Advertisement

The Concept of Natural Ligand Nonbonded Repulsion. The Ethane Paradigm

  • Nicolaos Demetrios Epiotis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Chemistry book series (LNC, volume 34)

Abstract

Nonbonded repulsion, commonly referred to as “steric effect”, is one of the priceless weapons of the conceptual arsenal of the chemist, especially the organic chemist. It is repeatedly invoked to rationalize why the most “crowded” arrangement of atomic nuclei is often the least stable one.1 The simplicity of the concept, an intuitively obvious one, has much to do with the popularity it enjoys. While excellent for a posteriori rationalization, the concept of nonbonded repulsion has no predictive value. For example, ethane is staggered but water is non-linear. If we did not know the actual physical facts, we would predict ethane to be staggered and water linear on the basis of “steric effects”. Furthermore, the concept of nonbonded repulsion is really an empirical one for it was originally developed by experimentalists in order to codify a subset (not a complete set) of experimental observations which indicated that “crowding” of nonbonded atoms is energetically unfavorable. Thus, the concept of nonbonded repulsion is both nonpredictive and nontheoretical (heuristic).

Keywords

Spin Correlation Electron Delocalization Rotational Barrier Jahn Teller Single Electron Transfer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Newman, M.S. “Steric Effects in Organic Chemistry”; John Wiley: New York, 1956.Google Scholar
  2. (a).
    Bartell, LS . J. Chem. Ed. 1968, 45, 754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. (b).
    Pearson, R.G., “Symmetry Rules for Chemical Reactions”; Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, 1976.Google Scholar
  4. (c).
    Wheland, G.W. J. Chem. Phys. 1934, 2, 474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. (d).
    Pauling L., Springall, H.E., Palmer, K.J., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1939, 61, 927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. (e).
    Mulliken, R.S. J. Chem. Phys. 1939, 7, 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. (f).
    Mulliken, R.S., Rieke, C.A., Brown, W.G., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1941, 63, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. (g).
    Dewar, M.J.S., “Hyperconjugation”; Ronald Press Co.: New York, 1962.Google Scholar
  9. 3.
    Morrison, R.T., Boyd, R.N., “Organic Chemistry”, 3rd Edt; Allyn and Bacon, Inc.; Boston, 1973.Google Scholar
  10. 4.
    Van Schaik, E.J.M, Geise, K.J., Mtjlhoff, F.C., Renes, G., J. Mol, Struct, 1973 16, 23,Google Scholar
  11. 5.
    Whipple, E.B., Stewart, W.E., Reddy, G.S., Goldstein, J.H., J. Chem, Phys, 1961, 34, 2136,Google Scholar
  12. (a).
    Hoffman, R. ; Olofson, R.A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1966, 88, 943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. (b).
    Epiotis, N.D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1973, 95, 3087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. (c).
    Epiotis, N.D., Yates, R.L., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1976, 98, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 7.
    a) Fieser, F.L., Fieser, M., “Reagents for Organic Synthesis”; John Wiley: New York, 1967.Google Scholar
  16. (b).
    Waldron, J.T., Snyder, W.H., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1973, 95, 5491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. (c).
    Epiotis, N.D.; Cherry, W.R.; Shaik, S.; Yates, R.L.; Bernardi, F. Tom. Curr. Chem. 1977, 70, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 8.
    Veillard, A . Theoret. Chim. Acta 1970, 18, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 9.
    H2O is predicted to be linear by EHMO theory for a “reasonable” choice of empirical parameters and NH3 is predicted to be planar by SCF-MO theory if “poor” AO basis sets are used in the calculations.Google Scholar
  20. 10.
    Pople, J.A., Beveridge, D.L., “Approximate Molecular Orbital Theory”; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1971.Google Scholar
  21. 11.
    a) Wolfsberg, M., Helmholz, L., J. Chem. Phys. 1952, 20, 837.Google Scholar
  22. (b).
    Hoffmann, R.; Lipscomb, W.N. J. Chem. Phys. 1962, 36, 2189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. (c).
    Hoffmann, R., J. Chem. Phys. 1963, 39, 1397.Google Scholar
  24. (d).
    An excellent introduction to applied quantum chemistry and, in particular, to the “how to do it” aspects of HMO and EHMO theories can be found in McGlynn, S.P., Vanquickenborne, L.G., Kinoshita, M., Carroll, D.G., “Introduction to Applied Quantum Chemistry”; Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.: New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  25. 12. (a)
    Pitzer, R.M.; Lipscomb, W.N. J. Chem. Phys. 1963, 39, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. (b).
    Veillard, A. Chem. Phys. Letters 1969, 3, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. (c).
    Stevens, R.M. J. Chem. Phys. 1970, 52, 1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. A large body of computations suggests that the magnitudes of rotation inversion barriers are satisfactorily predicted by single determinant Hartree- FocK MO theory: Allen, L.C. Ann.Rev. Phys. Chem. 1969, 20, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 13.
    Hoffmann, R. Pure Appl. Chem. 1970, 24, 567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 14.
    Lowe, J.P., Science 1973, 179, 527.Google Scholar
  31. 15.
    Brunck, T.K., Weinhold, F., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1979, 101, 1700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 16.
    Weiss, S.; Leroi, G.E. J. Chem. Phys. 1968, 48, 962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolaos Demetrios Epiotis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations