Hypervalent molecules bonding

Three basis sets (minimal s-p, extended s-p and minimal s-p with d functions on the second row atoms) are used to calculate geometries and binding energies of 24 molecules containing second row atoms, d functions are found to be essential in the description of both properties for hypervalent molecules and to be important in the calculations of two-heavy-atom bond lengths even for molecules of normal valence. 

The foregoing discussion indicates that while there are difficulties in the way of a bonding role for 3d orbitals, for certain situations at least it is possible to conceive of ways in which these difficulties may be overcome. However, it is necessary to say that even for hypervalent molecules such as SF6 which seem to require the use of d orbitals, there are molecular orbital treatments not involving the use of d orbitals. In fact, as shown by Bent in an elegant exposition12, the MO model of SF6 involving the use of d orbitals is only one of several possibilities. The octahedral stereochemistry of SF6, traditionally explained in... 

The best Lewis-type representation of the bonding in OCF3 would therefore appear to be as in 4, even though the carbon atom does not obey the octet rule. This molecule can be considered to be a hypervalent molecule of carbon just like the hypervalent molecules of the period 3 elements, such as SFfi. We introduced the atom hypervalent in Chapter 2 and we discuss it in more detail in Chapter 9. But it is important to emphasize that the bonds are very polar. In short, OCF3 has one very polar CO double bond and three very polar CF single bonds. A serious limitation of Lewis structures is that they do not give any indication of the polarity of the bonds, and much of the discussion about the nature of the bonding in this molecule has resulted from a lack of appreciation of this limitation. 

Because they do not obey the octet rule, hypervalent molecules have often been thought to involve some type of bonding that is not found in period 2 molecules. Ideas concerning the nature of this bonding have developed along a somewhat tortuous path that it is interesting and instructive to follow. We will in the end conclude that the nature of the bonding in these molecules is not different in type from that in related period 2 molecules and that there is therefore little justification for the continued use of this concept. 

Lewis considered covalent and ionic bonds to be two extremes of the same general type of bond in which an electron pair is shared between two atoms contributing to the valence shell of both the bonded atoms. In other words, in writing his structures Lewis took no account of the polarity of bonds. As we will see much of the subsequent controversy concerning hypervalent molecules has arisen because of attempts to describe polar bonds in terms of Lewis structures. 

It is difficult to give a localized orbital description of the bonding in a period 3 hypervalent molecule that is based only on the central atom 3s and 3p orbitals and the ligand orbitals, that is, a description that is consistent with the octet rule. One attempt to do this postulated a new type of bond called a three-center, four-electron (3c,4e) bond. We discuss this type of bond in Box 9.2, where we show that it is not a particularly useful concept. Pauling introduced another way to describe the bonding in these molecules, namely, in terms of resonance structures such as 3 and 4 in which there are only four covalent bonds. The implication of this description is that since there are only four cova-... 

Hybrid Orbital Descriptions of the Bonding in Hypervalent Molecules... 

A satisfactory description of the bonding in hypervalent molecules can also be given in terms of molecular orbitals but this does not directly correspond to the very useful picture of five or more localized bonds (see, for example, Mingos, 1998, p. 250). 

The use of resonance structures such as 7 and 8 to describe bond polarity led to a subtle change in the meaning of the octet rule, namely, that an atom obeys the octet rule if it does not have more than eight electrons in its valence shell. As a result, resonance structures such as 7 and 8 are considered to be consistent with the octet rule. However, this is not the sense in which Lewis used the octet rule. According to Lewis, a structure such as 7 would not obey the octet rule because there are only three pairs of electrons in the valence shell of carbon, just as BF3 does not obey the octet rule for the same reason. Clearly the octet rule as defined by Lewis is not valid for hypervalent molecules, which do, indeed, have more than four pairs of shared electrons in the valence shell of the central atom. 

Hypervalency is not a consequence of some special type of the bonding. The bonds in hypervalent molecules are similar to those in any other molecules and may range from predominately ionic to predominately covalent. 

The cu-bonding model provides a more complete and fundamental description of hypervalent molecules that are often interpreted in terms of the VSEPR model.144 In the present section we examine some MX species that are commonly used to illustrate VSEPR principles, comparing and contrasting the VSEPR mnemonic with general Bent s rule, hybridization, and donor-acceptor concepts for rationalizing molecular geometry. Tables 3.32 and 3.33 summarize geometrical and NBO/NRT descriptors for a variety of normal-valent and hypervalent second-row fluorides to be discussed below, and Fig. 3.87 shows optimized structures of the hypervalent MF species (M = P, S, Cl n = 3-6). 

Limitations of MNDO. From its inception, some important limitations of MNDO were apparent. Sterically crowded molecules were calculated too unstable for example, the AHf of neopentane is predicted by MNDO to be —24.6 kcal/mol, compared with the observed -40.3 kcal/mol. On the other hand, four—membered rings were predicted to be too stable, this reaching a limit in cubane, which was predicted to be 49.6 kcal/mol too stable. Later on, other limitations were discovered, the most important from a biochemical standpoint being the virtually complete lack of a hydrogen bond. Other deficiencies included the extreme instability of hypervalent molecules. This effectivdy precluded the application of MNDO to organophosphorus compounds of biologic interest. Finally, activation barriers were predicted to be too high. 

Table 5-7 Heavy-Atom Bond Distances and Skeletal Bond Angles in Hypervalent Molecules (2)... 

Finally, it may be noted that VSEPR theory - which is firmly based upon two-centre electron-pair bonds and may be viewed as a half-sibling to VB theory - works remarkably well for hypervalent molecules and polyatomic ions. In VSEPR treatments, E-O bonds in species such as S02F2 and Xe03F2 are regarded as double bonds. 

Three-centre bonding is invoked in situations where the o framework cannot be described in terms of two-centre, electron-pair bonds, although it can often be accommodated by postulating resonance of a different type from that usually encountered. Two types of three-centre bond can be distinguished. The first is often postulated in hypervalent molecules/polyatomic ions AB where the central atom exceeds the octet in its Lewis formulation, as an alternative to the use of d orbitals which many chemists find objectionable. The second type occurs where there appear to be insufficient electrons - regardless of the supply of orbitals -to form the requisite number of bonds in a Lewis/VB description. In other words, the first type is postulated where we have an insufficiency of orbitals, and the second where there is a deficiency of electrons compounds containing the latter type are often described as electron-deficient . 

The fact that most hypervalent molecules are fluorides or oxofluorides can be easily explained in terms of the three-centre bond approach. Crucial to the viability of the linear X-E-X moiety is the stabilisation of the nonbonding MO j2. This is optimised if X is relatively small in size... 

---