Complete basis set CBS-QB3, hybrid-density functional theory (B3LYP/Def2-TZVPP) based methods and NBO interpretation were used to investigate the impacts of the stereoelectronic effects and electrostatic and steric interactions on the conformational properties of halocarbonyl isocyanates (halo = F (1), Cl (2), and Br (3)), halothiocarbonyl isocyanates (halo = F (4), Cl (5), and Br (6)), and haloselenocarbonyl isocyanates(halo = F (7), Cl (8), and Br (9)). Both methods showed that the Z-conformations of compounds 1, 4, and 7 are more stable than their corresponding E conformations, but the stability of the E conformations, when compared with the corresponding Z conformations, increases from compound 1 to compound 3, compound 4 to compound 6, and also from compound 7 to compound 9. The NBO analysis showed that the generalized anomeric effect (GAE) is in favor of the Z conformations of compounds 1, 4, and 7. The GAE values calculated (i.e., GAEE–GAEZ) increase from compound 1 to compound 3, compound 4 to compound 6, and also from compound 7 to compound 9. On the other hand, there are none of the same trends between the calculated total dipole moment and the Gibbs free energy difference values between the E and Z conformations (i.e., ΔμE–Z and ΔGE–Z) of compounds 1–3, 4–6, and 7–9. Accordingly, the GAE succeeds in accounting for the increase of the E conformation stability from compound 1 to compound 3, compound 4 to compound 6, and also from compound 7 to compound 9. Therefore, the GAE associated with the electron delocalization, not the total dipole moment changes (i.e., ΔμE–Z), is a reasonable indicator of the total energy difference in compounds 1–3, 4–6, and 7–9. There is a direct correlation between the calculated GAE and Δ[r2–6(E) – r2–6(Z)] parameters. Importantly, there are interesting through-space electron delocalizations (LP2X6→π*C4–O5) that justify the increase of the E conformation stability from compound 1 to compound 3, compound 4 to compound 6, and also from compound 7 to compound 9, when compared with their corresponding Z conformations. The correlations between the GAE, bond orders, total steric exchange energies (TSEE), ΔGZ–E, ΔμE–Z, structural parameters, and conformational behaviors of compounds 1–9 were investigated.
Read full abstract