Inversion barriers different models

A comparison between aziridine 4, as a model of nonaromatic structure, l//-azirine lb, l//-diazirine 2b, and triazirine 3 using 6-31G /MP3 calculations leads to the following values for the N-H inversion barriers 4, 86.2 (experimental value 80 kJ mol ) lb, 190.4 2b, 160.2 and 3, 246 kJ mol [89JCC468].Tlie difference in inversion barrier values between lb and 2b was attributed to a decrease in the antiaromaticity of the latter. Tire antiaromaticity of lb was examined subsequently by the same authors [89JST(201)17]. 

This chapter assesses the ability of both molecular mechanics and quantum chemical models to correctly assign the lowest-energy conformational arrangements in flexible molecules as well as aceount for energy differences between alternative conformers. It also assesses the performance of different models with regard to the calculation of barriers to single-bond rotation and pyramidal inversion. 

Closely related to conformational energy differences are barriers to single-bond rotation and to pyramidal inversion. Here the experimental data are restricted to very small systems and derive primarily from microwave spectroscopy, from vibrational spectroscopy in the far infrared and from NMR, but are generally of high quality. Comparisons with calculated quantities are provided in Table 8-3 for single-bond rotation barriers and Table 8-4 for inversion barriers. The same models considered for conformational energy differences have been surveyed here. 

We have used a different approach to compare the aromaticities of phosphole (8) and pyrrole (10) [23, 24], From literature data on derivatives of 8 and 9 it is known that the inversion barrier of phosphole is about 67 kJ mol-1 (70.2 kJ mol-1 at the B3LYP/aug-cc-pVTZ level) [25] while that of tetrahydrophosphole amounts to 163 kJ mol-1. This is explained by the fact that the planar transition state of 8 is highly aromatic. Pyrrole (10) is planar and pyrrolidine has a calculated inversion barrier of 15-17 kJ mol-1. Several aromaticity indices were used in this study, based on different criteria of aromaticity energetic (aromatic stabilization energy, ASE), geometric (harmonic oscillator model of aromaticity, HOMA, and /5), and magnetic (NICS). 

Tables 6.8-6.11 illustrate the wide range of C3 side-chain modified A -THC analogues that have been reported in the literature, together with associated in vitro and in vivo data. The affinity of classical cannabinoid analogues for the CBi receptor has been shown to correlate with depression of spontaneous activity and the production of antinociception, hypothermia and catalepsy in mice, and with psychomimetic activity in humans [93]. However, in some cases, there were unexplained differences between the observed trends in binding affinity and the trends in activity in mouse behavioural models. This may point to differences in efficacy among full agonists, partial agonists and antagonists/inverse agonists, or may reflect differences in in vivo metabolism or blood-brain barrier penetration or a combination of these factors.

This chapter assesses the ability of molecular mechanics and quantum chemical models to properly assign preferred conformation, and to account quantitatively for differences in conformer energy as well as for barriers to rotation and inversion. The chapter ends with a discussion of ring inversion in cyclohexane. 

---