Conformational signature of Ishikawa´s reagent using NMR information from diastereotopic fluorines

  1. Laize A. F. Andrade1,
  2. Lucas A. Zeoly2ORCID Logo,
  3. Rodrigo A. Cormanich2ORCID Logo and
  4. Matheus P. Freitas1ORCID Logo

1Department of Chemistry, Federal University of Lavras, 37200-000, Lavras, MG, Brazil
2Institute of Chemistry, University of Campinas, 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil

  1. Corresponding author email

Associate Editor: P. Schreiner
Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2019, 15, 506–512. doi:10.3762/bjoc.15.44
Received 14 Dec 2018, Accepted 13 Feb 2019, Published 20 Feb 2019

Abstract

The active species of the Ishikawa´s reagent [N,N-diethyl-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropyl)amine] is a fluorinating hexafluoropropylamine used to convert alcohols into alkyl fluorides. On the other hand, it is also an example of model compound useful to probe conformational preferences using spectroscopic information from diastereotopic fluorines. Moreover, the possibility of experiencing both the generalized anomeric and gauche effects makes the Ishikawa´s reagent an ideal choice to study the governing stereoelectronic interactions of the conformational equilibrium of organofluorine compounds. The conformational equilibrium of the Ishikawa´s reagent was analyzed using NMR 3JH,F coupling constant data in different solvents, since the orientation of the diastereotopic fluorines relative to H-2 and F-2 changes with the medium. In nonpolar cyclohexane solvent, the preferred conformation experiences a weaker steric and electrostatic repulsion. The conformational behavior changes in the more polar pyridine solution, where the double fluorine gauche effect takes place, since F-2 is preferably gauche to both diastereotopic fluorines. An analysis of the rotation around the N–C(F2) bond indicates the manifestation of anomeric interactions (nN → σ*C–F), which can be demonstrated by means of 19F chemical shifts. The results were rationalized with the aid of theoretical calculations and natural bond orbital (NBO) analysis, allowing for the evaluation of competing steric, electrostatic and hyperconjugative interactions.

Keywords: anomeric effect; gauche effect; NMR spectroscopy; organofluorine compounds

Introduction

The active species of Ishikawa´s reagent [N,N-diethyl-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropyl)amine, 1] [1] (Figure 1) has diastereotopic substituents (fluorines), which can be useful to provide conformational insights by using NMR spin–spin coupling constants (SSCCs), such as in methyl 2-fluoroesters [2], 3-fluoro-1,2-propanediol [3], 1-halo-2-propanols [4], enflurane [5], and 1-chloro-1,1-difluoro-2-pentanol [6]. This is possible due to an analogy with the Karplus curve that correlates the magnitude of vicinal 3JH,H SSCCs with the dihedral angle between coupled nuclei [7]. According to this relationship, the SSCC between antiperiplanar nuclei is larger than that observed between gauche nuclei. One-bond SSCCs (1J) can also provide relevant information on the conformations of a molecule. For example, the Perlin effect manifests in six-membered rings when 1JC–Hax < 1JC–Heq [8,9]. A similar effect on 1JC–F has been observed on fluorinated six-membered rings and then called the (reverse) fluorine Perlin-like effect [10]. Despite some controversies on the origin of such effects [11-14], the anomeric-like interaction nX → σ*C–H/F (X = electron donor atom, usually oxygen) seems to contribute to the magnitude of 1JC–H/F, since the resonance structure originated from this interaction exhibits a longer and weaker C–Hax/Fax bond relative to C–Heq/Feq, thus reducing 1JC–Hax/Fax relative to 1JC–Heq/Feq. In turn, the incoming fluoride becomes magnetically more shielded than the fluorine not involved in such an interaction.

[1860-5397-15-44-1]

Figure 1: Structure of Ishikawa´s reagent (1) and the respective Newman projections indicating the two key rotatable bonds.

Because the positioning of neighboring groups relative to the diastereotopic fluorines (NEt2 and CHFCF3 groups), the conformational preferences of Ishikawa´s reagent molecule may be influenced by the generalized anomeric effect, as well as by the fluorine gauche effect. The former corresponds to a stabilizing effect originated from the electron delocalization from the nitrogen lone pair to an antiperiplanar C–F antibonding orbital (nN → σ*C–F), similarly to that observed for some pnictogen compounds and similar systems [15-18]. In turn, the fluorine gauche effect may result from the gauche orientation between F-1 and F-2, which is sterically and electrostatically disfavored, but it is stabilized by σC–H/C–C → σ*C–F hyperconjugative interactions [19-23]. Recently, electrostatic polarization, on the basis of the so-called interacting quantum atoms (IQA) method, has been claimed as the origin of the gauche effect [24]. These effects have strongly influenced mechanisms of hydrogen exchange and the spectroscopic behavior of a variety of systems [25]; the respective fluorine scenario would then be worth to evaluate.

It is worth mentioning, however, that the relative and interchangeable orientation of the atoms in a molecule (conformations) is dependent on the medium; while only intramolecular interactions drive the conformational stability of a molecule in the vacuum, the solvent polarity plays a significant role in the condensed phase. Thus, it is appropriate to study the conformations of Ishikawa´s reagent in different media, of low and high polarity. This is a challenging task, since the conformational analysis of flexible acyclic organic compounds using NMR SSCCs is more complex than the study of six-membered cyclic compounds, which usually exhibit only two conformations as the result of chair interconversion [26].

Results and Discussion

The preferred conformation along the H–C2–C1–F fragment in 1 was first analyzed using 3JH,F(pro-S/R) SSCC data, since such an NMR parameter is sensitive to this dihedral angle according to a Karplus-like shape [27], while its sign is subjected to other effects [28]. Also, the observed 3JH,F(pro-S/R) values (Table 1) are expected to be dependent on the medium, because the conformers of 1 are anticipated to have different molecular dipole moments and, consequently, the conformer populations are expected to change with the solvent polarity [29]. Indeed, the 1H NMR outcomes in C6D12 (dielectric constant ε = 2.2), CDCl3 (ε = 4.8) and C5D5N (ε = 12.4) solutions are informative on the rotation of H–C2–C1–F and conformational equilibrium in 1. Some more polar solvents, e.g., MeCN and DMSO, were found to convert Ishikawa´s reagent into an amide; therefore, they were not further studied.

Table 1: Experimental coupling constants (Hz) for 1.

Solvent 2JH,F 3JH,Fpro-R 3JH,Fpro-S 3JH,F-3
C6D12 44.46 11.69 3.53 5.89
CDCl3 44.06 11.72 4.04 5.92
C5D5N 42.34 11.99 6.00 6.00

In nonpolar solution (C6D12), a dddq split pattern appears for H-2 owing to a large 2JHF of 44.46 Hz, two doublets (11.69 and 3.53 Hz) due to couplings with the diastereotopic fluorines, and a quartet of 5.89 Hz due to the coupling with CF3 fluorines (Figure 2). Considering a Karplus-like curve for 3JH,F SSCCs [27], the magnitude of the 3JH,F(pro-S/R) SSCCs gives insight into the orientation of the H–C2–C1–F dihedral angles, because the larger value (11.69 Hz) indicates a dominant anti orientation for this moiety, while the smaller SSCC (3.53 Hz) would be due to a gauche orientation. Accordingly, a dominant contributing conformation regarding the H–C2–C1–F dihedral angle would be expected to be either 1B or 1C.

[1860-5397-15-44-2]

Figure 2: Expansion of the 1H and 19F NMR spectra in the region of CHF and CF2, in C6D12 and C5D5N solvents. The 19F chemical shifts were assigned taking into consideration the signal split patterns, coupling constants and possible geometries for the stable conformers.

Moreover, there is a subtle solvent dependence of 3JH,F(pro-S/R), indicating that the conformational equilibrium of 1 changes on going from cyclohexane (nonpolar) to pyridine (polar) solution. According to the calculated molecular dipole moments for the possible conformers of 1 (Table 2), a significant interplay of conformers 1B and 1C is not expected when the solvent varies, because of their similar molecular dipole moments. In turn, the populations of conformer 1A are not prone to increase by increasing the solvent polarity, because of their smaller molecular dipole moments compared to 1B and 1C. So, the observed changes in 3JH,F(pro-S/R) with the solvent is due to a shift from 1A towards 1B or 1C. According to the Karplus curve, conformers 1A are not anticipated to have significantly different 3JH,F(1) SSCCs, since both diastereotopic fluorines are gauche to H-2. However, SSCC calculations (Supporting Information File 1) show that conformers 1Ab and 1Ac exhibit distinct (a small and a large) 3JH,F(pro-S) and 3JH,F(pro-R) values, probably as a result of the generalized anomeric effect nN → σ*C-F that affects the electron density along the C1–F bond; a smaller 3JH,F(1) is expected as a C1–F bond is longer and weaker. Because conformer 1Ac is of very high energy and, therefore, non-populated (Table 2), the larger 3JH,F(1) SSCC in Table 1 is likely to correspond to 3JH,F(pro-R), while the smaller one corresponds to 3JH,F(pro-S). Since the large 3JH,F(pro-R) SSCC is practically insensitive to solvent changes, while 3JH,F(pro-S) increases on going from C6D12 to C5D5N solution (from 3.53 Hz in cyclohexane solution to 6.00 Hz in pyridine solution), it follows that the above 1A conformation shifts toward 1C (Fpro-R anti in 1B and gauche in 1C relative to H-2, while Fpro-S is gauche in 1B and anti in 1C). The 3JF,F SSCC does not follow a Karplus-like shape, due to changes in the Fermi contact term with the rotation around the F–C–C–F dihedral angle that even changes the sign [30]; so, the breakdown of the Karplus-like curve and a possible influence of the anomeric effect make this SSCC of little diagnostic value for probing the conformations of 1. An intermediate conformational behavior is calculated in chloroform solution, because this solvent has a larger dielectric constant than cyclohexane and a smaller value than pyridine, but the experimental 3JH,F(1) obtained in CDCl3 suggests that the conformers population in this solvent is similar to that observed in cyclohexane solution. Thus, further discussion will consider only cyclohexane and pyridine solvents.

Table 2: Relative standard Gibbs free energies (in kcal mol−1 and Gibbs population in parenthesis) and molecular dipole moments (in Db) for the conformers of 1, calculated at the ωB97X-D/6-311++g(d,p) level.

Conf. Cyclohexane Chloroform Pyridine
  G0rel (%) μ G0rel (%) μ G0rel (%) μ
1Aa 1.5 (3) 1.6 1.5 (3) 1.7 1.6 (4) 1.8
1Ab 0.0 (40) 2.1 0.4 (20) 2.2 0.9 (15) 2.3
1Ac 3.9 (0) 2.5 3.8 (0) 2.6 4.6 (0) 2.7
1Ba 1.7 (2) 4.2 1.6 (2) 4.6 2.0 (2) 4.8
1Bb 0.5 (17) 4.3 0.3 (21) 4.6 1.0 (12) 4.8
1Bc 0.7 (13) 4.5 0.5 (17) 4.9 2.4 (1) 5.2
1Ca 4.2 (0) 4.1 3.4 (0) 4.5 4.0 (0) 4.7
1Cb 4.0 (0) 4.0 3.9 (0) 4.3 4.2 (0) 4.5
1Cc 0.3 (24) 4.2 0.0 (37) 4.6 0.0 (66) 4.9

The generalized anomeric effect (due to the nN → σ*C–F hyperconjugation) can be explored for assertion of the C–N–C–F dihedral angle, which contributes to enhance the fluoride character of the fluorine involved in such interaction. Because of the negative charge on the fluorine in the resonance structure derived from the generalized anomeric effect, a shielding effect is expected for this fluorine. The 19F NMR assignment of the diastereotopic fluorines was possible considering the 3JH,F(1) SSCC earlier reported, and comparing the 19F and 19F{1H} NMR experiments: the more shielded diastereotopic fluorine corresponds to Fpro-S, thus yielding 1b as the dominant conformation. Such a shielding effect decreases on going from cyclohexane (−89.4 ppm) to pyridine solution (−87.8 ppm), as the result of a conformational change towards 1a or 1c. Since a slight shielding effect is observed on Fpro-R on going from cyclohexane to pyridine solution (from −82.7 ppm to −83.2 ppm), an increase in the 1c conformation is then expected. Because of the rapid relaxation and the subsequent lack of 13C-1 signal, the fluorine Perlin effect could not be probed (although the calculated values can be checked in Supporting Information File 1). However, from the NMR results, in general, both 1Ab and 1Cc were found to be dominant conformations of the conformational equilibrium of the Ishikawa´s reagent. In addition, this equilibrium shifts from 1Ab to 1Cc when increasing the solvent polarity. These findings are in complete agreement with the conformational energy data provided in Table 2, which were obtained from high level DFT calculations (1Cb is not a minimum-energy conformer). The DFT results are also consistent with ab initio MP2 electronic energies (Supporting Information File 1).

Opposite to the expectation of a double fluorine gauche effect (σC–H/C–C → σ*C–F) [19-23] as ruling mechanism of the conformational stability of 1, the 1Ab conformer appears as the main conformer in a nonpolar medium. In part, the hyperconjugative interaction above (which is possible in 1B and 1C conformers) is somewhat counterbalanced by an σC–H → σ*C–N interaction in 1A, since σ*C–N is also a good electron acceptor orbital (see NBO energies in Table 3). In addition, this conformation avoids exceedingly strong dipolar repulsions due to two C–F/C–F Coulombic contacts, such as in 1C. In turn, the double gauche effect (in which F-2 is gauche to both diastereotopic fluorines) takes place in a more polar solution (due to 1C), as the dipolar repulsion between the vicinal fluorines is attenuated by the polar solvent, while the highly stabilizing hyperconjugative interactions are evidenced.

Table 3: Natural bond orbital (NBO) energies (in kcal mol−1) for 1 in implicit cyclohexane and pyridine (second entries, in parenthesis) solutions.

Interaction 1Aa 1Ab 1Ac 1Ba 1Bb 1Bc 1Ca 1Cb 1Cc
nN → σ*C–F(pro-R) 4.0
(4.0)
3.4
(3.6)

(–)
4.8
(4.8)
5.1
(5.6)
34.4
(36.6)
17.4
(18.1)
0.5
34.2
(35.1)
nN → σ*C–F(pro-S) 15.7
(16.0)
35.2
(36.6)

(–)
13.1
(13.6)
36.7
(38.0)
9.3
(10.3)
2.0
(2.1)
23.0
(24.6)
2.3
(2.7)
nN → σ*C1–C2 17.7
(17.8)
3.7
(3.6)

(–)
16.0
(16.2)
2.8
(2.7)
1.4
(1.3)
14.7
(15.0)
8.3
(8.5)
4.0
(3.8)
σC–H → σ*C–F(pro-R) 1.0
(1.0)
1.8
(1.8)
0.6
(0.5)
4.6
(4.7)
4.5
(4.6)
4.2
(4.3)
0.9
(0.9)
1.4
(1.4)
0.9
(0.9)
σC–H → σ*C–F(pro-S) 0.9
(0.9)
0.5
(0.5)
1.4
(1.5)
0.8
(0.7)
1.2
(1.1)

(–)
4.6
(4.7)
4.8
(4.8)
4.2
(4.1)
σC–H → σ*C–N 3.6
(3.7)
4.0
(4.1)
4.6
(4.5)

(–)

(–)
0.5
(0.5)

(–)

(–)

(–)
σC–F2 → σ*C–F(pro-R) 1.3
(1.4)
1.2
(1.2)
0.7
(0.7)

(–)

(–)

(–)

(–)

(–)

(–)
σC–F2 → σ*C–F(pro-S)
(–)

(–)

(–)
1.4
(1.5)
1.3
(1.4)
1.5
(1.5)

(–)

(–)

(–)
σC–F2 → σ*C–N
(–)

(–)
0.6
(0.6)

(–)

(–)

(–)
1.2
(1.3)
1.4
(1.4)
1.5
(1.5)
σC2–C3 → σ*C–F(pro-R)
(–)

(–)

(–)

(–)
0.7
(0.7)

(–)
1.8
(1.8)
1.6
(1.6)
2.2
(2.2)
σC–C3 → σ*C–F(pro-S) 1.6
(1.6)
2.0
(2.0)
1.2
(1.3)

(–)

(–)
0.7
(0.7)

(–)

(–)

(–)
σC–C3 → σ*C–N
(–)

(–)

(–)
1.5
(1.5)
1.8
(1.8)
1.7
(1.7)

(–)

(–)

(–)

Conclusion

N,N-Diethyl-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropyl)amine (1) experiences the generalized anomeric effect in both nonpolar and polar solvents and, therefore, the nN → σ*C–F hyperconjugative interaction plays a determinant role for the rotation around the N–C(F2) bond in all tested media. However, the conformers capable of maximally performing the fluorine gauche effect, which is widely known to be due to an antiperiplanar σC–H/C–C → σ*C–F orbital interaction in similar systems, are not dominant in cyclohexane solution. Such an effect is actually manifested totally (as a double gauche effect, due to the gauche orientation of F-2 relative to both diastereotopic fluorines) in a polar solvent, where the dipolar repulsion is attenuated, and the gauche effect interactions then override the repulsive forces. Because of the significant difference in the molecular dipole moments for the conformers of 1, their populations were sensitive to solvent changes. Since the vicinal 3JH2,F1 spin-spin coupling constants were found to be conformation-dependent, as well as the 19F chemical shifts, these NMR parameters provided detailed account on the H–C2–C1–F dihedral angle as the solvent varied.

Experimental and Computational Details

N,N-Diethyl-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropyl)amine (1) was commercially available (90% purity) and used without further purification. The NMR spectra were acquired at 400.2 or 499.9 MHz for 1H, 470.3 MHz for 19F, and 125.7 MHz for 13C, from ca. 10 mg mL−1 solutions in C6D12, CDCl3 and C5D5N solvents. The geometries for the conformers of 1 were fully optimized (including frequency calculations) at the ωB97X-D/6-311++G(d,p) level [31,32], which includes some empirical dispersion effects. The calculations were carried out considering both the gas phase and implicit solvation, according to the polarizable continuum model [33]. The nine possible conformers were selected after a previous screening from 81 structures, which differed by the orientation of the N-ethyl groups. Subsequent natural bond orbital (NBO) [34] analyses at the ωB97X-D/6-311++G(d,p) level [31,32] were performed to obtain the second-order perturbation energies of donor–acceptor interactions. This same level of theory was employed for the chemical shift and SSCC calculations.

Supporting Information

Supporting Information File 1: Standard coordinates for the geometries of conformers of 1, NMR spectra and tables containing calculated spectroscopic data.
Format: PDF Size: 2.4 MB Download

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to FAPEMIG (APQ-00383/15 and PPM-00344/17), PRP/FAEPEX (2967/17) and FAPESP for the financial support of this research, as well as to Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES for the studentships (to L. A. F. A. and L. A. Z.), FAPESP (2018/03910-1) for a fellowship (to R. A. C), and to the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq for a fellowship (to M. P. F.).

References

  1. Takaoka, A.; Iwakiri, H.; Ishikawa, N. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 1979, 52, 3377–3380. doi:10.1246/bcsj.52.3377
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  2. Tormena, C. F.; Freitas, M. P.; Rittner, R.; Abraham, R. J. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2004, 6, 1152–1156. doi:10.1039/b311570d
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  3. Andrade, L. A. F.; Silla, J. M.; Duarte, C. J.; Rittner, R.; Freitas, M. P. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2013, 11, 6766–6771. doi:10.1039/c3ob41207e
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  4. Gonçalves, K. M. S.; Garcia, D. R.; Ramalho, T. C.; Figueroa-Villar, J. D.; Freitas, M. P. J. Phys. Chem. A 2013, 117, 10980–10984. doi:10.1021/jp408528j
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  5. Andrade, L. A. F.; Silla, J. M.; Stephens, S. L.; Marat, K.; da Cunha, E. F. F.; Ramalho, T. C.; van Wijngaarden, J.; Freitas, M. P. J. Phys. Chem. A 2015, 119, 10735–10742. doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.5b08087
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  6. Martins, F. A.; Zeoly, L. A.; Cormanich, R. A.; Freitas, M. P. Tetrahedron 2018, 74, 880–883. doi:10.1016/j.tet.2018.01.008
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  7. Karplus, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1963, 85, 2870–2871. doi:10.1021/ja00901a059
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  8. Perlin, A. S.; Casu, B. Tetrahedron Lett. 1969, 10, 2921–2924. doi:10.1016/s0040-4039(01)88308-8
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  9. Juaristi, E.; Cuevas, G. Acc. Chem. Res. 2007, 40, 961–970. doi:10.1021/ar6000186
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  10. Silla, J. M.; Freitas, M. P.; Cormanich, R. A.; Rittner, R. J. Org. Chem. 2014, 79, 6385–6388. doi:10.1021/jo501025a
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  11. Cuevas, G.; Martínez-Mayorga, K.; Fernández-Alonso, M. d. C.; Jiménez-Barbero, J.; Perrin, C. L.; Juaristi, E.; López-Mora, N. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2005, 44, 2360–2364. doi:10.1002/anie.200461583
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  12. Hernández-Lima, J. G.; Barquera-Lozada, J. E.; Cuevas, G.; Cortés-Guzmán, F. J. Comput. Chem. 2015, 36, 1573–1578. doi:10.1002/jcc.23965
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  13. Silla, J. M.; Freitas, M. P. J. Fluorine Chem. 2015, 172, 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.jfluchem.2015.01.005
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  14. Silla, J. M.; Freitas, M. P. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 74598–74603. doi:10.1039/c6ra10272g
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  15. Martins, L. E.; Freitas, M. P. J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2008, 21, 881–885. doi:10.1002/poc.1397
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  16. Irwin, J. J.; Ha, T.-K.; Dunitz, J. D. Helv. Chim. Acta 1990, 73, 1805–1817. doi:10.1002/hlca.19900730702
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  17. Christen, D.; Mack, H.-G.; Rüdiger, S.; Oberhammer, H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 3720–3723. doi:10.1021/ja954019r
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  18. Wiberg, K. B.; Bailey, W. F.; Lambert, K. M.; Stempel, Z. D. J. Org. Chem. 2018, 83, 5242–5255. doi:10.1021/acs.joc.8b00707
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  19. Goodman, L.; Gu, H.; Pophristic, V. J. Phys. Chem. A 2005, 109, 1223–1229. doi:10.1021/jp046290d
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  20. Souza, F. R.; Freitas, M. P.; Rittner, R. J. Mol. Struct.: THEOCHEM 2008, 863, 137–140. doi:10.1016/j.theochem.2008.06.003
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  21. Buissonneaud, D. Y.; van Mourik, T.; O'Hagan, D. Tetrahedron 2010, 66, 2196–2202. doi:10.1016/j.tet.2010.01.049
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  22. Freitas, M. P.; Bühl, M.; O'Hagan, D. Chem. Commun. 2012, 48, 2433–2435. doi:10.1039/c2cc17180e
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  23. Thiehoff, C.; Rey, Y. P.; Gilmour, R. Isr. J. Chem. 2017, 57, 92–100. doi:10.1002/ijch.201600038
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  24. Thacker, J. C. R.; Popelier, P. L. A. J. Phys. Chem. A 2018, 122, 1439–1450. doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.7b11881
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  25. Perrin, C. L. J. Org. Chem. 2017, 82, 819–838. doi:10.1021/acs.joc.6b02390
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  26. Eliel, E. L.; Wilen, S. H.; Mander, L. N. Stereochemistry of Organic Compounds; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994.
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  27. San Fabián, J.; Guilleme, J. Chem. Phys. 1996, 206, 325–337. doi:10.1016/0301-0104(96)00032-8
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  28. Viesser, R. V.; Ducati, L. C.; Autschbach, J.; Tormena, C. F. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016, 18, 24119–24128. doi:10.1039/c6cp04853f
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  29. Abraham, R. J.; Bretschneider, E. In Internal Rotation in Molecules; Orville-Thomas, W. J., Ed.; Academic Press: London, 1974.
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  30. Provasi, P. F.; Sauer, S. P. A. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2006, 2, 1019–1027. doi:10.1021/ct6000973
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  31. Chai, J.-D.; Head-Gordon, M. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2008, 10, 6615–6620. doi:10.1039/b810189b
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  32. Frisch, M. J.; Pople, J. A.; Binkley, J. S. J. Chem. Phys. 1984, 80, 3265–3269. doi:10.1063/1.447079
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  33. Tomasi, J.; Mennucci, B.; Cammi, R. Chem. Rev. 2005, 105, 2999–3094. doi:10.1021/cr9904009
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  34. Weinhold, F.; Landis, C. R. Discovering Chemistry with Natural Bond Orbitals; Wiley: Hoboken, 2012. doi:10.1002/9781118229101
    Return to citation in text: [1]

© 2019 Andrade et al.; licensee Beilstein-Institut.
This is an Open Access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). Please note that the reuse, redistribution and reproduction in particular requires that the authors and source are credited.
The license is subject to the Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry terms and conditions: (https://www.beilstein-journals.org/bjoc)

 
Back to Article List