Mills et al.
the redox potential (E1/2) for formation of both cation
radical and dication of 3a-g vs a variety of substituent
coefficients, σ. The best correlation was with σm,30 which
gave a correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.980 for formation
of the cation radical and 0.926 for formation of the
dication; see the Supporting Information. The slightly
better correlation with σm for formation of the cation
radical suggests that the positive charge is localized on
the diphenylmethylidene portion of the system which
would be more responsive to substituent effects, with the
radical localized on the fluorenyl portion. This behavior
has been seen previously in studies of the cation radical
for 3d and 3f.31 The effect of substituent constants on
the redox potential shows that the more electronegatively
substituted diphenylmethylidenefluorene was oxidized at
a more positive potential, as would be predicted. The
relationship of this potential to measures of antiaroma-
ticity will be discussed in a later section.
Choice of the Reference System, Preparation,
and Electrochemical Oxidation. To evaluate antiaro-
maticity, it is necessary to determine whether the stabil-
ity of the system is less than that of an appropriate
reference system. In this context, this would ask whether
the redox potential observed in the system is more
positive than that for a reference system. The ideal
reference system would be one like 7 in which the phenyl
rings that were to serve as a model for the incompletely
delocalized fluorenyl system were planar, rather than 5/6
in which the phenyl rings would be expected to be
oriented in a propellared geometry.32 Compound 7 was
the redox potential for formation of the dications of the
appropriately substituted diphenylmethylidenefluorene
and the corresponding tetraphenylethylene. The redox
potentials show that, in all cases except for p-methyl-
substituted diphenylmethylidenefluorene, the dications
of diphenylmethylidenefluorenes were formed at more
positive potentials than the dications of tetraphenyl-
ethylenes, suggesting their decreased stability and greater
antiaromaticity. While the redox potential for formation
of the dication of p-methyl-substituted diphenylmeth-
ylidenefluorene is less positive than that of the corre-
sponding tetraphenylethylene, the difference is very
small.
Nucleus-Independent Chemical Shift Calcula-
tions. Nucleus-independent shift calculations (NICS)
calculations are made by GIAO calculation of the chemi-
cal shift of a ghost atom placed 1 Å above the center of a
ring.7,36 A positive value for NICS is associated with
antiaromaticity. Its magnitude is dependent on the basis
set and on the method used.26 To determine the appropri-
ate method for calculation of NICS, we compared the
experimental carbon and proton shifts for 2c2+, d2+, and
f2+ and those calculated using several calculational
methods.37 As we have seen in the past, the most effec-
tive correlation, r equals 0.998 for the carbon shifts
and 0.952 for the proton shifts of the fluorenyl sys-
tem,28 is found when the calculations are done using the
density functional theory method B3LYP with basis set
6-31G(d) on geometries optimized using B3LYP with
basis set 6-31G(d) using the Gaussian 94,38 Gaussian
98,39 or Gaussian 0340 suite of programs. The good
correlation between experimental and calculated shifts
suggests that other magnetic properties, such as NICS,
will also be calculated effectively by this method.
The values for the nucleus independent chemical shift
calculated using density functional theory for the
5-(NICS-5-1) and six-membered rings (NICS-6-1) of
(3a-g)2+ are given in Table 2, along with the values for
(2a-g)2+. Although the NICS values for (2a-g)2+ were
reported previously,27 they were calculated in the plane
not well-behaved in an electrochemical sense; see the
Supporting Information. However, the potentials for
formation of the cation radical and dication were roughly
similar to those of 5e/6e, so we were comfortable with
the use of 5/6 as model systems. A further advantage of
5/6 as reference systems is that electrochemical oxida-
tions of several derivatives of tetraphenylethylene had
been reported in the literature,32-35 so we had some
context for assuming that the oxidations of 5/6 would not
have unexpected outcomes. The unsymmetrical 5/6 were
synthesized primarily by Peterson olefination of diphen-
ylmethane with the appropriately substituted benzophe-
nones. Electrochemical oxidation was performed in an
analogous fashion to that of 3, and the redox potentials
for formation of their cation radicals and dications are
reported in Table 1, along with the difference between
(36) Schleyer, P. v. R.; Manoharan, M.; Wang, Z.-X.; Kiran, B.; Jiao,
H.; Puchta, R.; Hommes, N. J. R. v. E. Org. Lett. 2001, 3, 2465-2468.
(37) We compared experimental NMR shifts with those calculated
with the GIAO method at RHF/6-31G(d)//RHF/6-31G(d) and B3LYP/
6-31G(d)//B3LYP/6-31G(d) levels and with the IGLO method (Kut-
zelnigg, W.; Schindler, M.; Fleischer, U. NMR, Basic Principles and
Progress: Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1990), basis sets DZ and
II, on geometries optimized at B3LYP/6-31G(d).
(38) Frisch, M. J.; Trucks, G. W.; Schlegel, H. B.; Gill, P. M. W.;
Johnson, B. G.; Robb, M. A.; Cheesman, J. R.; Keith, T.; Petersson, G.
A.; Montgomery, J. A.; Raghavachari, K.; Al-Laham, M. A.; Zakrzewski,
V. G.; Ortiz, J. V.; Foresman, J. B.; Cioslowski, J.; Stefanov, B. B.;
Nanayakkara, A.; Challacombe, M.; Peng, C. Y.; Ayala, P. Y.; Chen,
W.; Wong, M. W.; Andres, J. L.; Replogle, E. S.; Gomperts, R.; Martin,
R. L.; Fox, D. J.; Binkley, J. S.; Defrees, D. J.; Baker, J.; Stewart, J.
P.; Head-Gordon, M.; Gonzalez, C.; Pople, J. A. Gaussian 94, Version
E.2 ed.; Gaussian, Inc.: Pittsburgh, PA, 1995.
(39) Frisch, M. J.; Trucks, G. W.; Schlegel, H. B.; Scuseria, G. E.;
Robb, M. A.; Cheeseman, J. R.; Zakrzewski, V. G.; Montgomery, J. A.,
Jr.; Stratmann, R. E.; Burant; Dapprich, S.; Millam, J. M.; Daniels,
A. D.; Kudin, K. N.; Strain, M. C.; Farkas, O.; Tomasi, J.; Barone, V.;
Cossi, M.; Cammi, R.; Mennucci, B.; Pomelli, C.; Adamo, C.; Clifford,
S.; Ochterski, J.; Petersson, G. A.; Ayala, P. Y.; Cui, Q.; Morokuma,
K.; Malick, D. K.; Rabuck, A. D.; Raghavachari, K.; Foresman, J. B.;
Cioslowski, J.; Ortiz, J. V.; Baboul, A. G.; Stefanov, B. B.; Liu, G.;
Liashenko, A.; Piskorz, P.; Komaromi, I.; Gomperts, R.; Martin, R. L.;
Fox, D. J.; Keith, T.; Al-Laham, M. A.; Peng, C. Y.; Nanayakkara, A.;
Gonzalez, C.; Challacombe, M.; Gill, P. M. W.; Johnson, B. G.; Chen,
W.; Wong, M. W.; Andres, J. L.; Gonzalez, C.; Head-Gordon, M.;
Replogle, E. S.; Pople, J. A. Gaussian 98, A.7 ed.; Gaussian, Inc.:
Pittsburgh, PA, 1998.
(30) Hansch, C.; Leo, A.; Taft, R. W. Chem. Rev. 1991, 91, 165-
195.
(31) Luisa, M.; Franco, M. B.; Herold, B. J. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin
Trans. 2 1988, 443-449.
(32) Rathore, R.; Lindeman, S. V.; Kumar, A. S.; Kochi, J. S. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 6931-6939.
(33) Muzyka, J. L.; Fox, M. A. J. Org. Chem. 1991, 56, 4549-4552.
(34) Phelps, J.; Bard, A. J. J. Electroanal. Chem. 1976, 68, 313-
335.
(35) Steckhan, E. Electrochim. Acta 1977, 22, 395-399.
10712 J. Org. Chem., Vol. 70, No. 26, 2005