This version is available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/46029/ Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the Strathprints administrator: strathprints@strath.ac.ukThe Strathprints institutional repository (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk) is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs. It has been developed to disseminate open access research outputs, expose data about those outputs, and enable the management and persistent access to Strathclyde's intellectual output.Journal Name of one and two electrons respectively, also plays an important role in determining the strength of these electron donors. Table 1 compares the oxidation potentials of these compounds with the widely used sulfur-containing electron donor, tetrathiafulvalene (TTF).Among the nitrogen-containing electron-donors, TDAE (1) is the parent compound in the series and the standard by which the others can be judged. 7 Neither 1 nor its oxidized products is aromatic. Compound 2 could be considered anti-aromatic 8 if planar and so its oxidation through loss of two electrons might 30 expect to be strongly driven; however it is quite deformed from planarity and it contains two aromatic pyrrole rings -as a result it is not a strong reducing agent. Compound 3 9 is already aromatic and hence its oxidation does not benefit from aromatization as a driving force, and so it also is not a strong donor of electrons. In 35 contrast, donors 4-8 are all converted into aromatic products upon oxidation [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] and this adds to their strength as reducing agents. To illustrate the aromaticity that arises, the oxidation products of compound 8 are also shown in Figure 1. Loss of one electron leads to radical cation 13 featuring one pyridinium ring, 40 while loss of a second electron affords the aromatic disalt 14. In terms of the applications of these stronger electron donors, benzimidazole-derived 6 converts iodoarenes into aryl radicals, 15 while the stronger donors 7 and 8 reduce the same substrates to aryl anions.12,14 Donors 7 and 8 are also able to reduce 45 arenesulfonamides, 16 Weinreb amides 17 and acyloin derivatives. reducing power is significantly less than that of the strongest metals (e.g. the oxidation potential of Li, E 0 = 3.02 V) 20 and questions arise about whether a limit is bei...