Transcript Zumd20

Zumdahl’s Chapter 20
Transition Metals
Chapter Contents
e– configuration
 Oxidation #s & IP
 Coordination
Compounds




Coordination #
Ligands
Nomenclature

Isomerism



Structural Isomerism
Stereoisomerism
Bonding in Complex
Ions

Crystal Field Theory


Octahedral
Tetrahedral
Electronic Configurations
d
– block transition metals
 ns2
(n–1)d X where n = 4,5,6,7
 Potential for high spin (Hund’s Rule)
 Ions lose s electrons first.
f
– block transition elements
 ns2
(n–1)d0,1 (n–2)f X where n = 6,7
 Lanthanides & Actinides are even more
similar than members of d – block.
Oxidation States
 Often
lose e– to Rare Gas configuration.
Sc
Ti
V
Cr Mn
3
2,3
1,2,3
4
4,5 3,4, 3,4,
5,6
5,6,7
1,2,
1,2,
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
2,3,
1,2,3
,4
1,2
1,2
2
4,5,6
3,4
 But
beyond Mn, transition metal ions do
not achieve that high.

Because the 8th IP is prohibitively expensive!
Coordination Compounds
 Often

But neutrals possible if ligands exactly balance
metal ion’s charge.
 Often

highly colored
Since MO energy separations match visible
light photon energies,  absorb visible light.
 Often

complex ions (both cat– and an–)
paramagnetic
Duhh! These are transition metals, no?
 Dative
bonded by e– donating ligands.
Coordination Number
 The
But to only one
of many solvent
water molecules.
number of ligand bonds
 Usually
6 (octahedral) but as few as 2
(linear) and as many as 8 (prismatic or
antiprismatic cube).
Here’s Gd bonding
to a ligand called
DOTA 6 ways …
For a bizarre
7 coordination.
Sane Coordination Numbers

6-coordinated
metals like cobalt
sepulchrate :

C12H24N8Co2+

Or the one we used
in lab, MgEDTA2–

C10H12O8N2Mg2–
Ligands

From Latin ligare, “to bind”
be a Lewis base (e– donor)
 Could, as does EDTA, have several
Lewis base functionalities: polydentate!
 If monodentate, should be small enough
to permit others to bind.
 Relative bonding strengths:
 Must
 X–
< OH– < H2O < NH3 < en < NO2– < CN–
halides
ethylene diamine
Naming Anionic Names
 Anions
that electrically balance cationic
coordination complexes can also be
present as ligands in that complex!
 So
they need different names that identify
when they’re being used as ligands:
Species
Cl–
As ion: chloride
As ligand:
chloro
NO2–
CN–
nitrite
cyanide
nitro
cyano
Naming Neutral Names
 But
ligands needn’t be anions; many
neutral molecules are Lewis bases.
 And
they too get new names appearing as
ligands in coordination complexes:
Species
H2O
NH3
CO
Normal:
water
ammonia
As ligand:
aqua
ammine
carbon
monoxide
carbonyl
Name That Complex, Oedipus
[
Cr Br2 (en)2 ] Br
 Anion,
bromide, is named last (no surprise)
 chromium(III) is named next-to-last
 Ligands named 1st in alphabetical order:
Number of a ligands is shown as Greek prefix:
 dibromo …
 Unless it already uses “di” then use “bis”
 Dibromobis(ethylenediammine) …
Dibromobis(ethylenediammine)chromium(III) bromide


Charge Overrun
 Since
ligands are often anions, their
charge may swamp the transition metal,
leaving the complex ion negative!
 Na2 [ PbI4 ] (from Harris p. 123)
 Sodium

 Li
tetraiodoplumbate(II)
While lead(II) is the source, the Latin root is
used for the complex with “ate” denoting anion.
[ AgCl2 ], lithium dichloroargentate
Isomeric Complications
 dichlorobis(diethylsulfide)platinate(II)
would appear to be the name of the
square planar species above, but
 The
square planar configuration can have
another isomer where the Cl ligands are on
opposite sides of the platinum, so it’s really
 cis-dichlorobis(diethylsulfide)platinate(II)
 and
this is not the only way isomers arise!
Complex Isomerization Simplified
 Stereoisomers
preserve bonds
 Geometric
(cis-trans) isomers
 Optical (non-superimposable mirrors)
 Structural
isomers preserve only atoms
 Coordination
isomers swap ligands for
anions to the complex.
 Linkage isomers swap lone pairs on the
ligand as the bonding site.
Coordination Isomers
 Unique
to coordination complexes
 [ Pb (en)2 Cl2 ] Br2

bis(ethylenediammine)dichlorolead(IV) bromide
 Only
1 of 3 possible coordination isomers
 The other 2 are

[ Pb Br (en)2 Cl ] Br Cl


bromobis(ethylenediammine)chlorolead(IV)
 bromide chloride
[ Pb Br2 (en)2 ] Cl2

dibromobis(ethylenediammine)lead(IV) chloride
Optical Isomers
 We
need to compare the mirror image
of a sample complex to see if it can be
superimposed on the original.
These views of cobalt sepulchrate and its
Mirror image demonstrate non-superimposition.
They are optical isomers.
Colorful Complexes
 Colors
we see everywhere are due, for
the most part, to electronic transitions.
 Most
electronic transitions, however, occur
at energies well in excess of visible h.
 d-electrons transitions ought not to be
visible at all, since they are degenerate.
 But, in a complex, that degeneracy is
broken! Transition energies aren’t then 0.
Breaking Degeneracy
5
d orbitals in a tetrahedral charge field
split as a doublet (E) and a triplet (T).
8 C3 3 C2 6 S4 6 d h=24
Td
E
A1
1
1
1
1
1
A2
1
1
1
–1
–1
E
2
–1
2
0
0
T1
3
0
–1
1
–1
T2
3
0
–1
–1
1
x2+y2+z2
(2z2–x2–y2, x2–y2)
(xy, xz, yz)
Symmetry Tells Not All
 While
the symmetry tables assure us
that there are now 2 energy levels for d
orbitals instead of 1, we don’t know the
energies themselves.
 That
depends upon the field established by
the ligands and the proximity of the d s.
 See Zumdahl’s Fig. 20.26 for a visual
argument why dxy,dxz,dyz are lower energy.
Other Ligand Symmetries
 Octahedral,
Oh, (6-coordinate, Fig. 20.20)
symmetic species for (2z2–x2–y2, x2–y2)
 T2g symmetric species for (xy, xz, yz)
 Eg
 Square
Planar, D4h (Fig. 20.27a)
symmetric species for z2
 B1g symmetric species for x2–y2
 B2g symmetric species for xy
 Eg symmetric species for (xz, yz)
 A1g
Consequences
 Degeneracies
work in Hund’s favor to
separate e– pairs and maximize spin.
 With high enough energy separations,
, Aufbau (lowest level) wins instead.
field case,  large, e– pairs in lower
energy states.
 Low field case,  small, e– unpaired as
much as feasible.
 High
Symmetry and 
 tetrahedral
= (4/9) octahedral (same ligands)
 As
a consequence of symmetry.
 If some ligand was 9/4 as strong as the
weakest to give octahedral strong field,
then strong field (low-spin) tetrahedral
might exist. But none does.
 Field strengths of ligands vary as:

X– < OH– < H2O < NH3 < en < NO2– < CN–