4.6 Article

Nature of Alkali- and Coinage-Metal Bonds versus Hydrogen Bonds

Journal

CHEMISTRY-AN ASIAN JOURNAL
Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 315-321

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/asia.202001201

Keywords

Activation Strain Model; Bond theory; DFT calculations; Hydrogen bonding; Metal bonding

Funding

  1. UPV/EHU
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [MINECO CTQ2013-45415P, CTQ2016-80375P]
  3. Gobierno Vasco-Eusko Jaurlaritza [IT673-13]
  4. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, alkali- and coinage-metal bonds were quantum chemically studied and compared to hydrogen bonds. The research found that coinage-metal bonds are stronger than alkali-metal bonds, which are stronger than hydrogen bonds. Various analysis methods were used to understand how replacing the monovalent central atom of hydrogen bonds affects the structure, stability, and nature of the bonds.
We have quantum chemically studied the structure and nature of alkali- and coinage-metal bonds (M-bonds) versus that of hydrogen bonds between A-M and B- in archetypal [A-M center dot center dot center dot B](-) model systems (A, B=F, Cl and M=H, Li, Na, Cu, Ag, Au), using relativistic density functional theory at ZORA-BP86-D3/TZ2P. We find that coinage-metal bonds are stronger than alkali-metal bonds which are stronger than the corresponding hydrogen bonds. Our main purpose is to understand how and why the structure, stability and nature of such bonds are affected if the monovalent central atom H of hydrogen bonds is replaced by an isoelectronic alkali- or coinage-metal atom. To this end, we have analyzed the bonds between A-M and B- using the activation strain model, quantitative Kohn-Sham molecular orbital (MO) theory, energy decomposition analysis (EDA), and Voronoi deformation density (VDD) analysis of the charge distribution.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available