The effects of substituents on the N⋯HF interactions in the X-pyridazine⋯(HF)n (X = N(CH3)2, NHCH3, NH2, C2H5, CH3, OCH3, OH, CN, OF, NO2, F, Br, Cl, and n=1, 2) complexes have been studied at the B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) level of theory. In all complexes, the binding energies increase for the electron-donating substituents and decrease for the electron-withdrawing substituents. A negative cooperativity is observed for two hydrogen bond interactions. There are meaningful relationships between the Hammett constants and the energy data and the results of population analysis in the binary and ternary complexes. Symmetryadapted perturbation theory (SAPT) analysis was also carried out to unveil the nature of hydrogen bond in the complexes 2 and 3. The electron-donating substituents increase the magnitude of the SAPT interaction energy components and the electron-withdrawing substituents decrease those components. The highest/lowest change is observed for the Eexch/Edisp component. The effect of C2H5 (or CH3) on different components is higher than OCH3 in the complex 2 while the trend is reversed in the complex 3. It is demonstrated that the electrostatic interaction plays a main role in the interaction, although induction and dispersion interactions are also important.
1. Introduction
The diazine rings are building blocks of many important natural and synthetic compounds [1]. They have been the subject of extensive research, particularly in the pharmaceutical and agrochemical areas due to their broad activities, such as antihypertensive and anti-inflammatory activity [2–5].
The hydrogen bond plays a crucial role in biology, chemistry and related disciplines [6–13]. Cooperativity is an important characteristic of hydrogen bond interactions. The role of hydrogen bond may be modified by the cooperativity of hydrogen bonds in many chemical and biological systems [14–16]. It plays an important role in controlling and regulating the processes occurring in living organisms. Many physical and chemical properties of materials are determined by hydrogen-bonding cooperativity [17–20]. For example, the hydrogen bond cooperativity is relevant for sustaining the stable conformers of biological molecules [21, 22] and constructing the crystal structures [22, 23].
The effects of substituents on the binding energies of the X-pyridazine⋯(HF)n (n=1,2) complexes (represented by 1–3 in Scheme 1) and the cooperativity of the H-bond interactions have been investigated in the present study. Substituent X is located at position 4 of pyridazine ring, which is meta relative to N2 in 1 and 2 and para relative to N1 in 1 and 3. The relationship between binding energies and the Hammett constants have been studied for binary and ternary complexes. Also, the cooperativity of two hydrogen bond interactions and the strength of interactions have been investigated by the results of atoms in molecules (AIMs) [24], the natural bond orbital (NBO) [25], and molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) analysis. Symmetry-adapted perturbation theory (SAPT) [26] has been employed to determine the physically significant components of the total interaction energies for the complexes 2 and 3.
The X-pyridazine⋯(HF)n complexes considered in the present work (X = N(CH3)2, NHCH3, NH2, C2H5, CH3, OCH3, OH, CN, OF, NO2, F, Br, Cl, and n=1,2).
2. Methods
The geometries of the complexes were fully optimized with the B3LYP [27] method using the 6-311++G(d,p) basis set by the Gaussian 03 program package [28]. The single-point calculations were carried out using the MP2 [29] and PBE1KCIS [30] methods in conjunction with the 6-311++G(d,p) and aug-cc-pVDZ basis sets. The interaction energies were corrected with the basis set superposition error (BSSE) using the counterpoise method of Boys and Bernardi [31]. The frequency calculations were performed at the B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) level of theory. The obtained wave functions at the B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) computational level have been used to analyze the electron density within the AIM methodology by the AIM2000 program [32]. The NBO analysis has been performed using the HF method in conjunction with the 6-311++G(d,p) basis set using the NBO3.1 program in the Gaussian03 package. Also, the ChelpG [33] charges were calculated at the B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) level of theory to investigate the charge transfer between two units. Cube files containing the MEP information have been generated for complexes at the B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) level of theory. The freely available MOLEKEL program [34] has been used for the visualization of the MEP data. The most negative-valued MEP point (Vmin) can be obtained from visual inspection of MEP data for the lone-pair region of the nitrogen atoms in pyridazine. The B3LYP-optimized geometries with the 6-311++G(d,p) basis set were then used to perform interaction energy decomposition using the SAPT scheme. Molecular integrals were first obtained with the GAMESS package [35], and the SAPT partitioning was performed using the SAPT2008 program [36].
3. Results and Discussion
The most important geometrical parameters of complexes optimized at the B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) level of theory are gathered in Table 1. The maximum and minimum values of the N⋯H bond length correspond to NO2 and N(CH3)2 substituents, respectively, in all cases. Also, the N⋯H bond length in the complex 1 is longer than that in the complexes 2 and 3. On the other hand, the N⋯H bond length in the complex 2 is longer than that in the complex 3. These results show that the cooperativity of H-bond interactions leads to the elongation of the N⋯H bond lengths.
The N⋯H bond lengths optimized at the B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) level in (Å) and the Hammett constants.
Bond length
Hammett constants
Complex 1
Complex 2
Complex 3
σm
σp
σ
total
σI
σR
N(CH3)2
1.67 (1.69)
1.64
1.63
−0.15
−0.83
−0.98
0.15
−0.98
NHCH3
1.68 (1.70)
1.65
1.63
−0.52
−0.74
−1.26
0.03
−0.73
NH2
1.68 (1.71)
1.65
1.64
−0.16
−0.66
−0.82
0.08
−0.74
CH3
1.71 (1.71)
1.66
1.66
−0.07
−0.17
−0.24
0.01
−0.18
C2H5
1.71 (1.71)
1.66
1.66
−0.07
−0.15
−0.22
0.00
−0.15
OCH3
1.70 (1.72)
1.67
1.65
0.12
−0.27
−0.15
0.29
−0.56
OH
1.71 (1.73)
1.67
1.66
0.12
−0.37
−0.25
0.30
−0.70
H
1.72 (1.72)
1.67
1.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
OF
1.73 (1.74)
1.70
1.68
0.47
0.36
0.83
CN
1.75 (1.70)
1.71
1.70
0.56
0.66
1.22
0.51
0.15
NO2
1.76 (1.76)
1.72
1.71
0.71
0.78
1.49
0.60
0.13
F
1.73 (1.74)
1.69
1.68
0.34
0.06
0.40
0.45
−0.39
Br
1.73 (1.74)
1.69
1.69
0.39
0.23
0.62
0.40
−0.22
Cl
1.73 (1.74)
1.69
1.68
0.37
0.23
0.60
0.42
−0.19
The data in the parentheses correspond to the N2⋯H bond length. The σ values are taken from [37].
The total binding energies of complexes (ΔE) calculated at the B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) level of theory and corrected for BSSE are summarized in Table 2. The results show that the stabilization energies of the complex 3 are larger than those of complex 2. As can be seen, the maximum and minimum values of ΔE calculated at the B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) level of theory correspond to the N(CH3)2 and NO2 substituents, respectively.
The binding energies (−ΔE in kcal mol−1) corrected for BSSE calculated at different levels.
Complex 1
Complex 2
Complex 3
B3LYP
MP2
PBE1KCIS
B3LYP
MP2
PBE1KCIS
B3LYP
MP2
PBE1KCIS
N(CH3)2
25.75
21.90 (23.52)
26.22 (25.86)
13.92
11.90 (12.81)
14.19 (14.03)
14.48
11.72 (12.70)
14.71 (14.49)
NHCH3
25.32
21.80 (23.23)
25.81 (25.42)
13.73
12.00 (12.74)
13.99 (13.82)
14.31
11.82 (12.60)
14.54 (14.31)
NH2
24.51
20.30 (22.12)
25.06 (24.66)
13.27
11.30 (12.14)
13.55 (13.38)
13.88
11.14 (12.10)
14.15 (13.91)
CH3
22.98
19.80 (21.10)
23.44 (23.07)
12.80
10.90 (11.63)
13.03 (12.85)
12.86
10.82 (11.50)
13.08 (12.88)
C2H5
23.34
19.80 (21.44)
23.88 (23.64)
13.01
10.90 (11.86)
13.32 (13.24)
13.09
10.78 (11.80)
13.40 (13.31)
OCH3
23.19
19.90 (21.24)
23.65 (23.31)
12.61
10.90 (11.55)
12.85 (12.68)
13.20
10.99 (11.70)
13.43 (13.24)
OH
22.42
19.30 (20.69)
22.96 (22.67)
12.29
10.60 (11.34)
12.57 (12.43)
12.72
10.61 (11.30)
12.98 (12.81)
H
22.01
19.00 (20.28)
22.45 (22.07)
12.33
10.50 (11.17)
12.55 (12.35)
12.33
10.50 (11.20)
12.55 (12.35)
OF
20.10
17.60 (18.89)
20.70 (20.56)
10.99
9.59 (10.29)
11.29 (11.21)
11.56
9.82 (10.50)
11.86 (11.76)
CN
18.33
16.00 (17.10)
18.76 (18.42)
10.21
8.66 (9.26)
10.41 (10.22)
10.43
9.03 (9.62)
10.64 (10.46)
NO2
17.59
15.50 (16.74)
18.14 (17.95)
9.85
8.40 (9.04)
10.10 (9.99)
10.03
8.88 (9.50)
10.30 (10.19)
F
20.30
17.60 (18.86)
20.84 (20.57)
11.20
9.65 (10.28)
11.46 (11.31)
11.63
9.86 (10.50)
11.89 (11.75)
Br
20.28
17.70 (18.86)
20.79 (20.42)
11.16
9.63 (10.23)
11.41 (11.23)
11.51
9.89 (10.50)
11.75 (11.58)
Cl
20.29
17.70 (18.81)
20.80 (20.44)
11.18
9.65 (10.22)
11.43 (11.24)
11.55
9.91 (10.50)
11.80 (11.61)
The data in the parenthesis correspond to the aug-cc-pVDZ basis set.
The results of single-point energy calculation at the MP2/6-311++G (d,p), MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ, PBE1KCIS/6-311++G(d,p), and PBE1KCIS/aug-cc-pVDZ levels of theory on the geometries optimized at the B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) level of theory are also given in Table 2. The maximum and minimum ΔE values correspond to N(CH3)2 and NO2 substituents, respectively, at all levels of theory.
The ΔE values calculated by the MP2 method increase by 13.8 to 7.6 percent going from 6-311++G(d,p) to aug-cc-pVDZ basis sets. The corresponding changes are in the range of −0.51 to −0.19 kcal mol−1 for the values calculated by the PBE1KCIS method.
The absolute values of ΔE calculated at the MP2/6-311++G(d,p) level are 2.07 to 4.22 kcal mol−1 smaller than those calculated at the B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) level. The absolute values of ΔE calculated by the PBE1KCIS method are approximately 3.54 to 0.51 kcal mol−1 larger than the values calculated by the MP2 and B3LYP methods. The ΔE values calculated at the PBE1KCIS/aug-cc-pVDZ level are approximately identical with the values calculated at the B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) level of theory.
The BSSE-corrected binding energies of the complex 1 are lower than the sum of binding energies of the complexes 2 and 3 (see Table 2). In addition, the stabilization energies of complexes become more negative by the electron-donating substituents (with the exception of the OH substituent in the complex 2) relative to the pyridazine, while the behavior is reversed by the electron-withdrawing substituents.
The total substituent effect comprises inductive/field effects, which have electrostatic character, and resonance effects, which are not electrostatic in nature. Resonance effects are strongest at para position, while the electrostatic interactions inversely depend on distance [38, 39]. The Hammett substituent constants are presented in Table 1 [37]. For the N(CH3)2, NHCH3, NH2, CH3, and C2H5 substituents, the σp values are more negative than the σm values, so, the electron donation of the aforementioned substituents in the complex 3 is higher than that in the complex 2. The high electronegativity of oxygen makes the OCH3 and OH substituents electron-withdrawing by the inductive effect; this is reflected in the positive value for σm.
Recall that the meta substituents only affect the reaction center by the inductive effects, whereas the para substituents affect it by both the inductive and resonance effects. Thus, there is a satisfactory linear relationship between ΔE and σI(R=0.91), ΔE and σI+σR(R=0.98), respectively, in the complexes 2 and 3. Comparing the σ values for the meta and para indicates that the electron-donating resonance effect (σR) dominates over the electron-withdrawing inductive effect (σI). Therefore, these substituents are more electron-donating in the complex 3 in comparison to the complex 2. The σm and σp values are positive for the OF, CN, NO2, F, Br, and Cl substituents. Thus, these substituents are electron-withdrawing in both the meta and para positions. Comparison between the σ values for the meta and para indicates that the σI dominates over the σR. Since the inductive effect is inversely related to distance, the electron-withdrawing inductive effects are stronger in the complex 2 in comparison with the complex 3.
The σm and σp constants can be used as appropriate parameters for the description of the intermolecular interaction in the X-pyridazine⋯(HF)2 complex. The linear correlation coefficient between the ΔE values and the σm, σp, and σtotal(σm+σp) constants is equal to 0.95, 0.97, and 0.98, respectively. This indicates that the total electrostatic effect of the substituents as well as induction and resonance vitally impacts the two intermolecular interactions (see Figure 1).
Correlation between the binding energies (−ΔE in kcal mol−1) and Hammett constant σtotal for the complex 1.
3.1. AIM and NBO Analysis
A way to characterize the hydrogen bond is AIM analysis that interprets these interactions in terms of critical points [40, 41]. The values of electron density (ρ) calculated at the N2⋯H and N1⋯H bond critical points (BCPs) of complexes 1–3 are gathered in Table 3.
Electron densities ρ (in e/au3) at the N⋯H BCP in the X-pyridazine⋯(HF)n(n=1,2) complexes and individual H-bond energies E (in kcal mol−1) calculated for the complex 1.
Complex 1
Complex 2
Complex 3
ρBCP×102
E
ρBCP×102
ρBCP×102
N(CH3)2
5.46, 5.23
-14.41,-13.44
6.03
6.16
NHCH3
5.40, 5.15
-14.23,-13.18
5.95
5.95
NH2
5.32, 5.05
-13.85,-12.73
5.82
5.97
CH3
4.99, 4.95
-12.36,-12.21
5.69
5.69
C2H5
5.02, 5.00
-12.76,-12.67
5.73
5.74
OCH3
5.08, 4.91
-12.98,-12.29
5.60
5.79
OH
5.02, 4.79
-12.66,-11.75
5.56
5.65
H
4.83, 4.83
-12.04,-12.04
5.54
5.54
OF
4.70, 4.55
-11.37,-10.81
5.19
5.35
CN
4.45, 4.43
-10.22,-10.15
5.01
5.07
NO2
4.42, 4.45
-10.08,-10.19
4.90
4.90
F
4.71, 4.57
-11.46,-10.92
5.23
5.36
Br
4.69, 4.61
-11.33,-11.02
5.24
5.33
Cl
4.69, 4.60
-11.36,-11.02
5.25
5.35
The bold and italicized values correspond to the N1⋯H and N2⋯H hydrogen bonds, respectively.
The maximum and minimum values correspond to the N(CH3)2 and NO2 substituents, respectively, (with the exception of ρN2H in the complex 1 where the minimum value corresponds to the CN substituent). The topological properties of ρ calculated at the BCP of the intermolecular hydrogen bonds may be treated as a measure of the hydrogen bond strength [42–44]. The electron-withdrawing substituents pull the lone pair of nitrogen atoms of pyridazine inside the ring and decrease the ρ values at the N⋯H BCP, while the electron-donating substituents increase the ρ values and enhance the hydrogen bond strength. The ρ values calculated at the N⋯H BCP in the complex 3 are higher than those in the complex 2, and the complex 3 is more stable than the complex 2. On the other hand, the ρ values of N⋯H hydrogen bond of complex 1 are lower than the values calculated at the N2⋯H and N1⋯H hydrogen bonds in the complexes 2 and 3. Thus, a negative cooperativity is predicted from the comparison between ρN⋯H values in the complex 1 and the complexes 2 and 3. The N⋯H bond length decreases linearly by the increase in the ρ values calculated at the N⋯H BCP for all categories (R2≃0.99). Also, there is a linear relationship between ρ and ΔE for all cases. A linear relationship (R2=0.99) is observed between the ΔE values calculated at the B3LYP/6-311++G(d,p) level and the ρ values calculated at the N⋯H BCPs in the complex 1.
Because of linear relationship between ΔE and ρNH values, the ΔE=cρNH can be used for the calculation of individual H-bond energies in the complex 1 (see Table 4). All individual H-bond energies calculated for the complex 1 are lower than the values calculated for the complexes 2 and 3. Also, there is a linear relationship with high correlation coefficient (R=0.99) between individual H-bond energies and the N⋯H bond lengths.
The results of NBO analysis for the X-pyridazine⋯(HF)n (n=1,2) complexes at the HF/6-311++G(d,p) level of theory.
Complex 1
Complex 2
Complex 3
E2
lpN
σ
*
HF (× 102)
E2
lpN
σ
*
HF (×102)
E2
lpN
σ
*
HF (×102)
N(CH3)2
34.16, 30.47
1.911, 1.914
4.509, 5.030
39.48
1.904
5.767
42.41
1.902
6.166
NHCH3
33.46, 29.71
1.912, 1.915
4.395, 4.934
38.66
1.906
5.651
41.79
1.903
6.087
NH2
32.52, 28.72
1.913, 1.917
4.236, 4.793
37.35
1.908
5.438
40.05
1.905
5.838
CH3
28.59, 27.95
1.919, 1.920
4.148, 4.239
36.07
1.911
5.289
36.44
1.910
5.333
C2H5
28.94, 28.42
1.919, 1.919
4.213, 4.288
36.62
1.910
5.394
36.91
1.910
5.399
OCH3
29.60, 27.51
1.917, 1.920
5.604, 5.946
35.08
1.912
5.101
37.70
1.900
5.503
OH
29.01, 25.99
1.918, 1.921
3.859, 4.286
34.39
1.912
5.031
36.12
1.910
5.273
H
26.79, 26.73
1.921, 1.921
3.982, 3.982
34.69
1.912
5.093
34.69
1.912
5.093
OF
25.44, 23.61
1.922, 1.924
4.931, 5.238
30.95
1.918
4.520
32.49
1.915
4.760
CN
22.58, 22.52
1.928, 1.926
3.348, 3.352
28.57
1.919
4.200
29.04
1.921
4.259
NO2
21.48, 21.68
1.929, 1.928
4.566, 4.556
27.26
1.922
3.993
27.64
1.922
4.041
F
25.50, 23.92
1.922, 1.925
3.533, 3.785
30.95
1.918
4.520
32.63
1.914
4.774
Br
25.29, 24.36
1.923, 1.923
3.622, 3.757
31.14
1.915
4.575
32.23
1.916
4.723
Cl
25.36, 24.28
1.923, 1.923
3.602, 3.763
31.16
1.916
4.570
32.40
1.915
4.745
The E2 values are in kcal mol−1. The bold and italicized values correspond to the N1⋯H and N2⋯H bonds, respectively.
For a better understanding of the hydrogen bond interaction in the complexes 1–3, the NBO analysis has been carried out at the HF/6-311++G(d,p) level of theory. The lpN→σ*HF interaction, which can be considered as a measure of charge transfer, has been evaluated in the complexes 1–3 (see Table 5). The donor-acceptor interaction energy (E2) value of this interaction can be used to predict the strength of the N···H hydrogen bond. In all cases, the maximum and minimum values correspond to the N(CH3)2 and NO2 substituents, respectively. As can be seen in Table 4, the E2 values of the lpN2→σ*HF and lpN1→σ*HF interactions in the complexes 2 and 3 are higher than those in the complex 1. So, the negative cooperativity decreases the E2 values of lpN2→σ*HF and lpN1→σ*HF donor-acceptor interactions in the complex 1 relative to the complexes 2 and 3. The electron-donating substituents increase the electron density on the nitrogen atoms of pyridazine ring (with the exception of OH substituent in the complex 2) and increase their inclination on polarization of HF, which increase the E2 value of the lpN→σ*HF interaction. Though OH is an electron-donating substituent, but it destabilizes the complex 2 relative to the pyridazine. This behavior is not observed for the OCH3 functional group. The NBO atomic charge on the O (−0.71) of OH substituent is more negative than O (−0.61) of the OCH3 substituent. Thus, electron-withdrawing induction effect is predominant over the electron-donating resonance effect by the high electronegativity of O atom in the OH substituent. Moreover, there are good linear relationships between the E2 values and both the σtotal values and N⋯H bond lengths.
The results of MEP analysis (Vmin×103) and charge transfer (Δq×103 in au) calculated from ChelpG charges.
Complex 1
Complex 2
Complex 3
Vmin
Δq
Vmin
Δq
Vmin
Δq
N(CH3)2
97
205, 194
103
295
107
309
NHCH3
96
199, 187
101
282
106
293
NH2
94
193, 189
99
283
103
294
CH3
87
189, 195
96
294
97
291
C2H5
88
190, 200
97
292
98
296
OCH3
89
181, 204
98
288
99
295
OH
86
192, 188
92
293
96
295
H
84
194, 195
94
300
94
300
OF
79
182, 182
88
278
89
280
CN
73
175, 185
83
277
82
279
NO2
72
178, 182
81
278
80
270
F
79
186, 181
88
280
89
279
Br
80
213, 163
89
325
90
328
Cl
80
189, 176
89
275
90
285
The bold and italicized values correspond to the charge transfer from N1 and N2 atoms to HF unit, respectively.
The occupation numbers of lpN2, lpN1, and σ*HF are given in Table 4. The maximum and minimum occupancies for lpN2 and lpN1 correspond to NO2 and N(CH3)2, respectively, the maximum and minimum occupancies of σ*HF correspond to N(CH3)2 and NO2, respectively. As can be seen in Table 4, increasing the occupation numbers of lpN2 and lpN1 is accompanied with the decrease in the occupation number of σ*HF for all complexes. The occupancies of lpN2 and lpN1 in the complex 1 are larger than those in the complexes 2 and 3, while the occupancy of σ*HF in the complexes 2 and 3 is larger than that in the complex 1. Thus, the occupancy of the first lpN/σ*HF increases/decreases in the presence of second N⋯HF interaction. This confirms the negative cooperativity in the complex 1. There is a little difference between the occupancies of lpN2 and lpN1 in the complexes 2 and 3. Also, the occupancy of σ*HF in the complex 3 is larger than that in the complex 2. Therefore, the changes of occupation numbers of lpN2, lpN1, and σ*HF are in agreement with the binding energies in all categories. A linear relationship(R2=1.0) is observed between the ΔE values and the sum of E2 values of lpN1→σ*HF and lpN1→σ*HF in the complex 1. The high linear correlation (R2=1.0) indicates the additivity of the E2 values of two H-bond interactions.
There is also a linear relationship between the E2 values and the occupancies of lpN2, lpN1, and σHF*. In addition, there is a linear relationship between E2 and N⋯H hydrogen bond lengths in three categories. Linear relationships are observed for the E2 value of lpN2→σ*HF versus rN2⋯H(R2=0.98) and the E2 values of lpN1 → σ*HF versus rN1⋯H(R2=0.99) in the complex 1.
On the base of charges calculated by the ChelpG method (see Table 5), the charge transfer occurred from X-pyridazine to HF unit, The electron-donating substituents promote the charge transfer from X-pyridazine to HF unit, and enhance the basicity of the nitrogen atoms in the X-pyridazine. In the complex 3, the charge transfer is larger and the basicity of N atom is higher than those in the complex 2; this can be a reason for the stability of complex 3. On the other hand, the charge transfer in the complex 1 is lower than that in complexes 2 and 3; this is in agreement with the negative cooperativity of two hydrogen bond interactions.
3.2. MEP Analysis
The MEP is an important tool in exploring the nature of intermolecular interactions [45–51]. The capability of the N2 and N1 atoms to accept hydrogen bond was estimated through the minimum of the MEP (Vmin) around the nitrogen atoms. As can be seen in Table 5, the MEP values become more negative with the electron-donating substituents. Thus, the electrostatic term depends on the electron donation or electron withdrawal character of the substituents. Also, a good linear relationship is observed between the Vmin values and the σtotal values (see Figure 2). Therefore, those values can be used to predict the Hammett constants. The trend in the Vmin values is 3 > 2 > 1; so, those values become less negative around the nitrogen atoms when both interactions coexist.
Linear correlation between molecular electrostatic potential minimum (Vmin) around the nitrogen atoms of the pyridazine and the Hammett electronic parameters for the complex 1.
The MEP, V(r), is directly related to electron density ρ(r) through the Poisson’s equation [52]:∇2V(r)=4πρ(r).
Is there a liner relationship between Vmin and theρ values calculated at the HBCPs? The Vmin values become more negative with increasing ρ values calculated at HBCPs in X-pyridazine⋯(HF)n complexes. The linear correlation coefficients between the Vmin values and the ρvalues are equal to 0.98 and 0.99, respectively, in the complexes 2 and 3. As can be seen in Figure 3, there is a good correlation between Vmin values and ∑ρ values for the complex 1 (R=1.00). Similarly, there is a linear relationship (R=0.99) between Vmin and E2 of lpN→σ*HF interaction, Vmin, and the N2⋯H and N1⋯H bond lengths. Also, there is a good linear correlation between Vmin values and ∑E2 in the complex 1 (R=1.00).
Interplay between the Vmin value around the nitrogen of pyridazine versus the sum of ρ values calculated at the N⋯H BCPs for complex 1.
3.3. SAPT Energy Decomposition
The SAPT analysis is a method for investigation the nature of the intermolecular interactions [53–55]. The SAPT method provides detailed information on the intermolecular interaction, as this method directly calculates magnitude of each term (electrostatic, dispersion, etc.) of the intermolecular interactions [56]. A detailed description of SAPT and some of its applications can be found in some recent references [57–59].
To determine the nature of the hydrogen bond in the complexes 2 and 3, the interaction energies were decomposed into physically meaningful components, including electrostatic, induction, dispersion, and exchange energies, using SAPT technique at the B3LYP/6-31G(d) level. It can be seen from Table 6 that the values of electrostatic energy (Eels), induction energy (Eind), and dispersion energy (Edisp) are negative, whereas the exchange energy (Eexch) is positive for all complexes. Thus, the stabilization/destabilization of the complexes by substitution is represented simply by the sum from Eels, Eind, and Edisp contributions. In both complexes, the absolute values for these three negative terms are largest for the N(CH3)2 substituent and are smallest for the NO2 substituent. In the complex 3, the absolute values of Eels, Eind, and Edisp are larger than those values in the complex 2. Thus, the complex 3 is more stable than the complex 2. The electron-donating substituents have positive effect and increase the magnitude of the calculated SAPT interaction energy components (with the exception of OH substituent in the complex 2 that decreases the magnitude of electrostatic energy relative to pyridazine). The electron-withdrawing substituents have negative effect and decrease the magnitude of interaction energy components, with the exception of Edisp in the complex 2 that slightly increases in the presence of mentioned substituents. The dependence of the dispersion term to the substituent is smaller than other complexes. When position of HF changes from para to meta relative to the substituent, the electrostatic term changes by 2.8%, the induction term changes by 2.2%, and the dispersion term changes by 12.5%. Thus, the dispersion energy component of the SAPT analysis was found to be very sensitive to the position of HF relative to the substituent.
SAPT interaction energy decomposition (in kcal mol−1) for the complexes 2 and 3.
Complex 2
Complex 3
Eels
Eind
Eexch
Edisp
EintSAPT
Eels
Eind
Eexch
Edisp
EintSAPT
N(CH3)2
−25.53
−17.74
34.24
−5.16
−14.18
−26.21
−18.48
35.29
−5.27
−14.67
NHCH3
−25.15
−17.41
33.69
−5.08
−13.94
−25.93
−18.29
35.00
−5.22
−14.45
NH2
−24.34
−16.81
32.71
−4.95
−13.39
−25.16
−17.66
33.94
−5.09
−13.97
CH3
−23.5
−16.35
31.87
−4.84
−12.83
−23.51
−16.40
31.90
−4.84
−12.84
C2H5
−23.73
−16.53
32.16
−4.88
−12.98
−23.75
−16.59
32.23
−4.88
−13.00
OCH3
−22.95
−15.86
31.01
−4.75
−12.55
−23.99
−16.83
32.64
−4.94
−13.11
OH
−22.62
−15.72
30.90
−4.74
−12.19
−23.08
−16.16
31.54
−4.80
−12.51
H
−22.80
−14.89
29.63
−4.06
−12.12
−22.70
−15.73
30.81
−4.69
−12.31
OF
−20.06
−14.07
27.96
−4.41
−10.59
−21.04
−14.78
29.27
−4.54
−11.09
CN
−18.92
−13.48
26.85
−4.28
−9.84
−19.37
−13.65
27.22
−4.31
−10.11
NO2
−18.05
−12.92
25.87
−4.17
−9.28
−18.64
−13.06
26.27
−4.20
−9.62
F
−20.35
−14.27
28.35
−4.43
−10.71
−21.13
−14.84
29.39
−4.54
−11.12
Cl
−20.52
−14.49
28.57
−4.48
−10.93
−21.13
−14.84
29.29
−4.55
−11.23
All energies are in kcal mol−1. EintSAPT=Eels+Eind+Edisp+Eexch.
In the complex 2, the electrostatic forces contribute about 52.0–54.6% to the total attractive interaction energy, the induction forces are about 35.6–43.6% of the total attractive energy, and the dispersion contribution is 9.7–11.9%. On the other hand, the electrostatic, induction, and dispersion contributions are 51.9–52.6%, 36.4–37.0%, and 10.5–11.7%, respectively, in the complex 3. Thus, we believe that the electrostatic interactions are mainly responsible for the binding energies and formation of hydrogen bonds, although the induction and dispersion interactions are also important. Since the electrostatic plays an important role, the polarization correlates with the electrostatic energy. The electron-withdrawing substituents hinder the electron transfer-driven polarization to the HF unit (which results in destabilization), whereas the electron-donating substituents allow strong polarization to the HF unit (which results in strong stabilization). It is also interesting to note that the polarization for the electron-donating and electron-withdrawing substituents in the complex 2 is slightly weaker than that in the complex 3. In the complex 3, the electron density at the para position is an important stabilizing factor, and thus the stabilization/destabilization by substituent of a pyridazine is governed mostly by the electrostatic energy. In Figure 4, a linear relationship with high correlation coefficient (R=0.98) is observed between the calculated SAPT interaction energy components and σpin the complex 3. In the complex 2, a linear relationship with correlation coefficient 0.96 is found between the Eels and σm.
Linear relationship between the calculated SAPT interaction energy components (● Eels, ■ Eind, and ▲Edis in kcal mol−1) and σp for the complex 3 (a), and the electrostatic energy and σm for the complex 2 (b).
4. Conclusions
The results of quantum mechanical calculations indicate that the binding energy in the complex 3 is larger than that in the complex 2. The sum of binding energies of the complexes 2 and 3 is larger than the binding energy of the complex 1. So, there is a negative cooperativity for two hydrogen bond interactions.
Very good linear correlations are observed between the binding energies and Hammett electronic parameters σtotal of the substituents. The electron-donating substituents stabilize and the electron-withdrawing substituents destabilize the complexes relative to pyridazine. According to the results of AIM analysis, the cooperativity effect decreases the electron density at the N⋯H BCPs in the X-pyridazine⋯(HF)2 complex.
On the basis of the results of SAPT analysis, the portion of electrostatic force in the complex 3 is smaller than 2, while the induction and dispersion portions are larger in the complex 3. The E2 values of lpN2→σ*HF and lpN1→σ*HF interactions in the complex 1 are smaller than those in the complexes 2 and 3. Thus, the cooperativity effect decreases the E2 values of lpN2→σ*HF and lpN1→σ*HF interactions in the complex 1. The occupation numbers of lpN2 and lpN1 in the complex 1 are larger than those in the complexes 2 and 3, respectively. The charge transfer, on the basis of ChelpG charges, is in agreement with the results of NBO and AIM analysis.
There are linear relationships between the Vmin and ρBCP values, the Vmin and the E2 values of lpN→σ*HF interaction, and between the Vmin and the σtotal values.
The SAPT calculations show that the electrostatic is the dominating interaction component in the complexes 2 and 3, although the induction and dispersion interactions are also important. The dispersion energy component of the SAPT analysis was found to be very sensitive to the position of HF relative to the substituent. There is a good correlation between σp and the calculated SAPT interaction energy components in the complex 3, while the linear relationship is only found between the Eels and σm in the complex 2.
BredaS.RevaI. D.LapinskiL.NowakM. J.FaustoR.Infrared spectra of pyrazine, pyrimidine and pyridazine in solid argon20067862-31932062-s2.0-3364599358210.1016/j.molstruc.2005.09.010ZouX. J.JinG. Y.ZhangZ. X.Synthesis, fungicidal activity, and QSAR of pyridazinonethiadiazoles2002506145114542-s2.0-003707033510.1021/jf0109266LeeS. G.KimJ. J.KimH. K.KweonD. H.KangY. J.ChoS. D.KimS. K.YoonY. J.Recent progress in pyridazin-3(2H)-ones chemistry2004815146314802-s2.0-454433672110.2174/1385272043369818OrruR. V. A.de GreefM.Recent advances in solution-phase multicomponent methodology for the synthesis of heterocyclic compounds200310147114992-s2.0-0042745386KandileN. G.MohamedM. I.ZakyH.MohamedH. M.Novel pyridazine derivatives: synthesis and antimicrobial activity evaluation2009445198919962-s2.0-6254908427910.1016/j.ejmech.2008.09.047DesirajuG. R.SteinerT.1997Oxford, UKOxford University PressDesirajuG. R.SteinerT.1999Oxford, UKOxford University PressNishioM.HirotaM.UmezawaY.1998New York, NY, USAWiley-VCHScheinerS.1997Chichester, UKJohn Wiley & SonsScheinerS.1997Oxford, UKOxford University PressJeffreyG. A.SaengerW.1991Berlin, GermanySpringerJeffreyG. A.1997Oxford, UKOxford University PressWangW.ZhangY.HuangK.Unconventional interaction in N(P)-related systems20054114–64394442-s2.0-2294445682910.1016/j.cplett.2005.06.068ChenW.GordonM. S.Energy decomposition analyses for many-body interaction and applications to water complexes19961003414316143282-s2.0-27844483380KulkarniA. D.PathakR. K.BartolottiL. J.Effect of additional hydrogen peroxide to H2O2⋯(H2O)n, n=1 and 2 complexes: quantum chemical study20061242172-s2.0-3454785413910.1063/1.2202098214309LiQ.AnX.LuanF.LiW.GongB.ChengJ.SunJ.Cooperativity between two types of hydrogen bond in H3 C-HCN-HCN and H3 C-HNC-HNC complexes20081281562-s2.0-4244915473810.1063/1.2898499154102ZhaoY. L.WuY. D.A theoretical study of β-sheet models: is the formation of hydrogen-bond networks cooperative?20021248157015712-s2.0-003718104510.1021/ja016230aWieczorekR.DannenbergJ. J.H-bonding cooperativity and energetics of α-helix formation of five 17-amino acid peptides200312527812481292-s2.0-003868266110.1021/ja035302qLiQ.AnX.GongB.ChengJ.Cooperativity between OH⋯O and CH⋯O hydrogen bonds involving dimethyl sulfoxide-H2O-H2O complex20071114010166101692-s2.0-3554899553110.1021/jp074631sGuoH.GreshN.RoquesB. P.SalahubD. R.Many-body effects in systems of peptide hydrogen-bonded networks and their contributions to ligand binding: a comparison of the performances of DFT and polarizable molecular mechanics200010441974697542-s2.0-0343442498ViswanathanR.AsensioA.DannenbergJ. J.Cooperative hydrogen-bonding in models of antiparallel β-sheets200410842920592122-s2.0-754425074810.1021/jp047404oAllenF. H.HowardJ. A. K.HoyV. J.DesirajuG. R.Shekhar ReddyD.WilsonC. C.First neutron diffraction analysis of an O-H⋯π hydrogen bond: 2-ethynyladamantan-2-ol199611817408140842-s2.0-0029992251HudsonB. S.BradenD. A.AllisD. G.JenkinsT.BaronovS.MiddletonC.WithnallR.BrownC. M.The crystalline enol of 1,3-cyclohexanedione and its complex with benzene: vibrational spectra, simulation of structure and dynamics and evidence for cooperative hydrogen bonding200410836735673632-s2.0-454433575710.1021/jp048613bBaderR. F. W.1990Oxford, UKOxford University PressReedA. E.CurtissL. A.WeinholdF.Intermolecular interactions from a natural bond orbital, donor-acceptor viewpoint19888868999262-s2.0-0011083499JeziorskiB.MoszynskiR.SzalewiczK.Perturbation theory approach to intermolecular potential energy surfaces of van der waals complexes1994947188719302-s2.0-0001312393BeckeA. D.Density-functional thermochemistry. III. The role of exact exchange1993987564856522-s2.0-0000189651FrischM. J.TrucksG. W.SchlegelH. B.2003Pittsburgh, Pa, USAGaussianMøllerC.PlessetM. S.Note on an approximation treatment for many-electron systems19344676186222-s2.0-694425105510.1103/PhysRev.46.618ZhaoY.TruhlarD. G.Benchmark databases for nonbonded interactions and their use to test density functional theory2005134154322-s2.0-7724912712010.1021/ct049851dBoysS. F.BernardiF.Calculation of small molecular interactions by differences of separate total energies—some procedures with reduced errors1970194553566KönigF. B.SchönbohmJ.BaylesD.AIM2000—A program to analyze and visualize atoms in molecules20012255455592-s2.0-0035871851BrenemanC. M.WibergK. B.Determining atom-centered monopoles from molecular electrostatic potentials. The need for high sampling density in formamide conformational analysis199011336137310.1002/jcc.540110311FlukigerP.LuthiH. P.PortmannS.WeberJ.2000Manno, SwitzerlandSwiss Center for Scientific ComputingSchmidtM. W.BaldridgeK. K.BoatzJ. A.General atomic and molecular electronic structure system199314111347136310.1002/jcc.540141112BukowskiR.CencekW.JankowskiP.2008Warsaw, PolandUniversity of Delaware, Newark, Del, USA; University of WarsawHanschC.LeoA.TaftR. W.A survey of hammett substituent constants and resonance and field parameters19919121651952-s2.0-4243664295HammettL. P.Some relations between reaction rates and equilibrium constants19351711251362-s2.0-33747866218CozziF.PonziniF.AnnunziataR.CinquiniM.SiegelJ. S.Polar interactions between stacked π systems in fluorinated 1,8-diarylnaphthalenes: Importance of quadrupole moments in molecular recognition1995349101910202-s2.0-33748212084AlcamíM.MóO.YáñezM.Modelling intrinsic basicities: the use of the electrostatic potentials and the atoms-in-molecules theory199634074562-s2.0-294256181310.1016/S1380-7323(96)80050-1SureshC. H.GadreS. R.Electrostatic potential minimum on aromatic ring as a measure of substituent constant2007111471071410.1021/jp066917n.EbrahimiA.HabibiM.MasoodiH. R.Theoretical study of the influence of para- and meta-substituents on X-pyridine⋯HF hydrogen bonding20073401–385922-s2.0-3554898927710.1016/j.chemphys.2007.08.012GrabowskiS. J.MałeckaM.Intramolecular H-bonds: DFT and QTAIM studies on 3-(aminomethylene)pyran-2, 4-dione and its derivatives20061104211847118542-s2.0-3375121008610.1021/jp064997pGrabowskiS. J.Ab initio calculations on conventional and unconventional hydrogen bonds-study of the hydrogen bond strength20011054710739107462-s2.0-0035969760EspinosaE.LecomteC.GhermaniN. E.DevemyJ.RohmerM. M.BenardM.MolinsE.Hydrogen bonds: First quantitative agreement between electrostatic potential calculations from experimental X-(X + N) and theoretical ab initio SCF models199611810250125022-s2.0-002996610710.1021/ja953193cGalabovB.Bobadova-ParvanovaP.Molecular electrostatic potential as reactivity index in hydrogen bonding: ab initio molecular orbital study of complexes of nitrile and carbonyl compounds with hydrogen fluoride199910334679367992-s2.0-0000870268DimitrovaV.IlievaS.GalabovB.Electrostatic potential at atomic sites as a reactivity descriptor for hydrogen bonding. Complexes of monosubstituted acetylenes and ammonia20021064811801118052-s2.0-003702819910.1021/jp026203mMataI.MolinsE.AlkortaI.EspinosaE.Topological properties of the electrostatic potential in weak and moderate N⋯H hydrogen bonds200711128642564332-s2.0-3454752876910.1021/jp071924cPolitzerP.MurrayJ. S.ConchaM. C.Halogen bonding and the design of new materials: organic bromides, chlorides and perhaps even fluorides as donors2007136-76436502-s2.0-3434738502210.1007/s00894-007-0176-9KennyP. W.Hydrogen bonding, electrostatic potential, and molecular design2009495123412442-s2.0-6624908655010.1021/ci9000234DuarteD. J. R.de las VallejosM. M.PeruchenaN. M.Topological analysis of aromatic halogen/hydrogen bonds by electron charge density and electrostatic potentials20101647377482-s2.0-7795457415410.1007/s00894-009-0558-2MurrayJ. S.SeminarioJ. M.ConchaM. C.PolitzerP.An analysis of molecular electrostatic potentials obtained by a local density functional approach199244211312210.1002/qua.560440204ChałasińskiG.SzczȩśniakM. M.State of the art and challenges of the ab initio theory of intermolecular interactions200010011422742522-s2.0-003807883010.1021/cr990048zStoneA. J.1996Oxford, UKClarendon PressTsuzukiS.FujiiA.Nature and physical origin of CH/π interaction: significant difference from conventional hydrogen bonds20081019258425942-s2.0-4344909188810.1039/b718656hWilliamsH. L.ChabalowskiC. F.Using Kohn-Sham orbitals in symmetry-adapted perturbation theory to investigate intermolecular interactions200110536466592-s2.0-0035134013BukowskiR.SzalewiczK.ChabalowskiC. F.Ab initio interaction potentials for simulations of dimethylnitramine solutions in supercritical carbon dioxide with cosolvents199910336732273402-s2.0-0000861692KimD.HuS.TarakeshwarP.KimK. S.LisyJ. M.Cation-π interactions: a theoretical investigation of the interaction of metallic and organic cations with alkenes, arenes, and heteroarenes20031078122812382-s2.0-003746820110.1021/jp0224214RingerA. L.FiggsM. S.SinnokrotM. O.SherrillC. D.Aliphatic C-H/π interactions: methane-benzene, methane-phenol, and methane-indole complexes20061103710822108282-s2.0-3374963463210.1021/jp062740l