Transition metal bonding covalency

The transition metals, unlike those in Groups 1 and 2, typically show several different oxidation numbers in their compounds. This tends to make their redox chemistry more complex (and more colorful). Only in the lower oxidation states (+1, +2, +3) are the transition metals present as cations (e.g., Ag+, Zn2+, Fe3+). In higher oxidation states (+4 to +7) a transition metal is covalently bonded to a nonmetal atom, most often oxygen. 

In Fig. 9-2, we offer a schematic summary of the determinants of covalent character in transition-metal bonding. 

The most important of the extrinsic factors that affect the hardnesses of the transition metals are covalent chemical bonds scattered throughout their microstructures. These bonds are found between solute atoms and solvent atoms in alloys. Also, they lie within precipitates both internally and at precipitate interfaces with the matrix metal. In steel, for example, there are both carbon solutes and carbide precipitates. These effects are ubiquitous, but there... 

The energies are usually expressed as electron volts. The IRE for the bond in ethane is zero and for CHgNa it is 2.56 ev. The stability of alkyl carbon-metal bonds for a variety of metals has been evaluated by Jaffe and Doak (5). They point out that not only is the (the measure of covalent energy) for the C—M bonds of transition metals appreciably smaller (perhaps one-half) than the corresponding values for other elements, but the ionic resonance energy of the alkyl-transition metal bonds is also appreciably smaller (perhaps one-third) than that of alkyl-alkali or alkyl-alkaline earth metal bonds. 

The picture that emerges from the available studies of transition metal bonding in metals and alloys is that of bonding lobes directed towards nearest neighbors, indicating Cr—Cr, V—V, Ti—Ti, and Ni—Al, but not Ti—Al interactions of at least partially covalent nature. 

Pnictide-transition metal bonds are essentially covalent coordinate, in which the pnictide provides the electrons. However, this simple picture does not account for all the structural data now available. The consensus view is that three factors are involved in the ligand contribution to the M—E bond (a) a bonding (Section 14.4.2), (b) n bonding (Section 14.4.3), and (c) steric factors (Section 14.3). The effect of the metal will not be discussed here, except insofar as individual complexes are used as examples. 

Racah parameters. The Racah B parameter, which is a measure of interelec-tronic repulsion and exchange interactions, provides a qualitative indication of bond covalency. Values of B derived from optical spectra are lower for transition metals bonded to ligands in a coordination site than for isolated gaseous cations. The nephelauxetic series represents the order of decreasing Racah B parameters and correlates with increasing covalent bonding characters of ligands coordinated to a transition metal. 

With several other transition metal monoxides, covalent and special electronic effects that are not compatible with the ideal stmctnre manifest themselves. As examples, PdO and PtO display the characteristic tendencies of heavier d ions for sqnare-planar coordination by adopting different structures while a severe Jahn Teller distortion yields essentially fonrfold planar coordination in CuO. In the cases of TiO, VO, and NbO, formation of weak metal to metal bonds are seen as defect variants of the rock salt stmcture. 

It is worth noting that no overbinding seems to occur in the local density description of alkali chemisorption on nickel clusters, in contrast to findings for carbon transition metal bonds (23,27,28). At present, it would be premature to correlate this difference with the character of the various bonds (covalent vs. ionic). Clearly, density gradient corrections to the energy functional (31) would be highly useful in deciding this question. 

In general, transition metals form covalent bonds with the nitrogen atoms present in the nucleobases. 

Early atomistic simulations employed pair potentials, usually of the Morse or Lennard-jones type (Figure 11.6). Although such potentials have been and still are a useful model for fundamental studies of generic properties of materials, the agreement between simulation results and experiment can only be quantitative at best. While such potentials can be physically justified for inert elements and perhaps some ionic solids, they do not capture the nature of interatomic bonding even in simple metals, not to mention transition metals or covalent solids. 

A.1 Radii Values for Transition Metals in Covalent and Ionic Bonds... 

TABLE 9A.1 Radii Values (in A Units) for Transition Metals in Covalent Bonds (Part I) and Ionic Bonds (Part 11). ... 

The most efficient enantioface discriminating agents seem to be transition metal complexes covalently bound to the growing chain end, which are also able to achieve a very high regio-selectivity in the attack to the double bond. Unfortunately, the type of monomers which are polymerized stereospecifically with this type of catalysts are mainly unsaturated hydrocarbons. Propylene (14) and butadiene (46) can be polymerized by the above catalysts both to isotactic and syndiotactic polymers. 

When a transition metal becomes covalently bonded to hgands, its charge is delocahzed across its ligands. For that reason, we do not refer to the central metal ion in a complex as having a charge instead, we refer to it as being in a certain oxidation state. 

Simple metals like alkalis, or ones with only s and p valence electrons, can often be described by a free electron gas model, whereas transition metals and rare earth metals which have d and f valence electrons camiot. Transition metal and rare earth metals do not have energy band structures which resemble free electron models. The fonned bonds from d and f states often have some strong covalent character. This character strongly modulates the free-electron-like bands. 

Shannon and Prewitt base their effective ionic radii on the assumption that the ionic radius of (CN 6) is 140 pm and that of (CN 6) is 133 pm. Also taken into consideration is the coordination number (CN) and electronic spin state (HS and LS, high spin and low spin) of first-row transition metal ions. These radii are empirical and include effects of covalence in specific metal-oxygen or metal-fiuorine bonds. Older crystal ionic radii were based on the radius of (CN 6) equal to 119 pm these radii are 14-18 percent larger than the effective ionic radii. 

The duoroborate ion has traditionally been referred to as a noncoordinating anion. It has shown Httie tendency to form a coordinate—covalent bond with transition metals as do nitrates and sulfates. A few exceptional cases have been reported (13) in which a coordinated BF was detected by infrared or visible spectroscopy. 

---