Lewis acid/base interaction

Solvation of polyaniline is a result of a number of interactions between polymer dopant and solvent (for example. Bom-type solvation, hydrogen bonding, hard-soft acid base interactions, Lewis acid base (donor-acceptor) interactions). 

Cosolvents ana Surfactants Many nonvolatile polar substances cannot be dissolved at moderate temperatures in nonpolar fluids such as CO9. Cosolvents (also called entrainers, modifiers, moderators) such as alcohols and acetone have been added to fluids to raise the solvent strength. The addition of only 2 mol % of the complexing agent tri-/i-butyl phosphate (TBP) to CO9 increases the solubility ofnydro-quinone by a factor of 250 due to Lewis acid-base interactions. Veiy recently, surfac tants have been used to form reverse micelles, microemulsions, and polymeric latexes in SCFs including CO9. These organized molecular assemblies can dissolve hydrophilic solutes and ionic species such as amino acids and even proteins. Examples of surfactant tails which interact favorably with CO9 include fluoroethers, fluoroacrylates, fluoroalkanes, propylene oxides, and siloxanes. 

Acid-base interactions in the most general Lewis sense occur whenever an electron pair from one of the participants is shared in the formation of a complex, or an adduct . They include hydrogen bonding as one type of such a bond. The bond may vary from an ionic interaction in one extreme to a covalent bond in the other. Acid-base interactions and their importance in interfacial phenomena have been reviewed extensively elsewhere [35,78] and will be described only briefly here. 

For the sake of completeness, it is worthwhile to briefly discuss role of acid-base interactions in adhesion. In this context, the term acid refers to a Lewis acid (an electron acceptor) and a Lewis base (electron donor), rather than the more conventional acid and base definitions. The role of acid-base interactions in adhesion is discussed in detail by Lee [105]. 

Complex [(CXI )Ir(/j,-pz)(/i,-SBu )(/j,-Ph2PCH2PPh2)Ir(CO)] reacts with iodine to form 202 (X = I) as the typical iridium(II)-iridium(II) symmetrical species [90ICA(178)179]. The terminal iodide ligands can be readily displaced in reactions with silversalts. Thus, 202 (X = I), upon reaction with silver nitrate, produces 202 (X = ONO2). Complex [(OC)Ir(/i,-pz )(/z-SBu )(/i-Ph2PCH2PPh2)Ir(CO)] reacts with mercury dichloride to form 203, traditionally interpreted as the product of oxidative addition to one iridium atom and simultaneous Lewis acid-base interaction with the other. The rhodium /i-pyrazolato derivative is prepared in a similar way. Unexpectedly, the iridium /z-pyrazolato analog in similar conditions produces mercury(I) chloride and forms the dinuclear complex 204. 

The acid-base interaction in group 13-stibine and -bismuthine adducts seems to be very weak as is indicated by mass spectroscopic studies, which never showed the molecular ion peak but only the respective Lewis acid and Lewis base fragments. The extreme lability in the gas phase may also account for the fact that there are only very few reports on thermodynamic data of group 13-stibine or bismuthine adducts in the literature. Therefore, multinuclear NMR spectroscopy and single crystal X-ray diffraction are the most important analytical tools for the characterization of such adducts. 

According to the Haaland model, an increase of the Lewis acid-base interaction is accompanied by a decrease of both the R—Al—R bond angles and the Al—R bond distances. However, comparisons are possible only for adducts containing the same alane to exclude any steric or electronic effects of... 

Even acetone shows appreciable shifts following contact with metal halides - the magnitude of which correlates with the expected strength of the Lewis acid-base interaction. 

Salt formation as a criterion for an acid-base interaction has a long history (Walden, 1929). Rudolph Glauber in 1648 stated that acids and alkalis were opposed to each other and that salts were composed of these two components. Otto Tachenius in 1666 considered that all salts could be broken into an acid and an alkali. Boyle (1661) and the founder of the phlogistic theory, Stahl, observed that when an acid reacts with an alkali the properties of both disappear and a new substance, a salt, is produced with a new set of properties. Rouelle in 1744 and 1754 and William Lewis in 1746 clearly defined a salt as a substance that is formed by the union of an acid and a base. 

Since around 1950, in studies of solvent effects for organic reactions, empirical solvent parameters have been used these parameters represent the capabilities of solvents for the solute-solvent interactions (especially Lewis acid-base interactions). Though the solute-solvent interactions should depend on the solute as well as on the solvent, the empirical solvent parameters are considered to be irrelevant to solutes in other words, the use of only these parameters enables us to evaluate the solvation energies. Strictly... 

The intramolecular Lewis acid-base interaction of type B is of course always in competition with an intermolecular interaction, as indicated by formula C. Again, a bulky group in a-position to X can favor the formation of monomer B. 

Before studying some examples more closely, let us consider some cases which are not listed in Table 13. There are numerous compounds SnX2 which are definitely monomeric but are nevertheless no carbene analogs since their valence electron number at the tin atom is at least eight. These compounds contain chelating ligands which can stabilize the carbenoid tin atom due to intramolecular Lewis acid-base interactions as shown by structure A and B (see also Chapter 3). 

M. F. Lappert has therefore proposed a double Lewis acid-base interaction of type C 108-118). 

Substitution of the dimethylsilyl group by bis(tert-butyl)-stannyl does not change the structure in solution, e.g. 33 is found to be monomeric. A very interesting dimer is 26. In contrast to the centrosymmetrical dimer of 1 (C-Symmetry), 26 has a twofold axis (C2, see Fig. 9). This special structure may be due to intramolecular Lewis acid-base interactions between the boron and nitrogen atoms 39). Nevertheless,... 

In 1970 Harrison and Zuckerman 136) reported for the first time the existence of a stable adduct of a stannylene (dicyclopentadienyltin(II)) with a Lewis acid (tri-fluoroborane). In the meantime, P. G. Harrison was able to demonstrate that these Lewis-acid base interactions can be extended to a variety of main group acidsl37,138) (Eqs. (15) and (16)). 

The rate-determinating step in reaction (45) is second order, illustrating that Lewis acid-base interactions are involved in this process. Eqs. (43)-(45) are similar to reactions (36) and (37) since the tin(II) compounds formed are highly associated (tin(II) chloride and tin(II) sulfide can be isolated as pure and large crystals), the equilibrium is shifted to the right side. 

If these rings are superimposed in the correct alignment, a cube is formed due to four Lewis acid-base interactions. 

As we have seen, the Lewis theory of acid-base interactions based on electron pair donation and acceptance applies to many types of species. As a result, the electronic theory of acids and bases pervades the whole of chemistry. Because the formation of metal complexes represents one type of Lewis acid-base interaction, it was in that area that evidence of the principle that species of similar electronic character interact best was first noted. As early as the 1950s, Ahrland, Chatt, and Davies had classified metals as belonging to class A if they formed more stable complexes with the first element in the periodic group or to class B if they formed more stable complexes with the heavier elements in that group. This means that metals are classified as A or B based on the electronic character of the donor atom they prefer to bond to. The donor strength of the ligands is determined by the stability of the complexes they form with metals. This behavior is summarized in the following table. 

Although the subject of stability of complexes will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 19 it is appropriate to note here some of the general characteristics of the metal-ligand bond. One of the most relevant principles in this consideration is the hard-soft interaction principle. Metal-ligand bonds are acid-base interactions in the Lewis sense, so the principles discussed in Sections 9.6 and 9.8 apply to these interactions. Soft electron donors in which the donor atom is sulfur or phosphorus form more stable complexes with soft metal ions such as Pt2+ or Ag+, or with metal atoms. Hard electron donors such as H20, NH3( or F generally form stable complexes with hard metal ions like Cr3+ or Co3+. 

Steric interactions between bulky substituents such as t-Bu, leading to larger C-E-C bond angles, obviously affect the Lewis basicity caused by the increased -character of the electron lone pair. However, the strength of the Lewis acid-base interaction within an adduct as expressed by its dissociation enthalpy does not necessarily reflect the Lewis acidity and basicity of the pure fragments, because steric (repulsive) interactions between the substituents bound to both central elements may play a contradictory role. In particular, adducts containing small group 13/15 elements are very sensitive to such interactions as was shown for amine-borane and -alane adducts... 

---