4.6 Article

The Nature of Bond Critical Points in Dinuclear Copper(I) Complexes

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 18, 期 10, 页码 3032-3042

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.201101219

关键词

atoms in molecules; bond critical points; copper; cuprophilicity; weak interactions

资金

  1. DST, India
  2. CSIR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Closed-shell contacts between two copper(I) ions are expected to be repulsive. However, such contacts are quite frequent and are well documented. Crystallographic characterization of such contacts in unsupported and bridged multinuclear copper(I) complexes has repeatedly invited debates on the existence of cuprophilicity. Recent developments in the application of Baders theory of atoms-in-molecules (AIM) to systems in which weak hydrogen bonds are involved suggests that the copper(I)copper(I) contacts would benefit from a similar analysis. Thus the nature of electron-density distributions in copper(I) dimers that are unsupported, and those that are bridged, have been examined. A comparison of complexes that are dimers of symmetrical monomers and those that are dimers of two copper(I) monomers with different coordination spheres has also been made. AIM analysis shows that a bond critical point (BCP) between two Cu atoms is present in most cases. The nature of the BCP in terms of the electron density, ?, and its Laplacian is quite similar to the nature of critical points observed in hydrogen bonds in the same systems. The ? is inversely correlated to Cu?Cu distance. It is higher in asymmetrical systems than what is observed in corresponding symmetrical systems. By examining the ratio of the local electron potential-energy density (Vc) to the kinetic energy density (Gc), |Vc|/Gc at the critical point suggests that these interactions are not perfectly ionic but have some shared nature. Thus an analysis of critical points by using AIM theory points to the presence of an attractive metallophilic interaction similar to other well-documented weak interactions like hydrogen bonding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据