Hubbry Logo
Electronic effectElectronic effectMain
Open search
Electronic effect
Community hub
Electronic effect
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Electronic effect
Electronic effect
Electronic effect
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

An electric effect influences the structure, reactivity, or properties of a molecule but is neither a traditional bond nor a steric effect.[1] In organic chemistry, the term stereoelectronic effect is also used to emphasize the relation between the electronic structure and the geometry (stereochemistry) of a molecule.

The term polar effect is sometimes used to refer to electronic effects, but also may have the more narrow definition of effects resulting from non-conjugated substituents.[2]

Types

[edit]

Redistributive effects

[edit]

Induction is the redistribution of electron density through a traditional sigma bonded structure according to the electronegativity of the atoms involved. The inductive effect drops across every sigma bond involved limiting its effect to only a few bonds.

Conjugation is a redistribution of electron density similar to induction but transmitted through interconnected pi-bonds. Conjugation is not only affected by electronegativity of the connected atoms but also affected by the position of electron lone pairs with respect to the pi-system. Electronic effects can be transmitted throughout a pi-system allowing their influence to extend further than induction.

In the context of electronic redistribution, an electron-withdrawing group (EWG) draws electrons away from a reaction center. When this center is an electron rich carbanion or an alkoxide anion, the presence of the electron-withdrawing substituent has a stabilizing effect. Similarly, an electron-releasing group (ERG) or electron-donating group (EDG) releases electrons into a reaction center and as such stabilizes electron deficient carbocations.

In electrophilic aromatic substitution and nucleophilic aromatic substitution, substituents are divided into activating groups and deactivating groups. Resonance electron-releasing groups are classed as activating, while Resonance electron-withdrawing groups are classed as deactivating.

Non-redistributive effects

[edit]

Hyperconjugation is the stabilizing interaction that results from the interaction of the electrons in a sigma bond (usually C-H or C-C) with an adjacent empty (or partially filled) non-bonding p-orbital or antibonding π orbital or an antibonding sigma orbital to give an extended molecular orbital that increases the stability of the system.[3] Hyperconjugation can be used to explain phenomena such as the gauche effect and anomeric effect.

Orbital symmetry is important when dealing with orbitals that contain directional components like p and d. An example of such an effect is square planar low-spin d8 transition metal complexes. These complexes exist as square planar complexes due to the directionality of the metal center's d orbitals despite fewer steric congestion in a tetrahedral geometric structure. This is simple one example of many varied examples, including aspects of pericyclic reactions such as the Diels-Alder reaction, among others.

Electrostatic interactions include both attractive and repulsive forces associated with the build-up of charge in a molecule. Electrostatic interactions are generally too weak to be considered traditional bonds or are prevented from forming a traditional bond, possibly by a steric effect. A bond is usually defined as two atoms approaching closer than the sum of their Van der Waal radii. Hydrogen bonding borders on being an actual "bond" and an electrostatic interaction. While an attractive electrostatic interaction is considered a "bond" if it gets too strong, a repulsive electrostatic interaction is always an electrostatic effect regardless of strength. An example of a repulsive effect is a molecule contorting to minimize the coulombic interactions of atoms that hold like charges.

Electronic spin state, at its simplest, describes the number of unpaired electrons in a molecule. Most molecules including the proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids that make up the majority of life have no unpaired electrons even when charged. Such molecules are called singlet molecules, since their paired electrons have only one spin state. In contrast, dioxygen under ambient conditions has two unpaired electrons. Dioxygen is a triplet molecule, since the two unpaired electrons allow for three spin states. The reaction of a triplet molecule with a singlet molecule is spin-forbidden. This is the major reason there is a very high reaction barrier for the extremely thermodynamically favorable reaction of singlet organic molecules with triplet oxygen. This kinetic barrier prevents life from bursting into flames at room temperature.

Electronic spin states are more complex for transition metals. To understand the reactivity of transition metals, it is essential to understand the concept of d electron configuration as well as high-spin and low-spin configuration. For example, a low-spin d8 transition metal complex is usually square planar, substitutionally inert, with no unpaired electrons. In contrast, a high-spin d8 transition metal complex is usually octahedral, substitutionally labile, with two unpaired electrons.

Jahn–Teller effect is the geometrical distortion of non-linear molecules under certain situations. Any non-linear molecule with a degenerate electronic ground state will undergo a geometrical distortion that removes that degeneracy. This has the effect of lowering the overall energy. The Jahn–Teller distortion is especially common in certain transition metal complexes; for example, copper(II) complexes with 9 d electrons.

Trans influence is the influence that a ligand in a square or octahedral complex has on the bond to the ligand trans to it. It is caused by electronic effects, and manifests itself as the lengthening of the trans bonds and as an effect on the overall energy of the complex.

Comparison with steric effects

[edit]

The structure, properties, and reactivity of a molecule are dependent on straightforward bonding interactions including covalent bonds, ionic bonds, hydrogen bonds, and other forms of bonding. This bonding supplies a basic molecular skeleton that is modified by repulsive forces generally considered steric effects. Basic bonding and steric effects are at times insufficient to explain many structures, properties, and reactivity. Thus, steric effects are often contrasted and complemented by electronic effects, implying the influence of effects such as induction, conjunction, orbital symmetry, electrostatic interactions, and spin state. There are more esoteric electronic effects but these are among the most important when considering chemical structure and reactivity.

A special computational procedure was developed to separate steric and electronic effects of an arbitrary group in the molecule and to reveal their influence on structure and reactivity.[4]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Electronic effect

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , electronic effects refer to the displacement or redistribution of electrons within a caused by the presence of atoms or groups, influencing the molecule's reactivity, stability, and properties through mechanisms such as polarization and delocalization. These effects are fundamental to understanding reaction pathways, as they determine how electron-rich or electron-deficient sites interact with reagents, guiding selectivity in processes like and nucleophilic additions. The primary types of electronic effects include the , a permanent polarization transmitted through sigma bonds due to differences in electronegativity, which can either withdraw or donate electrons depending on the (e.g., -NO₂ as electron-withdrawing, -CH₃ as electron-donating). In contrast, the resonance effect (or ) involves the delocalization of pi electrons or lone pairs across conjugated systems, leading to stabilization or destabilization of intermediates and affecting orientation in . Additional temporary effects, such as the , occur under the influence of an attacking reagent, causing rapid electron shifts in multiple bonds or lone pairs. These concepts, pioneered by Christopher K. Ingold in the 1930s, integrate quantum mechanical principles to predict substituent influences quantitatively. Electronic effects extend beyond simple substituent influences to encompass broader environmental factors, including interactions and charge transfer in complex systems, which are analyzed using computational methods like / (QM/MM) to model changes in reactions and . Their study has profound implications for synthetic design, , and , where tuning electron distribution enhances efficiency and specificity.

Overview

Definition and Scope

Electronic effects in encompass the influences exerted on a molecule's structure, reactivity, and properties through the redistribution or perturbation of its density, distinct from the formation or breakage of covalent bonds. These effects arise from interactions such as electrostatic fields or orbital overlaps that modulate electron distribution without involving shared electron pairs typical of traditional . As described in foundational analyses, they represent "all consequences concerning changes caused by the (valence) electrons of organic molecules," impacting phenomena from reaction rates to molecular stability. The scope of electronic effects includes mechanisms like electron withdrawal or donation that alter local without reliance on physical bulk or steric hindrance, thereby affecting acidity, nucleophilicity, and charge stabilization in ions or transition states. Central to this are electron-withdrawing groups (EWGs), such as nitro (-NO₂) or carbonyl moieties, which deplete from adjacent sites through inductive or pathways, enhancing the stability of positively charged species or increasing acidity. Conversely, electron-donating groups (EDGs), including alkyl chains or amino (-NH₂) substituents, enrich , promoting nucleophilicity and stabilizing negative charges. Stereoelectronic effects form a within this scope, defined as geometry-dependent interactions where molecular conformation dictates orbital alignment and electron delocalization, influencing reactivity in constrained systems. Unlike covalent bonding, which involves the direct sharing of electron pairs between atoms to form sigma or pi bonds, electronic effects operate via through-space field influences or through-bond orbital communications that do not constitute new bond formation. This distinction ensures that electronic effects are analyzed in terms of perturbations rather than primary bonding interactions. Primary examples include , transmitted through bonds, and , involving delocalization, both of which exemplify how substituents modulate reactivity without altering the core bonding framework.

Historical Context

The understanding of electronic effects in chemistry emerged prominently in the 1920s and 1930s through the pioneering work of British chemists Christopher Ingold and Robert Robinson, who emphasized electronic influences on organic reactivity while distinguishing them from steric factors. Ingold's research, building on quantum mechanical insights, highlighted how electron displacements govern reaction mechanisms, such as in electrophilic aromatic substitutions and elimination reactions. Robinson independently developed complementary ideas on electronic delocalization in conjugated systems, fostering a shift from empirical observations to theoretical frameworks that explained reactivity patterns without relying solely on spatial hindrance. Their collaborative and competitive efforts during this period laid the groundwork for modern , integrating wave mechanics to interpret bond polarizations and charge redistributions. Key developments in the 1930s further refined these concepts, with Ingold formalizing the as a permanent polarization transmitted through bonds, influencing acidity and reactivity in substituted compounds. Concurrently, advanced resonance theory, describing how electrons in conjugated systems occupy hybrid structures lower in energy than individual Lewis forms, as applied to molecules like and . By the mid-20th century, these ideas expanded into coordination chemistry during the 1950s and 1960s via , which incorporated principles to quantify electronic perturbations from ligands on d-orbitals, explaining spectral and magnetic properties. This extension bridged organic and inorganic domains, emphasizing and pi interactions in complex stability. Significant milestones quantified these qualitative insights, such as Louis P. Hammett's introduction of sigma constants in 1937, which correlated substituent electronic effects with equilibrium and rate constants in derivatives through linear free energy relationships. Similarly, the valence shell electron pair repulsion () theory, proposed by Ronald J. Gillespie and Ronald S. Nyholm in 1957, incorporated lone pair-bond pair repulsions to predict molecular geometries, highlighting electronic repulsion's role in non-bonded interactions. From the onward, the field evolved from descriptive models to predictive computational approaches, enabled by increased computing power and methods like , which allowed simulation of distributions and their impacts on molecular properties. This transition facilitated quantitative analysis of subtle electronic effects in complex systems, marking a toward ab initio predictions over experimental parameterization alone.

Redistributive Effects

Inductive Effect

The is a permanent polarization of bonds in a , arising from differences in between atoms or groups, which causes a shift in along the chain of atoms connected by single bonds. This results in withdrawal or from one part of the to another, creating partial charges without involving pi-bond delocalization. For instance, in a C-X bond where X is a highly electronegative atom like or , the bond polarizes as δ⁻-X—δ⁺-C, transmitting the effect through adjacent bonds. This effect is distance-dependent, attenuating rapidly over 3-4 bonds due to the insulating nature of sigma bonds, and becomes negligible beyond that range; it is also additive when multiple substituents are present, allowing their influences to combine linearly. In quantitative terms, the inductive component is measured by sigma constants (σ_I) in Hammett analysis, which isolate the through-bond polar effect from contributions, with values such as σ_I = 0.47 for -Cl and σ_I = -0.04 for -CH₃ indicating electron-withdrawing and -donating tendencies, respectively. Additionally, in polar solvents, the inductive effect includes a field component, where electrostatic interactions through enhance transmission of the polar influence. While traditionally attributed to the inductive effect, recent studies (as of 2024) suggest additional contributions, such as , may influence acidity in haloacetates. Representative examples illustrate its impact on molecular properties. act as electron-withdrawing groups (-I effect), destabilizing adjacent carbocations in SN1 reactions by withdrawing , which slows the rate compared to unsubstituted analogs. Conversely, alkyl groups exert an electron-donating (+I), stabilizing nearby positive charges through increased . The effect on acidity is evident in (pK_a = 2.87), where the withdraws electrons to stabilize the conjugate base, making it more acidic than acetic acid (pK_a = 4.76). The basic representation of this partial charge shift in a polar bond is: \ceδ−−X−δ+−C\ce{δ^- - X - δ^+ - C} where X is the electronegative substituent, leading to cascading polarization in the sigma framework.

Conjugation and Resonance

Conjugation involves the overlap of adjacent p-orbitals in a system of alternating single and double bonds, enabling the delocalization of π electrons or lone pairs across multiple atoms. This delocalization allows electrons to be shared over a larger region, resulting in a resonance hybrid that represents the actual molecular structure as a blend of contributing resonance forms. The mechanism relies on the parallel alignment of p-orbitals, permitting electron movement depicted by curved arrows between canonical structures, which lowers the overall energy of the system compared to any single resonance form. The hybrid provides stabilization through this electron delocalization, with the energy lowering approximated by second-order as: ΔE=−(H′)2ΔE0\Delta E = -\frac{(H')^2}{\Delta E_0} where H′H' is the representing the interaction between states, and ΔE0\Delta E_0 is the energy difference between the unperturbed states. This effect is long-range, extending over several atoms in the conjugated , and alternates distribution, often increasing it at certain positions while decreasing it at others. Conjugation plays a central role in , where cyclic delocalization confers exceptional stability, and in substituent effects, where it modulates reactivity by donating or withdrawing through π systems. In phenol, the oxygen participates in with the ring, donating to the ortho and para positions, which activates these sites for (EAS) by stabilizing the intermediate through additional forms. This donation makes the ring more electron-rich, enhancing reactivity compared to . Similarly, in allylic systems, a adjacent to a is stabilized by delocalization of the π electrons, distributing the positive charge over two carbon atoms and lowering the energy barrier for reactions like SN1 processes. Carbonyl groups exemplify as an electron-withdrawing feature in reactions; the π* orbital accepts from the , while structures show the oxygen bearing partial negative charge, polarizing the C=O bond and making the carbon highly electrophilic. This delocalization facilitates the addition by stabilizing the where the bonds to carbon and the π electrons shift to oxygen, forming a tetrahedral intermediate.

Non-Redistributive Effects

Hyperconjugation

is a stabilizing interaction arising from the delocalization of electrons in a bonding orbital, typically a C-H bond, into an adjacent empty p-orbital or π* antibonding orbital, without resulting in net charge transfer. This orbital overlap allows for partial delocalization, lowering the system's energy through quantum mechanical mixing of the filled orbital with the vacant acceptor orbital. The concept was formalized by Mulliken and colleagues as an extension of conjugation involving electrons. Key characteristics of hyperconjugation include its role in stabilizing carbocations, free radicals, and alkenes by distributing electron density over multiple centers. It manifests in conformational preferences such as the gauche effect in 1,2-difluoroethane, where hyperconjugative interactions between lone pairs and adjacent sigma bonds favor the gauche over the anti conformation, and the anomeric effect in carbohydrates, where axial orientation of electronegative substituents at the anomeric carbon is stabilized by n-σ* interactions. Additionally, hyperconjugation contributes to rotational barriers around single bonds, as seen in ethane, where sigma C-H / sigma* C-H interactions favor the staggered conformation over eclipsed by approximately 12 kJ/mol. A representative example is the tert-butyl carbocation, (CH₃)₃C⁺, where the empty p-orbital on the central carbon overlaps with nine adjacent C-H sigma bonds from the three methyl groups, providing nine hyperconjugative interactions that significantly enhance stability compared to less substituted carbocations. In alkenes like propene, hyperconjugation between the π* orbital of the C=C bond and the methyl C-H sigma bonds accounts for the barrier to internal around the C-C bond, estimated at 8-10 kJ/mol. Experimental evidence for hyperconjugation includes shifts in C-H stretching frequencies in ; for instance, in the tert-butyl carbocation, the C-H stretches appear at unusually low frequencies around 2830 cm⁻¹, reflecting weakened C-H bonds. The stabilization from can be approximated using second-order as Ehyper=∑2∣Hij∣2ΔEE_{\text{hyper}} = \sum \frac{2 |H_{ij}|^2}{\Delta E} where the sum is over relevant donor-acceptor pairs, HijH_{ij} is the interaction matrix element (sigma-pi overlap ), and ΔE\Delta E is the difference between the orbitals. This formulation highlights the dependence on orbital overlap and energy gap, with typical stabilization per interaction ranging from 5-15 kJ/mol in hydrocarbons. extends the principles of conjugation to sigma systems but differs in its localized nature without requiring π-bond alternation.

Orbital and Symmetry Effects

Orbital interactions governed by play a crucial role in determining molecular geometries and reactivity barriers in systems with electronic degeneracy. In non-linear molecules exhibiting degenerate electronic states, considerations dictate that the system cannot remain stable in a high- configuration; instead, it undergoes spontaneous distortion to remove the degeneracy and achieve a lower state. This phenomenon, known as the Jahn-Teller effect, results from the coupling between electronic and vibrational modes, where asymmetric distortions stabilize the system by splitting degenerate orbitals and allowing electrons to occupy lower- levels. For instance, in octahedral copper(II) complexes with d⁹ configuration, the degenerate e_g orbitals lead to a tetragonal elongation along one axis, with axial Cu–ligand bonds lengthening significantly compared to equatorial ones, as observed in [Cu(H₂O)₆]²⁺ where axial distances are approximately 2.4 Å versus 1.96 Å equatorial. The energy stabilization from such distortions can be quantified using the vibronic coupling model in the , where the Jahn-Teller stabilization energy is given by ΔEJT=−V22K\Delta E_{JT} = -\frac{V^2}{2K} with V the and K the force constant; the distortion amplitude at minimum is δ=V/K\delta = V / K, reflecting the balance between linear electronic stabilization and harmonic vibrational penalty. Another key manifestation is the trans influence in coordination compounds, where strong σ-donor ligands, such as or alkyl groups, weaken the bond trans to themselves by polarizing the metal's d-orbitals and reducing overlap with the trans ligand's σ-orbital. This effect is prominent in square-planar d⁸ complexes like Pt(II), where ligands like H⁻ or CH₃⁻ elongate the trans Pt–ligand bond by up to 0.1 compared to weaker donors./12%3A_Coordination_Chemistry_IV_-_Reactions_and_Mechanisms/12.07%3A_The_Trans_Effect) Orbital symmetry also governs reactivity in pericyclic reactions through conservation principles, prohibiting certain concerted pathways unless is preserved in the . The Woodward-Hoffmann rules predict that thermal [4+2] cycloadditions, such as the Diels-Alder reaction, are allowed because the highest occupied molecular orbitals (HOMOs) of the diene and dienophile exhibit matching for suprafacial overlap, facilitating bond formation without symmetry violation. In d⁸ metal complexes, favors square-planar geometry over tetrahedral, as the ligand field splitting places the d_{x²-y²} orbital highest in energy, avoiding its population and stabilizing the low-spin configuration, as seen in Ni(CN)₄²⁻ with all bonds equivalent at ~1.85 Å./10%3A_Coordination_Chemistry_II_-_Bonding/10.03%3A_Ligand_Field_Theory/10.3.05%3A_Square-Planar_Complexes) Similarly, molecular oxygen's triplet (³Σ_g⁻) imposes spin-forbidden transitions to singlet excited states (¹Δ_g, ¹Σ_g⁺), rendering direct absorption from the weak (ε < 0.1 M⁻¹ cm⁻¹) and contributing to O₂'s paramagnetic and kinetically inert nature in many reactions.

Interactions and Comparisons

Comparison with Steric Effects

Electronic effects operate through the redistribution of electron density via bonds, orbitals, or space, influencing molecular reactivity, stability, and properties by altering charge distribution or orbital interactions. In contrast, steric effects stem from nonbonding interactions, primarily van der Waals repulsions arising from the physical occupation of space by atoms or groups, which affect molecular conformation and reaction rates without involving electron movement. A fundamental distinction lies in their nature and range: electronic effects can be either stabilizing (attractive, such as through donation or delocalization) or destabilizing (repulsive) and propagate over longer distances via through-bond or through-space mechanisms, whereas steric effects are predominantly repulsive, short-range, and confined to immediate spatial proximity. This allows electronic effects to modulate reactivity remotely, like in conjugated systems, while steric effects impose local constraints on approach angles or conformations. In SN2 reactions, electronic effects, such as inductive withdrawal by nearby electronegative atoms, can activate the electrophile by polarizing the C–X bond, facilitating nucleophilic attack, whereas steric hindrance from bulky substituents on the carbon or the nucleophile impedes the backside approach, slowing inversion and reducing rates—for example, primary alkyl halides react faster than tertiary ones due to minimal steric bulk, and bulky bases like tert-butoxide favor elimination over substitution. Conformational preferences in cyclohexane further illustrate steric dominance: A-values quantify the free energy difference favoring equatorial over axial substituents to avoid 1,3-diaxial repulsions, with larger groups like tert-butyl exhibiting high A-values (around 5 kcal/mol) due to severe steric strain, while smaller halogens show lower values (0.2–0.5 kcal/mol). Electronic contributions, such as inductive effects from polar substituents, play a minor role here compared to these spatial clashes. The interplay between electronic and steric effects manifests in steroelectronic phenomena, where orbital alignments dictate stability despite steric costs—for instance, in sugar pyranose rings, the anomeric effect stabilizes axial orientation of electronegative substituents or lone pairs at the anomeric carbon through hyperconjugative donation, countering the steric destabilization that would otherwise favor equatorial positions. This hybrid control highlights how electronic stabilization can override short-range repulsions in biologically relevant systems.

Applications in Reactivity and Structure

Electronic effects play a pivotal role in directing the regioselectivity of electrophilic aromatic substitution (EAS) reactions, where resonance stabilization influences the preference for ortho and para positions over meta. In EAS, electron-donating substituents, such as alkoxy groups, stabilize the positively charged Wheland intermediate through resonance donation to the ortho and para sites, leading to enhanced reactivity at those positions compared to the meta site. This resonance-driven selectivity is evident in the nitration of anisole, where over 90% of the product forms at ortho and para positions due to the delocalization of the positive charge into the substituent's lone pair. Electronic effects also govern acidity and basicity trends in organic molecules, particularly through conjugation stabilization of conjugate bases. In β-diketones like acetylacetone, the enol form is highly favored (up to 80% in solution) due to resonance-assisted hydrogen bonding and delocalization of the enolate negative charge across the two carbonyl groups, enhancing acidity with a pKa around 9 compared to simple ketones (pKa ~20). This stabilization arises from the enolate's ability to distribute electron density via π-conjugation, lowering the energy barrier for deprotonation at the alpha position. In molecular structure, electronic effects manifest in alterations to bond lengths and angles, particularly in conjugated systems where delocalization leads to partial double-bond character in nominally single bonds. For instance, in 1,3-butadiene, the central C-C single bond shortens to approximately 1.48 Å (compared to 1.54 Å in ethane) due to π- overlap, reducing bond length alternation and stabilizing the system by about 3-5 kcal/mol relative to isolated double bonds. Similarly, in coordination chemistry, the trans influence arises from electronic or backbonding by a ligand, which weakens and lengthens the trans M-L bond; for example, in [PtCl4]2-, replacement of Cl- trans to a strong donor like H- elongates the opposite Pt-Cl bond by up to 0.1 Å through σ- polarizing the metal center. Quantitative assessment of these electronic effects relies on tools like Hammett plots, which correlate substituent influences on reaction rates or equilibria via the linear free-energy relationship: log⁡kk0=ρσ\log \frac{k}{k_0} = \rho \sigma Here, σ quantifies the electron-withdrawing or -donating ability of a substituent (e.g., σ_p for para-NO2 is +0.78, indicating strong withdrawal), while ρ measures the reaction's sensitivity to electronic changes (ρ > 0 for rates enhanced by electron donation). This framework, originally developed for ionization, extends to EAS and reactions, with ρ values around +2.5 for alkaline hydrolysis of ethyl benzoates reflecting substantial electronic control. Computational metrics, such as Mulliken charges, further quantify shifts by partitioning the molecular wavefunction; however, due to method limitations in aromatic systems, alternative approaches like Hirshfeld charges better illustrate donation from a para-methoxy group, showing increased at ortho and para carbons that aligns with observed reactivity. In modern applications, electronic effects enable precise tuning in drug design to optimize pharmacokinetics, where substituent modifications adjust lipophilicity and metabolic stability without altering core scaffold. For example, electron-withdrawing groups like fluorine on aryl rings can enhance metabolic resistance by reducing cytochrome P450 oxidation rates, as seen in various kinase inhibitors. In materials science, π-conjugation dictates electronic properties of organic semiconductors, with extended conjugation in polythiophenes lowering the bandgap to ~1.7 eV and enabling hole mobilities up to 0.1 cm²/V·s in field-effect transistors due to efficient π-orbital overlap. This delocalization enhances charge transport in photovoltaic devices, where donor-acceptor π-systems based on polythiophenes achieve power conversion efficiencies exceeding 17% (as of 2025) through tuned electron affinity.

References

  1. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr60051a003
  2. https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/react1.htm
  3. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/133163/bitstreams/440959/data.pdf
  4. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/70956/1/2014_Book_ElectronicEffectsInOrganicChem.pdf
  5. https://www.csusm.edu/lts/studentresources/handouts/ochem_ewg_edg.pdf
  6. https://welab.umass.edu/scissilebondbiochem.pdf
  7. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=chemfacpub
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/ligand-field-theory
  9. https://cdn.fortunejournals.com/articles/brief-history-of-electronic-structure-calculations-in-computational-chemistry.pdf
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003986115001216
  11. http://www.wiredchemist.com/data/hammett-sigma-constants
  12. https://books.google.com/books?id=5i1IAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA78
  13. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d4sc04832f
  14. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Organic_Chemistry/Organic_Chemistry_(Morsch_et_al.)/08%3A_Reactions_of_Haloalkanes_Nucleophilic_Substitution_and_Elimination_Reactions/8.03%3A_The_S_N1_Mechanism
  15. https://www.chemistrysteps.com/inductive-and-resonance-mesomeric-effects/
  16. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Chloroacetic-Acid
  17. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Acetic-Acid
  18. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Organic_Chemistry/Organic_Chemistry_I_%28Cortes%29/06%253A_Electron_Delocalization_and_Resonance/6.03%253A_Delocalization_Conjugated_Systems_and_Resonance_Energy
  19. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Advanced_Theoretical_Chemistry_%28Simons%29/04%253A__Some_Important_Tools_of_Theory/4.01%253A_Perturbation_Theory
  20. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Organic_Chemistry/Organic_Chemistry_%28OpenStax%29/16%253A_Chemistry_of_Benzene_-_Electrophilic_Aromatic_Substitution/16.04%253A_Substituent_Effects_in_Electrophilic_Substitutions
  21. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Organic_Chemistry/Map%253A_Organic_Chemistry_%28Smith%29/14%253A_Conjugation_Resonance_and_Dienes/14.02%253A_Resonance_and_Allylic_Carbocations
  22. https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Purdue/Purdue%253A_Chem_26200%253A_Organic_Chemistry_II_%28Wenthold%29/Chapter_16.__Aldehydes_and_Ketones/16.05%253A_Reactions_of_Ketones_and_Aldehydes%253A_Introduction_to_Nucleophilic_addition/Carbonyl_Group_%25E2%2580%2593_Mechanisms_of_Addition
  23. http://publications.iupac.org/pac-2007/1984/pdf/5612x1755.pdf
  24. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ed1011986
  25. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Organic_Chemistry/Organic_Chemistry_(Morsch_et_al.)/07%3A_Alkenes-_Structure_and_Reactivity/7.10%3A_Carbocation_Structure_and_Stability
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3516884/
  27. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.1937.0142
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/jahn-teller-effect
  29. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.196907811
  30. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr010371d
  31. https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/60c75977469df46860f4587c
  32. https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/S05997
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9033979/
  34. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Organic_Chemistry/Organic_Chemistry_%28Morsch_et_al.%29/11%253A_Reactions_of_Alkyl_Halides-_Nucleophilic_Substitutions_and_Eliminations/11.03%253A_Characteristics_of_the_SN2_Reaction
  35. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1351/PAC-CON-08-10-03/html
  36. https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Providence_College/Organic_Chemistry_I/04%253A_Rings/4.02%253A_A-values_and_Equilibrium_Ratios
  37. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cs/d1cs00386k
  38. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jo9808932
  39. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/j150495a003
  40. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ja01077a088
  41. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr00002a004
  42. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-401X/6/3/34
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10099028/
  44. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cm102419z
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435122000873
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.