37
–2.02
10.18
–6.60
0.20
Cl-Cl-F4···π-system
–6.13
–9.00
–1.94
10.80
–6.27
0.29
Br-Cl-F4···π-system
–5.77
–8.99
–1.80
10.47
–6.09
0.25
I-Cl-F4···π-system
–5.39
–9.10
–1.66
10.32
–5.83
0.20
X-Cl-F4···HFB
F-Cl-F4···π-system
–1.55
–8.29
–1.59
7.92
–3.51
–0.01
Cl-Cl-F4···π-system
–2.69
–9.37
–1.55
9.22
–4.40
0.03
Br-Cl-F4···π-system
–2.97
–9.51
–1.45
9.23
–4.70
0.01
I-Cl-F4···π-system
–3.47
–9.78
–1.33
9.44
–5.14
–0.04
ΔE = ESAPT – EMP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP).
ΔE = ESAPT – EMP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP).From Table , the
binding energies of X-Cl-F4···BZN complexes
were dominated by both dispersion and electrostatic terms. Positive
exchange terms, representing the Pauli repulsion, also had remarkably
significant values. In the case of F-Cl-F4···BZN
complex, Eelst, Edisp, Eind, and Eexch values were −6.39, −8.37, −2.02,
and 10.18 kcal/mol, respectively. It was also found that for X-Cl-F4···BZN complexes, Eelst correlated, predictably, with the magnitude of the σ-hole
of the pentavalent chlorine atom. The Eelst values were −6.39, −6.13, −5.77, and −5.39
kcal for F-Cl-F4···, Cl-Cl-F4···, Br-Cl-F4···, and I-Cl-F4···BZN complexes, respectively.For X-Cl-F4···HFB complexes, Eelst values decreased significantly, and the
noncovalent interactions were dominated by dispersion forces. This
might entail that attractive interaction is directed by the σ-hole
rather than the lone pair. If the interaction had been directed by
the lone pair, the electrostatic term would have, supposedly, increased
by decreasing the electron-richness of the π-systems. As seen
in Table , in the
case of F-Cl-F4···HFB complex, Eelst, Edisp, Eind, and Eexch values were
−1.55, −8.29, −1.59, and 7.92 kcal/mol, respectively.
Moreover, Eelst of the examined X-Cl-F4···HFB complexes were inversely correlated
with the magnitude of the σ-hole of the pentavalent chlorine
atom. For instance, Eelst was −1.55,
−2.69, −2.97, and −3.47 kcal/mol for F-Cl-F4···, Cl-Cl-F4···,
Br-Cl-F4···, and I-Cl-F4···HFB,
respectively. This pattern of Eelst of
X-Cl-F4···HFB, along with the pattern of
the total binding energy, will be interpreted and rationalized in
light of the noncovalent interaction index (NCI index) analysis.It was clear from Table that the values of Eexch for
X-Cl-F4···BZN complexes are higher (i.e.,
more positive) than those of their counterparts in X-Cl-F4···HFB complexes. For example, Eexch was 10.18 and 7.92 kcal/mol for F-Cl-F4···BZN
and F-Cl-F4···HFB, respectively. This entailed
that the Pauli repulsion in the electron-rich BZN complexes was greater
than that of the electron-deficient HFB complexes. Assumedly, the
Pauli repulsion between the lone electron pair of X-Cl-F4 monomers and the π-system cloud of BZN was higher (i.e., more
positive) than the repulsion between the same lone pair and the electron-deficient
π-system cloud of HFB.
QTAIM Analysis
Despite being frequently
called into
question,[56−64] the quantum theory of atoms in molecules (QTAIM) is routinely used
to visualize and quantify chemical bonding between atoms.[65−69] The theory is fundamentally based on the topological analysis of
electron density. Through electron density analysis, bond paths (BPs)
were identified and bond critical points (BCPs) were located. Moreover,
the characteristics of BCPs were calculated. These characteristics
include electron density (ρb), Laplacian of the electron
density (∇2ρb), and total energy
density (Hb). For the studied complexes,
QTAIM analysis was performed, and the QTAIM molecular graphs are depicted
in Figure . BCPs characteristics
were calculated and are indicated in Table .
Figure 5
QTAIM diagrams of X-Cl-F4···π-system
complexes (where X = F, Cl, Br, and I; π-system = benzene (BZN)
and hexafluorobenzene (HFB)). The red and yellow dots indicate the
locations of bond critical points and ring critical points between
the monomers at the most favorable Cl···π-system
distance, respectively.
Table 4
Average
Noncovalent Bond Critical
Points (BCPs) Characteristics Including Total Energy Density (Hb, au), Laplacian of the Electron Density (∇2ρb, au), and Electron Density (ρb, au) for X-Cl-F4···π-System
Complexes (Where X = F, Cl, Br, and I; π-System = Benzene (BZN)
and Hexafluorobenzene (HFB)) at the Most Favorable Cl···π-System
Distances
complex
X-Cl-F4···BZN
X-Cl-F4···HFB
X
Hb (au)
∇2ρb (au)
ρb (au)
Hb (au)
∇2ρb (au)
ρb (au)
F
0.00094
0.02304
0.00701
0.00089
0.02450
0.00753
Cl
0.00091
0.02240
0.00655
0.00096
0.02573
0.00780
Br
0.00091
0.02207
0.00641
0.00098
0.02587
0.00776
I
0.00093
0.02205
0.00636
0.00104
0.02656
0.00787
QTAIM diagrams of X-Cl-F4···π-system
complexes (where X = F, Cl, Br, and I; π-system = benzene (BZN)
and hexafluorobenzene (HFB)). The red and yellow dots indicate the
locations of bond critical points and ring critical points between
the monomers at the most favorable Cl···π-system
distance, respectively.In
general, six bond paths arose between the pentavalent chlorine
atom of the X-Cl-F4 molecule and the carbon atoms of the
π-system in F-Cl-F4···BZN and ···HFB
complexes (Figure ). It was noted in the case of Cl-Cl-F4···,
Br-Cl-F4···, and I-Cl-F4···BZN
complexes that additional two bond paths formed between two fluorine
atoms and the two facing carbon atoms of the benzene ring.Considering
BCPs characteristics, tabulated in Table , relatively small values of
ρb accompanied by positive values of both Hb and ∇2ρb were noted, indicating the closed-shell nature of the examined interactions.
Moreover, a general correlation was found between the binding energies
of the X-Cl-F4···BZN complexes with the
ρb, ∇2ρb values.
For instance, the values of ρb were 0.00701, 0.00655,
0.00641, and 0.00636 au for F-Cl-F4···,
Cl-Cl-F4···, Br-Cl-F4···,
and I-Cl-F4···BZN complexes with binding
energies of −6.80, −6.56, −6.34, and −6.03
kcal/mol, respectively. For X-Cl-F4···HFB
complexes, the ρb and ∇2ρb patterns were a bit distorted, but, even though, still a
correlation between ρb on one side and the binding
energies on the other side could be noted. In addition, Hb and ∇2ρb values of
X-Cl-F4···HFB complexes correlated obviously
with the binding energies. For example, Hb values were found to be 0.00089, 0.00096, 0.00098, and 0.00104 au
for F-Cl-F4···, Cl-Cl-F4···,
Br-Cl-F4···, and I-Cl-F4···HFB
complexes, respectively.
NCI Analysis
While QTAIM adheres
to stringent criteria
for indicating chemical bonding between atoms, the noncovalent interaction
(NCI) index adopts more flexible measures to identify long-range chemical
bonding.[70] Hence, NCI analysis occasionally
manages to spot regions of chemical bonding that are not present in
the QTAIM picture.[10,71] NCI index makes use of the reduced
density gradient (RDG) quantity to reveal regions of both attractive
and repulsive interaction. Basically, NCI exploits the quantity sign(λ2)ρ (where λ2 is the second eigenvalue
of the Hessian matrix and ρ is the electron density) to determine
whether the interaction is attractive or repulsive and to give a measure
of its strength. For the studied complexes, NCI molecular graphs were
generated and are displayed in Figure .
Figure 6
Noncovalent interaction (NCI) diagrams of X-Cl-F4···π-system
complexes (where X = F, Cl, Br, and I; π-system = benzene (BZN)
and hexafluorobenzene (HFB)). The RDG isosurfaces were plotted at
the RDG value of 0.50 au and mapped with sign(λ2)ρ
values with a color scale ranging from −0.035 (blue) to 0.020
(red) au.
Noncovalent interaction (NCI) diagrams of X-Cl-F4···π-system
complexes (where X = F, Cl, Br, and I; π-system = benzene (BZN)
and hexafluorobenzene (HFB)). The RDG isosurfaces were plotted at
the RDG value of 0.50 au and mapped with sign(λ2)ρ
values with a color scale ranging from −0.035 (blue) to 0.020
(red) au.NCI graphs disclosed the occurrence
of the X-Cl-F4···π-system
interactions between pentavalent chlorine and the π-system,
which was consistent with the QTAIM analysis. However, NCI molecular
graphs unveiled additional bonding between the four coplanar fluorine
atoms in the X-Cl-F4 molecule and the π-system. It
was perceived that the binding energy pattern of X-Cl-F4···HFB complexes could be justified by the F4 contribution to the bonding between the two interacting monomers.
Apparently, the bonding between the negative F4 in X-Cl-F4 and the positive carbon atoms in HFB increased as the F4 became more negative, which happened when the X atom was
less electron-withdrawing. This also could be related to the increase
of the electrostatic terms Eelst (see
the SAPT Analysis section) as less electron-withdrawing
X atom was attached to the pentavalent chlorine atom. Hence, it could
be concluded that the coplanar F4 interactions in X-Cl-F4···HFB complexes had superiority over the σ-hole
interaction of the pentavalent chlorine atom. In the next section,
to broaden the scope of the study, the concepts deduced previously
will be introduced to other pentavalent halogen atoms to assess the
validity and generality of these concepts.
Other Pentavalent Halogens
To adequately generalize
the study to other pentavalent halogens, the interactions of F-Br-F4 and F-I-F4 were studied. All of the quantum chemical
treatments used previously were applied to F-Br-F4 and
F-I-F4 with the same methodology. This included optimization
(Figure S3), MEP, and ELF representation
(Figure S4), PoC (Figure S5, Table S1). For the sake of systemization, F-Y-F4 (where Y = Cl, Br, and I) behaviors were evaluated and compared
to each other.Generally, the findings were consistent with
the previously obtained results. The optimization of F-Y-F4 monomers resulted in semisquare-pyramidal structures (Figure S3). According to the data displayed in Figure S4, the coincidence (and coexistence)
of the σ-hole and the lone pair of the Y atom was plainly observed.
It was also, expectedly, noted that Vs,max correlated with the size of the halogen atom. Numerically, Vs,max had values of 52.1, 65.5, and 70.0 kcal/mol
for F-Cl-F4, F-Br-F4, and F-I-F4,
respectively.From Figure S5, it
was tangible that
the σ-hole controlled the F-Y-F4···PoC
interaction patterns. This resulted in a greater stabilization energy
(i.e., more negative) when the σ-hole had a larger Vs,max in case of incorporating a negative PoC. As indicated
in Table S1, the molecular stabilization
energies of F-Y-F4 with negative (−0.50 au) PoC
at 2.5 Å distance were −15.05, −21.08, and −27.06
kcal/mol for F-Cl-F4, F-Br-F4, and F-I-F4, respectively. Contrarily, greater destabilization energies
(i.e., more positive) were obtained with larger Vs,max values when incorporating a positive PoC. In the
presence of +0.50 au PoC, the molecular destabilization energies at
Y···PoC distance of 2.5 Å were 8.93, 13.39, and
15.84 kcal/mol for F-Cl-F4, F-Br-F4, and F-I-F4, respectively.For the interactions of F-Y-F4 monomers with BZN and
HFB, PES scans (Figure ) gave the same attitude that was previously found, resulting in
substantial negative binding energies (Table ).
Figure 7
Binding energies calculated at the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP)
level of
theory for F-Y-F4···π-system complexes
(where Y = Cl, Br, and I; π-system = benzene (BZN) and hexafluorobenzene
(HFB)) at the Y···π-system distance ranging from
2.5 to 7.0 Å with a step size of 0.1 Å.
Table 5
Binding Energies (in kcal/mol) Calculated
at the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP) and MP2/aug-cc-pVTZ(PP) Levels of Theory
for F-Y-F4···π-System Complexes (Where
Y = Br and I; π-System = Benzene (BZN) and Hexafluorobenzene
(HFB)) at the Most Favorable Y···π-System Distance
complex
F-Y-F4···BZN
F-Y-F4···HFB
Y
bond lengtha (Å)
EMP2/aug-cc-pVDZb (kcal/mol)
EMP2/aug-cc-pVTZb (kcal/mol)
bond lengtha (Å)
EMP2/aug-cc-pVDZb (kcal/mol)
EMP2/aug-cc-pVTZb (kcal/mol)
Cl
3.12
–6.80
–7.48
3.11
–3.50
–4.19
Br
3.07
–9.04
–10.17
3.13
–3.23
–4.17
I
3.11
–10.67
–12.38
3.33
–2.04
–3.06
The most favorable
F-Y-F4···π-system distance based on
PES scan (Figure ).
PP functions were added to
Br and
I atoms.
Binding energies calculated at the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP)
level of
theory for F-Y-F4···π-system complexes
(where Y = Cl, Br, and I; π-system = benzene (BZN) and hexafluorobenzene
(HFB)) at the Y···π-system distance ranging from
2.5 to 7.0 Å with a step size of 0.1 Å.The most favorable
F-Y-F4···π-system distance based on
PES scan (Figure ).PP functions were added to
Br and
I atoms.The binding energies
of F-Y-F4···BZN
complexes clearly correlated with the Vs,max of the Y atom’s σ-hole, while the binding energies
of F-Y-F4···HFB inversely correlated with Vs,max. From the data given in Table , the binding energies of F-Y-F4···BZN complexes were −6.80, −9.04,
and −10.67 kcal/mol for Y = Cl, Br, and I, respectively. Evidently,
a salient similarity was noted for the computed binding energies at
the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP) and MP2/aug-cc-pVTZ(PP) levels of theory.
These results support previous researches that have examined the interactions
within the pentavalent halogen-based complexes.[72,73]For F-Y-F4···HFB complexes, the
binding
energies were −3.50, −3.23, and −2.04 kcal/mol
for F-Cl-F4···, F-Br-F4···,
and F-I-F4···HFB complexes, respectively.
SAPT analysis of the complexes was performed at the SAPT2 + (CCD)MP2
level of theory and the results are depicted in Table S2.Table S2 shows
the domination of Eelst and Edisp in
F-Y-F4···BZN complexes, while Eelst dropped significantly in F-Y-F4···HFB
complexes. Besides, Eexch terms of F-Y-F4···BZN complexes were higher than their counterparts
in F-Y-F4···HFB complexes, assumingly due
to the electron-richness of BZN and electron-deficiency of HFB. For
example, Eelst, Edisp, Eind, and Eexch of F-I-F4···BZN complex
were −11.67, −10.87, −6.72, and 17.87 kcal/mol,
respectively, while the values for F-I-F4···HFB
complex were 0.38, −7.63, −3.34, and 8.03 kcal/mol,
respectively. Finally, Eelst correlated
with Vs,max of the Y atom in F-Y-F4···BZN complexes, and inversely correlated
with Vs,max of the Y atom in F-Y-F4···HFB complexes. As shown in Table S2, Eelst was −6.39,
−8.80, and −11.67 kcal/mol for F-Cl-F4···,
F-Br-F4···, and F-I-F4···BZN,
respectively, and it was −1.55, −0.81, and 0.38 kcal/mol
for F-Cl-F4···, F-Br-F4···,
and F-I-F4···HFB, respectively. It is noteworthy
that the SAPT results obtained for F-Y-F4···BZN
complexes are consistent with a previous study in having relatively
high Pauli repulsion terms with considerably large electrostatic and
dispersion interaction terms.[74]Regarding
QTAIM and NCI analyses, QTAIM and NCI molecular graphs
of F-Y-F4···π-system complexes were
generally similar to those of X-Cl-F4···π-system
complexes (Figures S6 and S7). Looking
at Figure S6, the QTAIM analysis showed
six noncovalent bond critical points associated with six bond paths
between the Y atom in F-Y-F4 and the carbon atoms of the
π-system. The NCI molecular graphs confirmed the bonding between
the Y atom and the π-system (Figure S7), but they exhibited additional bonding between the F4 atoms in F-Y-F4 and the π-system. The mentioned
bonding, as evidenced by RDG isosurfaces sizes, was weaker as the
size of the Y atom was larger. It could be reasoned that the binding
energy pattern of F-Y-F4···HFB complexes
was notably affected by the F4 interactions with the carbon
atoms of HFB. As seen in Figure S7, the
RDG isosurface had the largest size in the F-Cl-F4···HFB
complex and diminished in F-Br-F4···HFB
until it entirely disappeared in the F-I-F4···HFB
complex. So, as in the case of X-Cl-F4···HFB
complexes, the interactions of the F4 atoms left their
marks on the binding energy pattern of F-Y-F4···HFB
complexes.To validate this point, the next section is dedicated
to investigating
the effect of replacing F4 atoms in the F-I-F4···π-system complexes with Cl4, Br4, and I4 atoms on the binding energy.
F-I-X4···π-System Complexes
To assess the
role of X4 atoms in F-I-X4···π-system
complexes, where X = F, Cl, Br, and I, PES scans were executed at
the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ level of theory (with PP functions added to Br
and I atoms) in the distance ranging from 2.5 to 7.0 Å between
the central I atom and the centroid of the π-system with a step
size of 0.1 Å. The curves of the PES scan are given in Figure , and the binding
energies of the F-I-X4···π-system
complexes at the most favorable I···π-system
distance are presented in Table .
Figure 8
Binding energies calculated at the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP)
level of
theory for F-I-X4···π-system complexes
(where X = F, Cl, Br, and I; π-system = benzene (BZN) and hexafluorobenzene
(HFB)) at I···π-system distances of 2.5–7.0
Å with a step size of 0.1 Å.
Table 6
Binding Energies Calculated at the
MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP) and MP2/aug-cc-pVTZ(PP) Levels of Theory for F-I-X4···π-System Complexes (Where X = F, Cl,
Br, and I; π-System = Benzene (BZN) and Hexafluorobenzene (HFB))
at the Most Favorable I···π-System Distance
complex
F-I-X4···BZN
F-I-X4···HFB
X4
bond lengtha (Å)
EMP2/aug-cc-pVDZb (kcal/mol)
EMP2/aug-cc-pVTZb (kcal/mol)
bond lengtha (Å)
EMP2/aug-cc-pVDZb (kcal/mol)
EMP2/aug-cc-pVTZb (kcal/mol)
F4
3.11
–10.67
–12.38
3.33
–2.04
–3.06
Cl4
3.10
–14.20
–16.39
3.21
–7.04
–8.91
Br4
3.14
–14.54
–16.95
3.26
–7.99
–10.10
I4
3.18
–15.01
–17.79
3.36
–8.38
–10.87
The most favorable F-I-X4···π-system
distance based on PES scan illustrated
in Figure .
PP functions were added to Br and
I atoms.
Binding energies calculated at the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP)
level of
theory for F-I-X4···π-system complexes
(where X = F, Cl, Br, and I; π-system = benzene (BZN) and hexafluorobenzene
(HFB)) at I···π-system distances of 2.5–7.0
Å with a step size of 0.1 Å.The most favorable F-I-X4···π-system
distance based on PES scan illustrated
in Figure .PP functions were added to Br and
I atoms.As can be seen
from Table , the binding
energy increased (i.e., more negative) as the
size of the X4 atoms increased. For F-I-X4···BZN
complexes, the interaction energies were −10.67, −14.20,
−14.51, and −14.99 kcal/mol for F-I-F4···,
F-I-Cl4···, F-I-Br4···,
and F-I-I4···BZN complexes, respectively.
For F-I-X4···HFB complexes, the interaction
energies were −2.40, −7.04, −7.96, and −8.36
kcal/mol for F-I-F4···, F-I-Cl4···, F-I-Br4···, and F-I-I4···HFB complexes, respectively.Intelligibly,
the larger and, consequently, the more polarizable
the X atom was, the more capable it was to form a stronger noncovalent
bond. Hence, the resulting binding energies correlated with the size
of X4 atoms. The larger and, consequently, the less electron-withdrawing
the X atom was, the smaller the Vs,max value of the central iodine atom’s σ-hole. This may
plausibly imply that the interactions of the circumferential atoms
around the σ-hole-containing atom are so influential to the
extent that they may surpass the interaction of the σ-hole itself.
Conclusions
To inquire into the very nature of the pentavalent
halogen atoms
interactions, the pentavalent halogens were investigated as both σ-hole
and lone pair (lp) donors. Molecular electrostatic potential (MEP)
and electron localization function (ELF) graphs of X-Cl-F4 and F-Y-F4 (where X = F, Cl, Br, and I and Y = Cl, Br,
and I) demonstrated the coincidence of the σ-hole and the lone
pair at the same molecular site. The PoC approach revealed the domination
of the σ-hole interaction over the lp interaction. The interactions
of X-Cl-F4 and F-Y-F4 with benzene (BZN) and
hexafluorobenzene (HFB) were studied by means of potential energy
surface (PES) scan, symmetry-adapted perturbation theory (SAPT), the
quantum theory of atoms in molecules (QTAIM), and noncovalent interaction
(NCI) index. The results revealed that: (i) the binding energies of
X-Cl-F4··· and F-Y-F4···BZN
complexes increased (i.e., more negative) as the Vs,max of the σ-hole of the Cl/Y atom increased while
the binding energies of X-Cl-F4··· and F-Y-F4···HFB complexes decreased as the Vs,max of the σ-hole of the Cl/Y atom increased;
(ii) the interactions of X-Cl-F4··· and
F-Y-F4···BZN complexes were dominated by
both dispersion and electrostatic contribution while for X-Cl-F4···, and F-Y-F4···HFB
complexes the interactions were dominated by dispersion terms only;
(iii) the exchange interaction (Pauli repulsion) in X-Cl-F4··· and F-Y-F4···BZN complexes
was larger (i.e., more positive) than that of X-Cl-F4···
and F-Y-F4···HFB complexes; (iv) NCI analysis
justified the binding energy pattern of X-Cl-F4···
and F-Y-F4···HFB complexes as it uncovered
the interactions between the negative F4 atoms and the
positive HFBcarbon atoms; (v) when substituting the X4 atoms in F-I-X4···π-system complexes
with larger and more polarizable halogen atoms, the interaction energy
was found to increase as larger X atoms were attached. The findings
contain data and trends that can be beneficial to many chemical-related
research domains.
Computational Methods
In this study,
the square-pyramidal
X-Cl-F4 model was chosen as a simultaneously σ-hole
and lp donor (where X = F, Cl, Br, and I). Benzene (BZN) and hexafluorobenzene
(HFB) were selected as electron-rich and electron-deficient aromatic
π-systems, respectively. First, X-Cl-F4 monomers
were optimized at the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ level of theory,[75,76] with PP functions added to Br and I atoms.[77] Molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) maps were generated for
all X-Cl-F4 monomers on electron density isosurfaces of
0.002 au.[78] The maximum value of positive
electrostatic potential (Vs,max) was extracted
using Multiwfn software 3.7[79] along with
the ELF molecular graphs.The point-of-charge (PoC) approach
was employed to examine the nucleophilicity or electrophilicity character
of the σ-hole/lp donor in the pentavalent X-Cl-F4 molecules.[47−50] This was achieved by evaluating the molecular stabilization energies
of the monomers in the presence of −0.50 and + 0.50 au PoC,
within a halogen···PoC distance ranging from 2.0 to
7.0 Å with a step size of 0.1 Å. The molecular stabilization
energy (Estabilization) was quantified
as follows:[80−83]For X-Cl-F4···π-system
complexes, the optimized monomers were positioned such that C2 symmetry of the complexes
was maintained (see Figure ). This was to allow the occurrence of the desired interaction
between the σ-hole/lp donor and the centroid of the π-system.
Potential energy surface (PES) scans were then performed on the studied
complexes in a distance ranging from 2.5 to 7.0 Å between the
σ-hole/lp donor atom and the centroid of the π-system
with a step size of 0.1 Å. The binding energies were computed
at the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP) level of theory. The basis set superposition
error (BSSE) was eliminated via the counterpoise correction method.[84] The binding energies were also estimated at
the MP2/aug-cc-pVTZ(PP) level of theory for the investigated complexes
at the most favorable X-Cl-F4···π-system
distance based on the PES scan.Geometrical optimization, MEP
analysis, and all energy calculations
were executed using Gaussian09 software.[85] Furthermore, symmetry-adapted perturbation theory-based energy decomposition
analysis (SAPT-EDA) of the binding energies was performed at the SAPT2
+ (CCD)δMP2 level of theory[86−88] using PSI4 software.[89] The SAPT binding energy was estimated as the
sum of the electrostatic interaction (Eelst), dispersion interaction (Edisp), induction
or polarization interaction (Eind), and
the exchange interaction (Eexch) according
to the following equationQuantum theory of atoms
in molecules (QTAIM)
and noncovalent interaction (NCI) index analyses were also performed
at the MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ(PP) level of theory to elucidate the nature
of the investigated interactions.[90,91] Bond critical
points (BCPs) and their characteristics were computed by means of
Multiwfn 3.7 software.[79] Both QTAIM and
NCI molecular graphs were visualized using Visual Molecular Dynamics
(VMD) software.[92]To assess the generality
of the obtained results, the study was
extended to involve other pentavalent halogen-containing molecule···π-system
interactions. In that extension, all of the quantum chemical calculations
mentioned before were carried out for F-Br-F4···π-system
and F-I-F4···π-system complexes. Finally,
the effect of substituting the X4 atoms with more polarizable
halogens in the F-I-X4···π-system
complexes was explored. This was attained by computing the binding
energies of F-I-Cl4···, F-I-Br4···, and F-I-I4···π-system
complexes and comparing the results to those of F-I-F4···π-system
complexes.
Authors: Norbert W Mitzel; Krunoslav Vojinović; Roland Fröhlich; Thomas Foerster; Heather E Robertson; Konstantin B Borisenko; David W H Rankin Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2005-10-05 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Joseph R Lane; Julia Contreras-García; Jean-Philip Piquemal; Benjamin J Miller; Henrik G Kjaergaard Journal: J Chem Theory Comput Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 6.006
Authors: Mahmoud A A Ibrahim; Nayra A M Moussa; Sherif M A Saad; Muhammad Naeem Ahmed; Ahmed M Shawky; Mahmoud E S Soliman; Gamal A H Mekhemer; Al-Shimaa S M Rady Journal: ACS Omega Date: 2022-03-22
Authors: Mahmoud A A Ibrahim; Nayra A M Moussa; Mahmoud E S Soliman; Mahmoud F Moustafa; Jabir H Al-Fahemi; H R Abd El-Mageed Journal: ACS Omega Date: 2021-07-16
Authors: Mahmoud A A Ibrahim; Rehab R A Saeed; Mohammed N I Shehata; Muhammad Naeem Ahmed; Ahmed M Shawky; Manal M Khowdiary; Eslam B Elkaeed; Mahmoud E S Soliman; Nayra A M Moussa Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 5.923