Abstract
In 2023, a themed collection on “Emerging frontiers in aromaticity” was published in Chemical Science. The collection included a Perspective Essay entitled “Aromaticity – Quo Vadis”, which presents a wealth of viewpoints on the multiple definitions of aromaticity. The present Prefatory Review revives the viewpoint that aromaticity is a theoretical notion and as such, its meaning is theory dependent. Therefore, when aromaticity is made to correspond to two or more ‘experimental’ ideas, e.g., energetic, structural, electronic, magnetic, it would be absurd to maintain that aromaticity is explicitly defined by each of these ideas in turn. The Review emphasizes that the descriptor ‘theoretical’ in general, including in the context of aromaticity does not mean ‘computational’. The theoretical notion of aromaticity is illustrated by Craig’s rules of aromaticity and by Craig’s second type of aromaticity based on symmetry and delocalization in pπ-dπ bonds, recently highlighted as ‘Craig-Type Möbius aromaticity’.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
The present Prefatory Review was prompted by the timely invitation of the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Structural Chemistry, Professor Istvan Hargittai, on the occasion of the Journal’s 35th birthday and by the Chemical Science 2023 publication of the Perspective Essay entitled “Aromaticity – Quo Vadis”, authored by Gabriel Marino, et duodecim alia [1]. It is an attempt to present an additional analysis and a renewed insight. The phrase ‘Quo Vadis’ appears in the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible, in John 13:36, the account of the last supper: when Jesus hints at his imminent detention and death Saint Peter inquires “Quo Vadis” [2]. However, the Christian tradition regarding Saint Peter’s first words to the risen Christ, during their encounter along the Appian Way outside Rome, late 2nd century AD [3] is perhaps better known. Furthermore, the Vulgate contains the ‘Quo Vadis’ phrase several times, e.g. in Genesis, 16:8, Genesis, 32:17. The ‘Quo Vadis’ phrase means idiomatically a reflection on someone’s purpose or direction in life. The essence of the “Quo Vadis” phrase is included in the opening Talmud saying attributed to Akabja Ben Mehalalel, ca. 100 AD:
“Know whence thou comest and whither thou goest and before whom thou art to give strict account” [4].
The point of the quote from the Talmud, which contains the element ‘whither thou goes’ of the ‘Quo Vadis’ phrase, preceded the Quo Vadis element. The two other elements of the Talmud saying, ’know whence thou comest’ and ‘before whom thou art to give strict account’, are also elements relevant to the Aromaticity: Quo Vadis Perspective. The authors discuss previous definitions and approaches to aromaticity and give account to the scientific community. I admire the authors’ choice of the phrase ‘Quo Vadis’ for the title of their Perspective. It provides a certain ‘multidisciplinary’ flavor. Likewise, introducing the Talmud quote.
I was introduced to the notion of aromaticity by my Vater Professor Ernst David Bergmann (1903–1975) at the outset of my Ph.D. research in the early 1960s. I advanced in my 1966 Ph.D. Thesis [5] the proposition that aromaticity is a theoretical notion, and as such, its meaning is theory dependent [6]. I claimed that any attempt to define explicitly the notion of aromaticity should take into consideration the following general statement made by the logician Ernst Nagel:
”In these cases in which a given theoretical notion is made to correspond to two or more experimental ideas, it would be absurd to maintain that the theoretical concept is explicitly defined by each of the two experimental ones in turn” [7].
The opening lecture at the Jerusalem Symposium on “Aromaticity, Pseudoaromaticity, Antiaromaticity“ [8] ended with the quotation of Nagel’s statement. The proposition that aromaticity is a theoretical notion was restated in the 1973 review on aromaticity in the series MTP International Review of Science entitled “Theoretical Aromatic Chemistry” [9] and in the Journal of Organic Chemistry 2007 article [10]. My Prefatory Review refers also to the Editorial [11], of the themed collection “Emerging Frontiers in Aromaticity”, guest edited by Gabriel Merino, Miquel Solà, and Israel Fernández [12] and to the Commentary entitled “A focus on aromaticity: fuzzier than ever before?” authored by Henrik Ottosson [13].
The Editorial [11], the Perspective [1], and the Commentary [13] of the collection were conspicuously silent on aromaticity as a theoretical notion, except for few brief statements: Harry thinks that “criteria for aromaticity should be grounded in parameters that can be measured experimentally and calculated theoretically” [1] (p. 5571). “Alternatively, if aromaticity becomes seen as primarily a theoretical quality, without experimental manifestations, it loses relevance” [1] (p. 5571). “It is not a matter of being theoretical or experimental” [1] (p. 5751). “Aromaticity is a phenomenon” [1] (p. 5571). The reviews on aromaticity [8, 9] and the 1976 review in International Review of Science, entitled “The Controversial Notion of Aromaticity” [14] were also overlooked. Consistently, an editor of a Nature (now Springer Nature) journal advised me a score years ago not to submit review chapters of edited books, because the majority of scientists will not read them and most libraries will not purchase such books.
The Quo Vadis Perspective [1] contains the following sentences that are pointing at a scenario of incompatibility of aromaticity criteria with one another, a scenario, which is somewhat relevant to aromaticity as a theoretical notion. “Thus ‘aromaticity’ would be something that can be measured via some proper yardstick. Several long established ‘quantifiers’ of different kinds are available – energetic, geometrical, magnetic, electronic, topological, etc. – sometimes incompatible with one another” [1] (p. 5571). “If we rely on magnetic properties as a probe of aromaticity, we might list some molecules as aromatic, which might not be considered as aromatic if we chose intrinsic criteria of aromaticity, i.e., energetic, structural, and electronic criteria” [1] (p. 5572).
On the other hand, the Quo Vadis Perspective quotes the following viewpoint that is in contrast with aromaticity as a theoretical notion: “we can call a molecule aromatic if it does satisfy all criteria of aromaticity, i.e., structural, energetic, electronic, and magnetic, at the same time. This involves that if a molecule satisfies the magnetic criterion of aromaticity but fails in energetic test, we should not call the system aromatic and vice versa” [1] (p. 5574), referring to Cuyacot, et al. [15]. : “Considering the conflicts between magnetic response and ground-state aromaticity criteria (energetic, structural, and electronic criteria), we propose that the term aromatic be used for labeling a molecule if and only if all criteria confirm aromaticity. In other words, neither magnetic nor ground-state criteria [are necessary and sufficient conditions for labeling a molecule aromatic” [15].
The JOC article [10] included a response to Cyrañski, et al., who in 2002 raised the old question “to what extent can aromaticity be defined uniquely?” [16]. These authors adopted a statistical analysis of quantitative criteria of aromaticity, concluding that “the various manifestations of aromaticity are related” and that aromaticity “… from a philosophical point of view … can be regarded as a one-dimensional phenomenon.” The authors qualified this conclusion: “in practical applications energetic, geometric and magnetic descriptors of aromaticity … do not speak with the same voice. Thus, in this sense the phenomenon of aromaticity can be regarded essentially as being statistically multidimensional” [16]. The statistical approach is in contrast to aromaticity being a theoretical notion. The 2002 Cyrañski, et al., article [16], is reminiscent of the plot of the Japanese film Rashomon, where the audience is left with the buffing feeling of the relativity of truth [14, 17]. In this context, the Quo Vadis Perspective [1] quotes “the suggestive idea of aromaticity as a “multidimensional property”, which is a sort of conundrum including several different qualities challenging to assemble and reconcile within a comprehensive frame” [1], yet it also quotes critical arguments against this idea. V. I. Minkin, et al., stated in the authoritative book on Aromaticity and Antiaromaticity that “It is impossible to define aromaticity in a completely exhaustive manner” [18].
The Preface of the 2022 book Aromaticity and Antiaromaticity: Basics and Applications [19] authored by M. Sola, et al., and the Foreword of this book by G. Frenking [20], contained the following related sentences: “With the advent of quantum theory and its application in chemistry, the models were partially modified and they received a quantum chemical basis that allowed a theoretical understanding and an extension of the rules associated with the model. A prominent example is aromaticity” [19] (pp. xi-xii) “Aromaticity is a not well-defined property that cannot be measured experimentally” [20] (pp. xiii-xv).
In the spirit of the “Aromaticity: Quo Vadis” Perspective [1], it should be noted that the proposition “aromaticity is a theoretical notion and as such, its meaning is theory dependent”, submitted by a fox, not by a hedgehog [21], is an addition to the range of viewpoints on the essence of aromaticity, not a substitute. However, it is not a guise of aromaticity [22]. Paraphrasing Ernst Nagel [7], in the case of the theoretical notion aromaticity, which is made to correspond to two or more experimental ideas, it would be absurd to maintain that aromaticity is explicitly defined by each of the two (or more) experimental ones in turn. This emphasized message was not claimed in the Quo Vadis “disclosure”. On the contrary, the Quo Vadis Perspective ‘teaches away’ from this message not only by omitting it, but also by devoting long sections on “Are there criteria for aromaticity that are superior (or more desirable) to the others?” [1]. A reference may be said to ‘teach away’ when a person skilled in the art, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant [23].
The descriptor ‘theoretical’ in this Prefatory Review does not mean ‘computational’. The Review is addressed to experimentalists as well as to theoreticians and “is not a matter of being theoretical or experimental” [1] (p. 5575). Charles Coulson’s seminal statement “we want insight, not numbers” summarizes what we should strive for, and what separates theory from computations. The statement is attributed to Coulson’s “after dinner speech” at the Banquet of the Conference on Molecular Quantum Mechanics on June 26, 1959 in Boulder, Colorado. Coulson published his speech in 1960 in Reviews of Modern Physics [24]. Surprisingly, Coulson’s statement, verbatim, was absent in this published article. In 2019, F. Neese, et al., modified Coulson’s statement: “Give us insight and numbers” [25]. A case in point, illustrating that ‘theoretical’ is often interpreted as ‘computational’ (contrary to my statement), is the following statement in the Quo Vadis Perspective: “Harry (Harry L. Anderson) thinks that “criteria for aromaticity should be grounded in parameters that can be measured experimentally and calculated theoretically. Alternatively, if aromaticity becomes seen as primarily a theoretical quality, without experimental manifestations, it loses relevance” [1] (p. 5571). This Prefatory Review is an opportunity to stress the difference between theory and computations. Interestingly, the authors of “Aromaticity: Quo Vadis?” stated: “we need to strive for a better qualitative insight, not just numbers from various computational tools, for (anti)aromaticity assessments (ultimately machine learning)” [1] (p. 5573). The similarity of this statement to Coulson’s statement is striking. The authors of the Quo Vadis Perspective used the words “insight and numbers”, but omitted a reference to Coulson’s statement. In a related 2020 tripartite Essay on “Simulation vs. Understanding: A Tension in Quantum Chemistry and Beyond”, the authors offer a “triangle, with experiment, especially in chemistry, impelling interaction between theory, numerical simulation and understanding” [26].
The Prefatory Review is an opportunity to commemorate the contributions by the late theoretical chemist Professor David P. Craig (1919–2015) [27], who introduced in his seminal papers on Aromatic Character [28] and Aromaticity [29] the notion of pseudoaromaticity, Craig’s rules of aromaticity and a second type of aromaticity based on delocalization in πp-dπ bonds [9, 30, 31]. The Quo Vadis Perspective [1] did not refer to Craig’s rules. Craig’s rules are theoretical rules, criteria of aromaticity based on symmetry, distinguishing between ‘aromatic’ and ‘pseudoaromatic’ cyclic conjugated hydrocarbons. In the broad sense, pseudoaromaticity referred to all nonbenzenoid aromatic compounds, for which the problem of the presence or the absence of an aromatic character arises [4]. Thus, the descriptor ‘pseudoaromatic’ in the general sense was first replaced by ‘nonbenzenoid’ (e.g., the 1959 book “Non-Benzenoid Aromatic Compounds”, see reference [29]) and later by the descriptor ‘novel’, (e.g., the series “International Symposia on the Chemistry of Novel Aromatic Compounds (ISNA)”) [32]. More specifically, pseudoaromaticity is associated with Craig’s rules of aromaticity. Craig’s rules are guidelines for the classification of cyclic conjugated hydrocarbons. They relate aromatic character to high resonance energy, which they attempt to predict on the basis of certain symmetry features whether the resonance energy between the canonical structures representing the ground state of a conjugated hydrocarbon is high or low. Craig’s rules distinguish between molecules with a valence bond wave function totally symmetrical, (e.g., benzene) and not totally symmetrical in the ground state (e.g., pentalene, heptalene). The former are designated aromatic, whereas the latter are designated pseudoaromatic. “The necessary element of symmetry for the application of Craig’s rules is a symmetry axis of order two passing through two or more π centres and transforming one Kekulé structure into another Kekulé structure” [9]. In Craig’s words [27]: “We discovered that whereas the ground state of the normal aromatics was totally symmetrical in the symmetry group, the other ones were not. So, if you could find a rule for saying which would go this way and which would go that, you would enable people to say straight off, without trying, ‘Well, this is a pseudo-aromatic. It won’t be easy to make.’ We did put out some rules, which worked quite well for a few years, but then an exception was found and that was that. We had the pleasant experience later on of people successfully making these molecules and finding they really were very unstable – decomposing very quickly” [27]. Craig’s rules have been criticized and occasionally led to ambiguous or faulty predictions (e.g., cyclopent[ef]heptalene) [9, 33].
Craig made the “distinction between two types of aromaticity; this distinction depends on symmetry” [30]. Craig presented an outline of the theory of a second type of aromaticity and illustrated its application by reference to the monocyclic phosphonitrilic chlorides (NPCl2)n, which, certainly for n = 3 and n = 4 and possibly higher, display aromatic character without special preference “for a group of six electrons” [30] and for Hückel’s rule of 4n + 2 versus 4n π electrons [28, 30, 31]. Craig’s “novel type of aromaticity” [30], a kind of Möbius topology, has recently been highlighted as ‘Craig-Type Möbius aromaticity’ (in dimetalla[10]annulenes) [34]. “Craig demonstrated the introduction of the essential 180° half-twist into a cyclic array of atomic orbitals and analyzed the influence of the presence of main group d orbitals in an alternating cyclic array of p-d π interaction” [34]. Craig concluded in 1959 that “In plane systems of alternating atoms A and B each providing one π-electron, there are only two symmetry distinguishable types of delocalization, represented as examples by neighbour pπ-pπ interactions and pπ-dxz, the former being the type familiar in aromatic hydrocarbons and the latter not hitherto recognized” and “In pπ-dxz delocalization the dominance of the sextet is lost. The delocalization energy per electron increases steadily with the number of π-electrons, leading to the expectation that on the basis of π-electrons alone an eight-membered ring would be more stable than a sixth-membered ring” [31]. “aromaticity is in fact of two types, the phosphonitrilic halides being the first recognized examples of the second type” [30].
According to Dewar, “Craig [31] has pointed out that the replacement of one p-AOs in a cyclic conjugated system by a d-AO, leads to a dislocation such that at least one pair of adjacent orbitals overlap out of phase” [35, 36]. “David Craig’s Möbius transition state ideas, while not glaringly visible, were nonetheless a precedent for the aromaticity/anti-aromaticity transition state model of Dewar” [36]. Craig’s ‘Möbius aromaticity’ [30], which Craig introduced in 1958 as a novel type of aromaticity, should be distinguished from Heilbronner’s ‘Möbius aromaticity’ [37]: “Feature of a monocyclic array of π orbitals in which there is a single out-of-phase overlap (or, more generally, an odd number of out-of-phase overlaps), whereby the pattern of aromatic character is opposite to Hückel systems; with 4n π electrons it is stabilized (aromatic), whereas with 4n + 2, it is destabilized (antiaromatic)” [38].
The present Prefatory Review serves as a platform for briefly stating my view point which theoretical framework of aromaticity to prefer, which theoretical framework I advocate. We mark as aromaticity several phenomena with different theoretical cornerstones. The following quotes from recent articles support this statement: “The different aspects of triplet state Baird-aromaticity are nothing but different” [39]. “Our findings support the view that one should speak of aromaticity as two phenomena, one response aromaticity represented by the magnetic aspect and one intrinsic aromaticity represented by the electronic, energetic and geometric aspects” [39]. “Since aromaticity is synonymous for a particular stability of cyclic delocalized systems, it may be stated that calculation or measurement of magnetic indices, i.e., NICS or current density, is not a reliable method to ascertain the aromatic character of a molecule” [40]. My preferred aromaticity criterion is the energetic criterion. It may be applied by both experimentalists and practitioners of computations. The application of the energetic criterion requires a reference molecule. The applicant may select a preferred reference or a number of references (e.g., homodesmotic reactions).
The aromaticity community should recall A. T. Balaban’s 1980 call: “So instead of trying to turn our thumbs down on a frequently used term, we should better make use of it” [41].
Conclusions
Aromaticity is a theoretical notion and as such its meaning is theory dependent! Therefore, when aromaticity is made to correspond to two or more ‘experimental’ ideas, e.g., energetic, structural, electronic, magnetic, it would be absurd to maintain that aromaticity is explicitly defined by each of these ideas in turn. Consistently, aromaticity is considered as several phenomena with different theoretical frameworks. The notion of aromaticity will survive [22], in spite of the many viewpoints and the hype of the scientists. Craig’s application of symmetry considerations in constructing aromaticity criteria is highlighted. The Prefatory Review stresses the difference between theory and computations. The meaning of the descriptor ‘theoretical’ is not ‘computational’, is not a synonym and is not a metonym to ‘computational’, in the context of aromaticity and in general.
Finally,
“A clash of doctrines is not a disaster–it is an opportunity” [42] (Alfred North Whitehead).
Reference is made to the eighteen-hundred-year-old Talmud teaching “Whoever reports a saying in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world” [43]. This virtue (in Hebrew “middah”) is the ethical obligation of quoting one’s sources! Credit should be given for another’s ideas and for previous related work. The Sages have identified such an act as a cause for redemption” [44].
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Merino G, Solà M, Fernández I, Foroutan-Nejad C, Lazzeretti P, Grenking G, Anderson HL, Sundholm D, Cossío FP, Petrukhina MA, Wu J, Wu JI, Restrepo A (2023) Aromaticity: Quo Vadis. Chem Sci 14:5569–5576
John S (382) Secundum Iohannem. Biblia Sacra Vulgata 13:36
Wikipedia contributors (2024) Quo vadis? Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quo_vadis%3F&oldid=1212534318. Accessed 10 Mar 2024
Akabja ben Mahalalel (ca. 100) Know whence thou comest and whither thou goest and before whom thou art to give strict account. Pirke Aboth The Ethics of the Talmud: Saying of the Fathers. Chapter 3, 1. English translation from Hebrew of the Talmud tractate Pirke Aboth, Herford RT (ed) (1962) Schocken Books, New York, p. 63
Agranat I (1966) Studies in the Series of the Pseudoaromatic Hydrocarbons. Ph.D. Thesis (in Hebrew with an English Summary), The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, pp. 1-187 and I-XXIII https://huji.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/972HUJI_INST/9os3m6/alma990015302060203701
Bar-Hillel Y (1963) The state of concepts in psychology (in Hebrew). Megamot 12:197–202
Nagel E (1961) The structure of science: problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
Bergmann ED, Agranat I (1971) Review of the Theoretical and Experimental Means for the Determination of Aromaticity. In: Bergmann ED, Pullman B (eds) Aromaticity, Pseudoaromaticity and Antiaromaticity. Proceeding of an International Symposium held in Jerusalem, March 31-April 3. The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem, pp. 9–20 and Discussion, pp. 21–24
Agranat I (1973) Theoretical aromatic Chemistry. In: Zollinger H (ed) MTP international review of science, organic chemistry, series one, vol 3, aromatic compounds. Butterworths, London, pp 139–178
Pogodin S, Agranat I (2007) Theoretical notions of aromaticity and antiaromaticity: phenalenyl ions versus fluorenyl ions. J Org Chem 72:10096–10107
Solà M, Fernández I, Merino G (2023) Emerging frontiers in aromaticity. Chem Sci 14:9628–9629
Solà M, Fernandez I, Merino G (eds) (2021–2023) Themed Collection: Emerging Frontiers in Aromaticity. Chem Sci https://pubs.rsc.org/en/journals/articlecollectionlanding?sercode=sc&themeid=8a23e7fc-8fb5-487b-b103-96f78062ace6
Ottosson HA (2023) A focus on aromaticity: fuzzier than ever before? Chem Sci 14:5542–5544
Agranat I, Barak A (1976) The controversial notion of aromaticity. In: Zollinger H (ed) International review of Science, Organic Chemistry, Series two, vol 3, Aromatic Compounds. Butterworths, London, pp 1–24
Cuyacot BJR, Badri Z, Ghosh A, Foroutan-Nejad C (2022) Metallaaromaticity – a protean world. Phys Chem Chem Phys 24:27957–27963
Cyrañski MK, Krygowski TM, Katritzky AR, Schleyer PR (2002) To what extent can Aromaticity be defined uniquely? J Org Chem 67:1333–1338
Anderson JI, Richie D (1959) The Japanese Film: art and industry. Charles E. Tuttle Company, Rutland, Vermont, p 223
Minkin VI, Glukhovtsev MN, Simkin B BY (1994) Aromaticity and Antiaromaticity. Electronic and structural aspects. Wiley Interscience, New York, p 6
Solà M, Boldyrev AI, Cyrański MK, Krygowski TM, Merino G (2022) Preface. Aromaticity and antiaromaticity: concepts and applications. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp xiii–xv
Frenking G (2022) Foreword. In: Solà M, Boldyrev AI, Cyranski MK, Krygowski TM, Merino G (eds) Aromaticity and antiaromaticity: concepts and applications. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp xi–xii
Berlin I (1953) The hedgehog and the fox: an essay on Tolstoy’s view of history. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London
Hoffmann R (2015) The many guises of aromaticity. Am Sci 103(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1511/2015.112.18
Agranat I, Marom H (2020) In defense of secondary pharmaceutical patents in drug discovery and development. ACS Med Chem Lett 11:91–98
Coulson CA (1960) Present state of molecular structure calculations. Rev Mod Phys 32:170–177
Neese F, Atanasov M, Bistoni G, Maganas D, Ye. S (2019) Chemistry and quantum mechanics in 2019: give us insight and numbers. J Am Chem Soc 141:2814–2824
Hoffmann R, Malrieu J-P (2020) Simulation vs. understanding: a tension, in quantum chemistry and beyond. Part C. Toward concilience. Angew Chem Int Ed 59:13694–13710
Craig D, Crompton B (interviewer) (1998) Professor David Craig (1919–2015), theoretical chemist. Australian Academy of Science, Canberra https://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/history/interviews-australian-scientists/professor-david-craig-1919-2015. Accessed 17 Mar 2024
Craig DP (1959) Aromatic Character. In: Theoretical Organic Chemistry (Papers presented to the Kekulé Symposium). Butterworths Scientific Publications, London, pp. 20–34
Craig DP (1959) Aromaticity. In: Ginsburg D (ed) Non-benzenoid aromatic compounds. Interscience, New York, pp 1–42
Craig DP, Paddock NL (1958) A novel type of aromaticity. Nature 181:1052–1053
Craig DP (1959) Delocalization in pπ-dπ bonds. J Chem Soc. 997–1001
Agranat I (1982) Preface, International Symposium on the Chemistry of Novel Aromatic Compounds (ISNA 4). Pure Appl Chem 54(5):iv
Abramovitch RA, McEven KL (1965) Some comments on Craig’s Rules. Can J Chem 43:2616–2619
An K, Shen T, Zhu J (2017) Craig type Möbius aromaticity and antiaromaticity in dimetalla[10]annulenes: a metal-induced Yin-and-Yang pair. Organometallics 36:3190–3204
Dewar MJS (1966) A molecular orbital theory of organic chemistry-VIII. Aromaticity and electrocyclic reactions. Tetrahedron Suppl. Part 1 8:75–92
Seeman JI (2022) The many chemists who could have proposed the Woodward-Hoffmann rules (including Roald Hoffmann) but didn’t: the theoretical and physical chemists. Chem Rec 22:1–45e212300052
Heilbronner E (1964) Hückel molecular orbitals of Möbius-type conformations of annulenes. Tetrahedron Lett 5(29):1973–1978
Perrin CL, Agranat I, Bagno A, Braslavsky SE, Fernandes PA, Gal J-F, Lloyd-Jones GC, Mayr H, Murdoch JR, Nudelman NS, Radom L, Rappoport Z, Ruasse M-F, Siehl H-U, Takeuchi Y, Tidwell TT, Uggerud E, Williams JH (2022) Möbius aromaticity. Glossary of terms used in physical organic chemistry (IUPAC recommendations 2021). Pure Appl Chem 94(4):353–534
Preethalayam P, Vedin NP, Radenkovic S, Ottosson H (2023) Azaboracyclooctatetraenes reveal that the different aspects of triplet state Baird-aromaticity are nothing but different. J Phys Org Chem 36:e4455
Zhao L, Grande-Aztatzi R, Foroutan-Nejad C, Ugalde JM, Frenking G (2017) Aromaticity, the Hückel 4n + 2 rule and magnetic current. Chem Select 2:863–870
Balaban AT (1980) Is aromaticity outmoded? Pure Appl Chem 52:1409–1429
Whitehead AN (1929) Science and the Modern World. Lowell lectures 1925. Cambridge University Press, London, p 230. https://ia600809.us.archive.org/20/items/b29978531/b29978531.pdf
Elazar R, Chanina R (1991) (ca. 200) Whoever reports a saying in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world. In: Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Megillah, Chap. 1, 15a (in Hebrew). English Translation: The Schottenstein Edition, First Edition, Artscrol, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, New York
Pogodin S, Biedermann PU, Agranat I (2019) The conformational space of diphenylamine-2,2’-dicarboxaldehyde. "Whoever reports a saying in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world". Struct Chem 30:815–825
Acknowledgements
The Author deeply thanks Dr. P. Ulrich Biedermann for very helpful discussions.
Funding
The author declares that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Open access funding provided by Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The author Israel Agranat (I.A.) contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by I.A. The first draft of the manuscript was written by I.A. and the author commented on previous versions of the manuscript. The author read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Agranat, I. Aromaticity – a theoretical notion. Struct Chem 35, 715–720 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11224-024-02328-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11224-024-02328-y