Keywords: acenaphthylene /peri-substitution /3c-4e interaction /X-ray crystallography / DFT calculations/non-covalent A series of peri-substituted acenaphthylenes containing mixed halogen-chalcogen functionalities at the 5,6-positions in 1-6 (Acenapyl [X][EPh] (Acenap = acenaphthylene-5,6-diyl; X = Br, I; E = S, Se, Te) and chalcogen-chalcogen moieties in 7-11 (Acenap [EPh][E`Ph] (Acenap = acenaphthene-5,6-diyl; E/E` = S, Se, Te), have been prepared from their corresponding acenaphthene analogues A1-A11, utilizing 2,3-dichloro-5,6-dicyano-1,4-benzoquinone (DDQ) for the dehydrogenation of the ethane backbone. The related dihalide compounds 13 and 14 Acenapyl[XX`] (XX` = BrBr, II) have also been prepared following a similar procedure and 1,2,5,6-tetrabromo-1,2-dihydroacenaphthylene A0 was prepared as an intermediate following an alternative route to 13. The series of acenaphthylene compounds have remarkably similar molecular structures to their acenaphthene counterparts, exhibiting an expected increase in periseparation as heavier congeners occupy the close peri-positions.The presence of the ethene bridge, however, naturally compresses the nearest bay angle whilst increasing the splay of the exocyclic peri-atoms, resulting in a minor increase in separation compared with equivalent acenaphthenes. The structures of 1-11, 13 and 14 are discussed and compared with previously reported analogous naphthalene and acenaphthene compounds. Similar to acenaphthene derivatives, aromatic ring conformations and the location of p-type lone-pairs influences the geometry of the peri-region. Under appropriate geometric conditions quasi-linear three-body C Ph -E···Z (E = Te, Se, S; Z = Br/E) fragments provide an attractive component for the E···Z interaction. DFT studies confirm the onset of formation of threecenter, four-electron bonding, similar in extent as observed in analogous acenaphthenes, despite an increase in the peridistances.
IntroductionUnderstanding how atoms interact in different bonding situations and the ability to quantify the extent of bonding between two atoms is an ongoing challenge for chemists, and one which dates back to the origins of the electronic theory of valence proposed by Lewis and Langmuir in the early 1900s. [1,2] The stability of molecules was originally ascribed to their ability to pair valence electrons off in chemical bonds to achieve 'stable octets', with the concept of covalence introduced as 'the number of pairs of electrons an atom can share with its neighbor'. [1][2][3] Ambiguity over the bonding in molecules of heavier main-block elements (period 3 and higher), in which an 'octet expansion' would be required in order to conform to conventional Lewis 2c-2e covalent bonding theory, was thus rationalized by the availability of unfilled low-lying d-orbitals. [1] Langmuir, however, accounted for the legitimacy of the octet rule by suggesting the bonding in these species, termed hypervalent, [4] was now ionic rather than covalent in nature. [2] The advancement of molecular orbital theory in t...