Ottosson Henrik
Department of Chemistry - Ångström, Uppsala University Box 523 Uppsala 751 20 Sweden
Chem Sci. 2023 May 23;14(21):5542-5544. doi: 10.1039/d3sc90075d. eCollection 2023 May 31.
The field of aromaticity has grown five-fold in the last two decades as revealed by Merino in their Perspective "Aromaticity: Quo Vadis" where they ask where the field is heading (, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SC04998H). Numerous computational tools for aromaticity analysis have been introduced and novel classes of molecules that exhibit aromatic (or antiaromatic) features have been explored experimentally. Hence, the aromaticity concept is broader and possibly fuzzier than ever. Yet, earlier it also triggered vigorous debates after periods when new analysis tools emerged, and it survived. Today's debate reveals that the field is vital and that new knowledge is produced. Yet, as much as we ask where the field is moving, we should ask "Aromaticity: Cui Bono?"; who utilizes the aromaticity concept and who benefits from it? Especially, who benefits from it being overly fuzzy and who does the opposite? It is an exciting debate. We should get out of it with a better understanding of the chemical-bonding phenomenon labelled aromaticity.
正如梅里诺在其《展望:芳香性:何去何从》中所揭示的那样,在过去二十年里,芳香性领域已经增长了五倍,他们在文中探讨了该领域的发展方向(《化学科学》,2023年,https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SC04998H)。已经引入了许多用于芳香性分析的计算工具,并且实验上也探索了具有芳香(或反芳香)特征的新型分子类别。因此,芳香性的概念比以往任何时候都更广泛,也可能更模糊。然而,在新的分析工具出现后的时期,它也曾引发激烈的争论,但它挺过来了。如今的争论表明该领域充满活力,并且正在产生新的知识。然而,在我们追问该领域将走向何方的同时,我们也应该问“芳香性:谁从中获益?”;谁在运用芳香性概念,谁又从中受益?特别是,谁从其过度模糊中受益,谁又反之?这是一场令人兴奋的争论。我们应该通过对被称为芳香性的化学键合现象有更深入的理解来从中走出来。