English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A series of computational studies have been undertaken to investigate the electronic structures and bonding schemes for six hetero-substituted borane cages, all of which have been presented in the literature as potential hypho structures. The six species are hypho-7,8-[C2B6H13](-) (1a), hypho-7,8-[CSB6H11](-) (1b), hypho-7,8-[S2B6H9](-) (1c), hypho-7,8-[NSB6H11] (1d), exo-7-Me-hypho-7,8-[NCB6H12] (1e), and endo-7-Me-hypho-7,8-[NCB6H12] (1f) and the so-called mno rule has been applied to each of them. As no structural data are known for the carbathia-, azathia-, and dithiahexaboranes, we have also applied the ab initio/GIAO/NMR structural tool for 1b-1d, with 1c having been prepared for this purpose. We conclude that an mno count of 10 means that 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, and 1f should be termed pseudo-nido or pseudo-hypho. Only 1c can be considered to be correctly termed hypho-7,8-[S2B6H9](-).

A computational analysis of the apparent nido vs. hypho conflict: are we dealing with six- or eight-vertex open-face diheteroboranes?