Sei sulla pagina 1di 5

Inorganic Cume (Prof.

Stanley) Feb 19, 2000

ANSWER KEY

Please read the attached JACS communication and answer the following questions about the paper. You have 2 hours for this closed book exam. 1. (10 pts) Sketch out and electron count the following complexes: [(6-C6H6)Rh(CO)2]+ and [Rh(CO)4]+.
Rh(+1) C6H6 2CO Total: d8 6e4e18eRh(+1) 4CO Total: d8 8e16e-

O C OC Rh C O CO

Rh OC CO

2. (20 pts) Free CO has an IR stretching frequency of 2143 cm1. How can a metal carbonyl have a CO > 2143 cm1 ? Clearly discuss and explain.
The HOMO (highest occupied molecular orbital) on CO is mainly lone pair in nature and localized on the carbon atom. But this orbital is slightly antibonding with respect to the C-O bond. So when the CO bonds to a metal using only this lone pair HOMO it is draining away some of the electron density in this orbital. This decreases the amount of antibonding character between the C and O, thus increasing the bond strength between them. As the bond strength increases, the CO stretching frequency will also increase. Normally when a carbonyl ligand binds to a metal center there is also -backbonding occurring (due to d electron density on the metal center) and this weakens the C-O bond considerably more than the mild strengthening effect caused by donation of the HOMO electron density. So normally, one does not see metal carbonyl CO > 2143 cm1 except when there is little or no -backbonding occurring.

3. (10 pts) [(6-C6H6)Rh(CO)2]+ has the highest IR CO = 2115 cm1, while [Rh(CO)4]+ has its highest IR CO = 2138 cm1. Discuss and explain.
[Rh(CO)4]+ is more electron deficient (less electron rich) relative to [(6-C6H6)Rh(CO)2]+. This means that there will be less -backbonding to weaken the CO bond. This will give rise to the highest CO stretching frequency in the IR. The C6H6 group is more donating and less able to -backbond relative to two CO ligands. Also the [(6C6H6)Rh(CO)2]+ is an 18e- complex compared to the 16e- [Rh(CO)4]+. While one cant always directly compare electron counts to determine which complex is more electron-rich or deficient, the similarity of the two complexes (same metal, same oxidation state) does allow us to do a semi-direct comparison.

4. (10 pts) The average Rh-CO bond distance in [(6-C6H6)Rh(CO)2]+ is 1.88 , while [Rh(CO)4]+ has an average Rh-CO bond distance of 1.95 . Is the longer Rh-CO distance in [Rh(CO)4]+ consistent with what the IR stretching frequencies are telling you? Discuss.
Yes, the longer Rh-CO bond distance in [Rh(CO)4]+ indicates that it has weaker Rh-CO bonding (but stronger C-O triple bonding). This does correspond to the higher CO stretching frequency observed that indicates strong C-O triple bonding, and by inference, weaker Rh-C bonding. The more electron-rich [(6-C6H6)Rh(CO)2]+ complex has more backbonding that strengthens the Rh-C bond at the expense of the C-O bond.

5. (10 pts) Why is the low basicity of the superweak anion (last paragraph) important for these studies? Discuss and explain. What would happen with a normal counter anion like BF4?
The minimal amount of -backbonding in [Rh(CO)4]+ is indicative that the metal center is quite electron deficient. Coupling this with the cationic charge means that the Rh center is probably fairly electrophillic and will be looking for electron donors to satisfy its desire for better donating ligands. The superweak counteranion is important to minimize the amount of electron donation from the anion to the Rh center. The authors are looking for the most electron deficient metal center that will give them the least amount of -backbonding and the highest CO stretching frequency in the IR. The more localized the anionic charge on the anion, the stronger the electrostatic attraction between the cationic Rh center and the anion. The closer the anion gets to the metal, in large part driven by the electrostatic attraction, the more likely it will start donating electron density to the electrophillic metal center. A normal anion like BF4 (which is considered to be a non-coordinating anion) is more likely to get closer to the Rh center and donate a little more electron density to the Rh making it less electron deficient (more electron-rich). This will lead to more -backbonding to the COs and a lower CO stretching frequency.

6. (10 pts) The authors consider [Rh(CO)4]+ to be a non-classical carbonyl because it has CO(avg) > 2143 cm1. They state that the highest IR CO for [Rh(CO)4]+ is 2138 cm1, but that CO(avg) = 2167 cm1 (first paragraph). How did they arrive at CO(avg) = 2167 cm1 and is this a fair comparison to the IR CO for free CO of 2143 cm1?
The authors get the 2167 cm1 average value by combining the high wavenumber Raman values (2215, 2176 cm1) with the IR value (2138 cm1). The 2138 cm1 value is a doubly degenerate vibration (Eu symmetry) and they used this twice in their averaging. This, I believe, is CHEATING!! While the 2143 cm1 value for the stretching frequency of free CO represents both an IR and Raman value, one should only compare apples to apples. Therefore, I believe that one should only be comparing similar IR values. The totally symmetric Raman CO stretching frequencies are naturally going to be at a considerably higher energy due to the concerted nature of the symmetrical stretching normal mode(s). The less symmetrical Eu symmetry IR vibration is probably a closer and fairer comparison to the free CO value. But if they used the IR value of 2138 cm1 they couldnt claim that [Rh(CO)4]+ is a non-classical metal carbonyl.

7. (10 pts) The reaction of [(6-C6H6)Rh(CO)2]+ with CO in the solid-state produces [Rh(CO)4]+. The authors state that neither CpRh(CO)2 nor Cp*Rh(CO)2 reacts in this fashion. Discuss why.
A benzene coordinates far more weakly than a Cp or Cp* anion, so it is far easier to displace coordinated benzene from the Rh than the strongly bonding Cp anions. It is a little surprising that COs can displace the somewhat better donating benzene ligand. But the authors would also probably find that [Rh(CO)4]+ will react with benzene to make [(6-C6H6)Rh(CO)2]+ under similarly mild conditions. So this isnt that big a surprise.

8. (10 pts) The isoelectronic [Pd(CO)4]2+ complex mentioned in the last column of the paper has a significantly higher CO IR stretching frequency (2248 cm1) compared to [Rh(CO)4]+ (2138 cm1). Is this expected or not? Discuss and compare the two complexes.
[Pd(CO)4]2+ should have quite a bit higher CO than [Rh(CO)4]+ for two reasons: Pd is more electronegative than Rh, and the Pd complex is dicationic versus the monocationic Rh complex. The higher positive charge on the Pd complex will contract and lower the energy of the Pd d orbitals (in concert with the higher electronegativity) and make them considerably harder to -backbond to the CO ligands.

9. (10 pts) A structure on the [Pd(CO)4]2+ complex has not be done to my knowledge. Given that the average Rh-CO bond distance in [Rh(CO)4]+ is 1.95 (and other information in the paper), what would you predict for the Pd-CO bond distance? Discuss, explain and justify.
[Pd(CO)4]2+ should have shorter Pd-CO bond distances relative to [Rh(CO)4]+ for two reasons: Pd is more electronegative than Rh, and the Pd complex is dicationic versus the monocationic Rh complex. Both of these will work to contract the Pd d orbitals. This contraction means that the COs have to get closer to the Pd center to have similar overlap between its lone pair and the appropriate empty metal orbital. This should be the case even though the Pd-CO bonding should be weaker than that seen for the Rh complex. It is reasonable to make the argument that the considerably higher CO stretching frequency for the Pd complex implies that there should be weaker bonding between the Pd and the CO ligands. Weaker bonding usually translates as longer M-ligand bond distances. But this really only works well when one is comparing the same metal in similar oxidation states. But the orbital contraction discussed above is probably a major factor and should result in a shorter Pd-CO bond distance. I would estimate it around 1.9 .

Potrebbero piacerti anche