Solvents, acceptor properties density

Belser et al.204 studied the solvent dependence of the properties of several cyano-complexes, [Ru(AB)2(CN)2]. They noted a good correlation between absorption band energy and solvent acceptor number, the CT band energy increasing with this parameter. Decreased electron density at the metal center due to cyanide-solvent interactions was the explanation for their observations. Quantum yields were only reported in three solvents for this group of compounds204 and no correlation with the acceptor number was apparent. 

Polar molecular solutes have been used to probe the donor-acceptor properties of polar solvents. chemical shifts have been measured for interaction between trifluoroiodomethane and the solvent molecule as electron pair donor [24]. As interaction between the donor molecule and the iodine atom in this molecule increases, electron density at the fluorine atoms increases with a resulting positive chemical shift in the NMR signal. An excellent correlation between these shifts and the Gutmann donor number was reported [24]. 

The described levelling of the acidic properties in molten nitrates makes them unavailable for the determination of the constants of Lux acid-base equilibria where the strongest acids take part. The melts based on molten alkali metal halides are the most convenient solvents for this purpose. Since the most essential physico-chemical properties of ionic melts (density, charges and ionic radii) are close,1 application of the data obtained in molten chlorides for the description of acid-base equilibria in molten nitrates is more correct than is the use of a similar approach to room-temperature molecular solvents, since the properties determining their acid-base properties are numerous (e.g. dielectric constants, donor-acceptor properties). 

Looking over the array of empirical parameters that have been derived by various authors (see references in Table A.2 and in Reichardt and Welton, 2011, Chapter 7) to correlate effects on reaction rates, equilibria, or spectral frequencies, it appears that there are many effects of the solvent to be considered. The parameters can be divided into two broad categories. First are those that have no sign, that is, they are in principle symmetric in their effect on cationic or anionic species or on molecules that have electron donor or acceptor properties. These are parameters such as cohesive energy density or cohesive pressure (and its square root, the solubility parameter), internal pressure, polarity, polarizability, refractive index, dielectric constant (relative permeability), and a number of empirical parameters based on particular equilibria, rates, or spectral features. An assortment of these parameters is listed in Table A.2a, with an indication of the experimental basis of each. 

Two aspects determine the role of the solvent its bulk properties and its electron donor or acceptor abilities. The Debye-Hiickel theory which is valid at infinitely low concentrations, recognizes solvents only by their bulk properties, i.e. relative permittivity e, viscosity r, and density q. However, the Debye-Huckel range of validity is often experimentally unattainable (Ref. cf. also Figs. 4 and 6). The importance of bulk properties decreases with increasing electrolyte concentration. 

As can be seen in these structures, positive charge density is developed at a relatively crowded centre and such molecules can act as good electron acceptors. Some of the properties of solvents are given in Table 12.9. 

The choice of solvent is of particular importance. First, it has to be chosen such that the solubility is in a suitable range for the selected type of crystallization experiment (reasonably high solubility for cooling experiments, very low solubility in solvents used for precipitation, etc.). Second, it is important to use solvents with diverse physical properties in order to explore the whole parameter space of possible environments. In addition to molecular solvent-solute interactions, bulk properties of solvents such as viscosity may play a role. Gu et al. [19] examined 96 solvents in terms of 8 relevant solvent properties hydrogen bond acceptor propensity, hydrogen bond donor propensity, polarity/dipolarity, dipole moment, dielectric constant, viscosity, surface tension, and cohesive energy density (calculated from the heat of vaporization). Based on all 8 properties, the 96 solvents were sorted into 15 groups... 

In further developments, with Schmickler et al. (1984), two models of the solvent layer at the metal interface were considered. These self-consistent calculations of charge-induced electron relaxation predict in one form or another the well known hump in the compact-layer capacitance and introduce a dependence of the capacitance behavior on the properties of the metal electron system, that is, of course, not indicated in previous, purely molecular treatments of the metal/electrolyte interface. In general, metal-specific behavior (apart from that associated with specific orientation of solvent dipoles due to donor-acceptor interaction with the metal) is related to the free electron density of the metal. For further details, readers are referred to the review mentioned earlier (Feldman et al., 1986). 

---