Bond polarization, structure

Many problems in force field investigations arise from the calculation of Coulomb interactions with fixed charges, thereby neglecting possible mutual polarization. With that obvious drawback in mind, Ulrich Sternberg developed the COSMOS (Computer Simulation of Molecular Structures) force field [30], which extends a classical molecular mechanics force field by serai-empirical charge calculation based on bond polarization theory [31, 32]. This approach has the advantage that the atomic charges depend on the three-dimensional structure of the molecule. Parts of the functional form of COSMOS were taken from the PIMM force field of Lindner et al., which combines self-consistent field theory for r-orbitals ( nr-SCF) with molecular mechanics [33, 34]. 

The group moment always includes the C—X bond. When the group is attached to an aromatic system, the moment contains the contributions through resonance of those polar structures postulated as arising through charge shifts around the ring. 

The contribution of this polar structure to the bonding lowers the energy of the transition state. This may be viewed as a lower activation energy for the addition step and thus a factor which promotes this particular reaction. The effect is clearly larger the greater the difference in the donor-acceptor properties of X and Y. The transition state for the successive addition of the same monomer (whether X or Y substituted) is structure [V] ... 

Ollis and Ramsden state that A compound may be appropriately called mesoionic if it is a five-membered heterocycle which cannot be represented satisfactorily by any one covalent or polar structure and possesses a sextet of electrons in association with the five atoms comprising the ring . From the point of view of systematic nomenclature, compounds of this type are difficult to deal with, since most available nomenclature systems are designed so as to name one particular bond- and charge-localized canonical form. 

In contrast with water, methanol, ammonia, and other substances in Table 2.1, carbon dioxide, methane, ethane, and benzene have zero dipole moments. Because of the symmetrical structures of these molecules, the individual bond polarities and lone-pair contributions exactly cancel. 

Using electronegativity to assess bond polarity Drawirg Lewis structures... 

The magnitude of the copigmentation is influenced by pH value, pigment and copigment concentrations, chemical structure of anthocyanin, temperature, and ionic strength of the medium. As to the effect of the solvent, the important issue is the hydrogen-bonded molecular structure of the liquid water, not the polarity of the medium. ... 

The use of resonance structures such as 7 and 8 to describe bond polarity led to a subtle change in the meaning of the octet rule, namely, that an atom obeys the octet rule if it does not have more than eight electrons in its valence shell. As a result, resonance structures such as 7 and 8 are considered to be consistent with the octet rule. However, this is not the sense in which Lewis used the octet rule. According to Lewis, a structure such as 7 would not obey the octet rule because there are only three pairs of electrons in the valence shell of carbon, just as BF3 does not obey the octet rule for the same reason. Clearly the octet rule as defined by Lewis is not valid for hypervalent molecules, which do, indeed, have more than four pairs of shared electrons in the valence shell of the central atom. 

The curious reversal from the C+0 polarity expected on electronegativity grounds may be attributed to the formal charges (C and 0+) that are associated with the usual triple-bonded Lewis-structure formula. 

---