1990
DOI: 10.1021/j100368a083
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of group electronegativity by Pauling's thermochemical method

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
11
0

Year Published

1991
1991
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This order differs from the Pauling/Datta scale, where χ (C(CH 3 ) 3 ) is larger than χ (i-C 3 H 7 ) and χ (C 2 H 5 ) due to a spurious steric effect. 11 For other ligands, the broad features generally match those of other methods (e.g., χ (CH 3 ) < χ(CF 3 ), and χ (SiH 3 )<χ (SiCl 3 ) < χ(SiF 3 ), as expected). However, there are a few exceptions, namely C(CH 3 ) 3 , SiH 3 , H, CH 3 , and CF 3 , for which the current approach has the electronegativities increasing in the following order: χ (SiH 3 ) (1.70) < χ(C(CH 3 ) 3 (2.25) < χ(CH 3 ) exp (2.39) < χ(H) exp (2.62) < χ(CF 3 ) exp (3.02), differing somewhat from other approaches such as XPS, Pauling/Datta, and Pearson.…”
Section: B From the Free Radical To The Molecule: Geometry Dependencsupporting
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This order differs from the Pauling/Datta scale, where χ (C(CH 3 ) 3 ) is larger than χ (i-C 3 H 7 ) and χ (C 2 H 5 ) due to a spurious steric effect. 11 For other ligands, the broad features generally match those of other methods (e.g., χ (CH 3 ) < χ(CF 3 ), and χ (SiH 3 )<χ (SiCl 3 ) < χ(SiF 3 ), as expected). However, there are a few exceptions, namely C(CH 3 ) 3 , SiH 3 , H, CH 3 , and CF 3 , for which the current approach has the electronegativities increasing in the following order: χ (SiH 3 ) (1.70) < χ(C(CH 3 ) 3 (2.25) < χ(CH 3 ) exp (2.39) < χ(H) exp (2.62) < χ(CF 3 ) exp (3.02), differing somewhat from other approaches such as XPS, Pauling/Datta, and Pearson.…”
Section: B From the Free Radical To The Molecule: Geometry Dependencsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Several schemes have been proposed over the years, leading to a number of different electronegativity scales. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Historically, three major approaches to electronegativity of atoms and chemical groups have emerged over the last century. In introducing the concept, Linus Pauling defined electronegativity as "the power of an atom in a molecule to attract electrons to itself," 1,2 i.e., the concept of electronegativity was clearly defined in terms of an atom within a molecule.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of the theoretical scales do not correlate well with the two experimental ones. 16,17 Moreover, none of the theoretical methods can accommodate the ionic and the neutral groups on the same basis. With these two aspects in mind, for quite some time we have been trying to devise a suitable theoretical scale for group electronegativity.…”
Section: Calculationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Group electronegativity is a quite useful concept for explaining and understanding the properties of organic compounds, and its determination was largely divided into the experimental and theoretical approaches. In the experimental methods, it can be obtained from thermochemical data [3], NMR [4], solubility [5], basicity and coupling potential [6], bond dissociation enthalpy [7], or other experimental data of groups, which is credible and also is limited by the experimental condition and the lack of organic compounds to be investigated. To obtain more group electronegativities, many calculation methods including empirical and quantum chemistry were proposed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%