Reply to the Correspondence on "How Globally Aromatic Are Six-Porphyrin Nanorings?"

24 May 2022, Version 1
This content is a preprint and has not undergone peer review at the time of posting.

Abstract

A recent article by Anderson and co-workers challenges our conclusions on the aromaticity of the four oxidation states of a butadiyne-linked six-porphyrin nanoring, ased on the experimental 1H-NMR data and some recent calculations they have performed using the BLYP35 unctional. Here, we show that BLYP35 should be taken with caution and demonstrate that the indirect evidence of a ring current from experimental 1 H-NMR data is not a definite proof of aromaticity.

Keywords

aromaticity
nanoring
nmr
magnetic currents
delocalization error

Supplementary materials

Title
Description
Actions
Title
Supporting Information of the Reply to the Correspondence on "How Globally Aromatic Are Six-Porphyrin Nanorings?"
Description
Supporting Information of the Reply to the Correspondence on "How Globally Aromatic Are Six-Porphyrin Nanorings?"
Actions

Comments

Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.