{"title":"所有闪光的都不是黄金:d10金属中心双金属配合物中共价与亲金键的计算研究——致敬Al Cotton逝世十周年","authors":"Brooke M. Otten, Kortney M Melancon, M. Omary","doi":"10.1080/02603594.2018.1467315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As the tenth year that follows the premature passing of the inorganic chemistry legend F. Albert (Al) Cotton comes to a close, we provide some soul food that we believe Al would have enjoyed as he looks down upon two generations of disciples, a grandchild and two great grandchildren, in his scientific family tree. This article also represents a new tradition by which the editors of Comments on Inorganic Chemistry wish to lead by example, whereby we start publishing original research content that nonetheless preserves the journal’s identity as a niche for “critical discussion of the current literature” of inorganic chemistry. Thus, we show novel demonstrations of a posteriori validation and a priori prediction of possible counterintuitive covalent M-M’ bonds—after and before synthesis, respectively—contrasted with non-covalent M···M interactions of the metallophilic type in bridge-dimeric systems of d10 metal centers. Mixing of (n + 1)s0/p0 orbitals with (n)d10 orbitals in the former heterobimetallics case—and lack thereof in the latter homobimetallics case—is hypothesized to be responsible for the presence or absence of covalency, respectively. However, we also demonstrate that the consequent d-s’ and/or d-p’ orbital mixing/hybridization can occur even in homobimetallic complexes that contain asymmetric bridging ligands (e.g., with -S^C- donor atoms that lead to orbital interactions between M-S and M-C fragments). Hence, the “control” metallophilic case for the hypothesized d10-d10 polar-covalent bonding herein is best manifest by M2(P^P)2 homobimetallics vis-à-vis M2(S^C)2 embodiments. Finally, we also offer a point/counterpoint commentary to the readers to contrast factors that argue for covalency vs metallophilicity and forewarn against exaggerating the extent of covalent bonding in such d10-d10 species. Thus, scrutinizing the various theoretical parameters has pointed to M-M’ and M-M partially bonded S^C-bridge dinuclear d10 complexes vis-à-vis the classic Cotton-type multiple metal-metal bond description in d0","PeriodicalId":10481,"journal":{"name":"Comments on Inorganic Chemistry","volume":"49 1","pages":"1 - 35"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"All That Glitters Is Not Gold: A Computational Study of Covalent vs Metallophilic Bonding in Bimetallic Complexes of d10 Metal Centers—A Tribute to Al Cotton on the Tenth Anniversary of His Passing\",\"authors\":\"Brooke M. Otten, Kortney M Melancon, M. Omary\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02603594.2018.1467315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As the tenth year that follows the premature passing of the inorganic chemistry legend F. Albert (Al) Cotton comes to a close, we provide some soul food that we believe Al would have enjoyed as he looks down upon two generations of disciples, a grandchild and two great grandchildren, in his scientific family tree. This article also represents a new tradition by which the editors of Comments on Inorganic Chemistry wish to lead by example, whereby we start publishing original research content that nonetheless preserves the journal’s identity as a niche for “critical discussion of the current literature” of inorganic chemistry. Thus, we show novel demonstrations of a posteriori validation and a priori prediction of possible counterintuitive covalent M-M’ bonds—after and before synthesis, respectively—contrasted with non-covalent M···M interactions of the metallophilic type in bridge-dimeric systems of d10 metal centers. Mixing of (n + 1)s0/p0 orbitals with (n)d10 orbitals in the former heterobimetallics case—and lack thereof in the latter homobimetallics case—is hypothesized to be responsible for the presence or absence of covalency, respectively. However, we also demonstrate that the consequent d-s’ and/or d-p’ orbital mixing/hybridization can occur even in homobimetallic complexes that contain asymmetric bridging ligands (e.g., with -S^C- donor atoms that lead to orbital interactions between M-S and M-C fragments). Hence, the “control” metallophilic case for the hypothesized d10-d10 polar-covalent bonding herein is best manifest by M2(P^P)2 homobimetallics vis-à-vis M2(S^C)2 embodiments. Finally, we also offer a point/counterpoint commentary to the readers to contrast factors that argue for covalency vs metallophilicity and forewarn against exaggerating the extent of covalent bonding in such d10-d10 species. Thus, scrutinizing the various theoretical parameters has pointed to M-M’ and M-M partially bonded S^C-bridge dinuclear d10 complexes vis-à-vis the classic Cotton-type multiple metal-metal bond description in d0\",\"PeriodicalId\":10481,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comments on Inorganic Chemistry\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 35\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comments on Inorganic Chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02603594.2018.1467315\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comments on Inorganic Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02603594.2018.1467315","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR","Score":null,"Total":0}
All That Glitters Is Not Gold: A Computational Study of Covalent vs Metallophilic Bonding in Bimetallic Complexes of d10 Metal Centers—A Tribute to Al Cotton on the Tenth Anniversary of His Passing
As the tenth year that follows the premature passing of the inorganic chemistry legend F. Albert (Al) Cotton comes to a close, we provide some soul food that we believe Al would have enjoyed as he looks down upon two generations of disciples, a grandchild and two great grandchildren, in his scientific family tree. This article also represents a new tradition by which the editors of Comments on Inorganic Chemistry wish to lead by example, whereby we start publishing original research content that nonetheless preserves the journal’s identity as a niche for “critical discussion of the current literature” of inorganic chemistry. Thus, we show novel demonstrations of a posteriori validation and a priori prediction of possible counterintuitive covalent M-M’ bonds—after and before synthesis, respectively—contrasted with non-covalent M···M interactions of the metallophilic type in bridge-dimeric systems of d10 metal centers. Mixing of (n + 1)s0/p0 orbitals with (n)d10 orbitals in the former heterobimetallics case—and lack thereof in the latter homobimetallics case—is hypothesized to be responsible for the presence or absence of covalency, respectively. However, we also demonstrate that the consequent d-s’ and/or d-p’ orbital mixing/hybridization can occur even in homobimetallic complexes that contain asymmetric bridging ligands (e.g., with -S^C- donor atoms that lead to orbital interactions between M-S and M-C fragments). Hence, the “control” metallophilic case for the hypothesized d10-d10 polar-covalent bonding herein is best manifest by M2(P^P)2 homobimetallics vis-à-vis M2(S^C)2 embodiments. Finally, we also offer a point/counterpoint commentary to the readers to contrast factors that argue for covalency vs metallophilicity and forewarn against exaggerating the extent of covalent bonding in such d10-d10 species. Thus, scrutinizing the various theoretical parameters has pointed to M-M’ and M-M partially bonded S^C-bridge dinuclear d10 complexes vis-à-vis the classic Cotton-type multiple metal-metal bond description in d0
期刊介绍:
Comments on Inorganic Chemistry is intended as a vehicle for authoritatively written critical discussions of inorganic chemistry research. We publish focused articles of any length that critique or comment upon new concepts, or which introduce new interpretations or developments of long-standing concepts. “Comments” may contain critical discussions of previously published work, or original research that critiques existing concepts or introduces novel concepts.
Through the medium of “comments,” the Editors encourage authors in any area of inorganic chemistry - synthesis, structure, spectroscopy, kinetics and mechanisms, theory - to write about their interests in a manner that is both personal and pedagogical. Comments is an excellent platform for younger inorganic chemists whose research is not yet widely known to describe their work, and add to the spectrum of Comments’ author profiles, which includes many well-established inorganic chemists.