Effect of ligand size on coordination number

The dominant features which control the stoichiometry of transition-metal complexes relate to the relative sizes of the metal ions and the ligands, rather than the niceties of electronic configuration. You will recall that the structures of simple ionic solids may be predicted with reasonable accuracy on the basis of radius-ratio rules in which the relative ionic sizes of the cations and anions in the lattice determine the structure adopted. Similar effects are important in determining coordination numbers in transition-metal compounds. In short, it is possible to pack more small ligands than large ligands about a metal ion of a given size. 

The first attempts to interpret Werner s views on an electronic basis were made in 1923 by Nevil Vincent Sidgwick (1873—1952) and Thomas Martin Lowry (1874—1936).103 Sidgwick s initial concern was to explain Werner s coordination number in terms of the sizes of the sub-groups of electrons in the Bohr atom.104 He soon developed the attempt to systematize coordination numbers into his concept of the effective atomic number (EAN).105 He considered ligands to be Lewis bases which donated electrons (usually one pair per ligand) to the metal ion, which thus behaves as a Lewis acid. Ions tend to add electrons by this process until the EAN (the sum of the electrons on the metal ion plus the electrons donated by the ligand) of the next noble gas is achieved. Today the EAN rule is of little theoretical importance. Although a number of elements obey it, there are many important stable exceptions. Nevertheless, it is extremely useful as a predictive rule in one area of coordination chemistry, that of metal carbonyls and nitrosyls. 

Scheme I and, in more detail, Table 4 represent the trend of ionic radii of these large cations which prefer formal coordination numbers in the range of 8-12 [77]. For example, considering the effective Ln(III) radii for 9-co-ordination, a discrepancy of 0.164 A allows the steric fine-tuning of the metal center [60]. The structural implications of the lanthanide contraction can be visually illustrated by the well-examined homoleptic cyclopentadienyl derivatives (Fig. 2) [78], Three structure types are observed, depending on the size of the central metal atom A, [( j5—Cp)2Ln(ji— 5 rf — Cp)] x, 1 < % < 2 B Ln(fj5 —Cp)3 C, [fo -CpJjLnCi- 1 ff1—Cp)], these exhibit coordination numbers of 11 (10), 9, and 8, respectively. Also a small change in ligand substitution leads to a change in coordination behavior and number (10), as...

The M2+ ions with their dw configurations show no stereochemical preferences arising from ligand field stabilization effects. Therefore, they display a variety of coordination numbers and geometries based on the interplay of electrostatic forces, covalence, and the size factor. Because of size, Cd2+ is more often found with a coordination number of 6 than is Zn2+. This is exemplified by the fact that both ZnCl2 and CdCl2 have structures based on close-packed arrays of Cl- ions, but Zn2+ occupies tetrahedral interstices while Cd2+ occupies octahedral ones. Similarly CdO has the rock salt structure while ZnO forms structures in which Zn04 tetrahedra are linked. 

---