Coordination complex — where it appears
Named by 16 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Eighteen is a count
The eighteen-electron rule is usually justified by adding up an s, three p and five d orbitals. That is a restatement rather than a reason. Reduce the ligand orbitals in the complex's own point group, match them against the metal's by symmetry, and the number that comes out is the count of orbitals lying below a gap — which is eighteen for an octahedron, sixteen for a square plane, and eighteen again for a tetrahedron for a different reason.
The trans influence is an overlap argument
Two ligands on opposite sides of a metal both bond through the same metal orbital, and there is only one of it. Strengthen one and the bond order to the other falls — computed exactly on three levels, and measured as a bond length that grows by a tenth of an ångström.
What couples two spins
Two magnetic ions a few ångströms apart interact far too strongly to be doing it magnetically — the dipole–dipole energy is about 0.06 wavenumbers and the measured couplings run to hundreds. What couples them is hopping, which the Pauli principle allows for antiparallel spins and forbids for parallel ones, and the exact answer is −4t²/U.
Sixteen is also a count
A transition metal brings nine valence orbitals, and nine filled orbitals is eighteen electrons. A square plane leaves more of those nine unmatched than an octahedron does and still holds fewer electrons, because one of the leftovers is out of reach.
The double hump and what removes it
The hydration enthalpies of the first transition series do not lie on a line — they rise, dip at manganese, rise and dip again at zinc. Subtract the ligand field stabilisation computed from the same model that describes their spectra and what is left is a line, with the one fitted parameter landing inside the range a spectrum measures.
VSEPR does not reach a transition metal
Four ligands minimising their repulsion give a tetrahedron, whatever the metal. Half the four-coordinate complexes of the platinum group are square planar, which has larger repulsion, and the term that overrules it is largest at d⁸ and exactly zero at d⁰ and d¹⁰ — which is where the repulsion rule works again.
The bonds are what is left over
Every metal wants eighteen electrons and a metal–metal bond gives one to each of its partners, so the number of bonds in a cluster is what is left over after the counting. It works for every carbonyl cluster up to five metals and fails at six by exactly one bond — where the other counting rule, the one boranes are analysed with, is right.
The electrons repel less inside the complex
Two measured bands determine two parameters in closed form, and one of them is the repulsion between the d electrons — which comes out below the free ion's value for every complex, by between two and forty-seven per cent. The ligands that split most are not the ligands that reduce the repulsion most, so a complex is characterised by two numbers rather than one.
The count that is not always eighteen
The eighteen-electron rule is a shell closure, and an octahedral level diagram has two of them — one at twelve electrons and one at eighteen. Which is deeper is decided by the sign of one parameter: with a π acceptor the gap above eighteen is 3.720 and above twelve 2.280, and with a π donor the two swap over exactly.
The same count, two oxidation states
Count a complex by the neutral method and by the ionic one and the total is the same integer every time — eighteen for ferrocene, sixteen for tetrachloroplatinate, twenty for hexaaquanickel. The oxidation state and the d count are not: hexaaquairon is d⁶ on one convention and d⁸ on the other, and the two predict spin-only moments of 4.90 and 2.83 against a measured 5.40.
An integer nobody measured
The oxidation state of chromium in the hexacarbonyl is zero. Its charge, computed from the same wavefunction, is anywhere between −3.04 and −0.98 depending on how the shared electrons are divided — and the integer sits outside that whole range. The electron count, meanwhile, is eighteen at every point on it.
The integral that cannot count electrons
Adding the π channel to a ligand-field splitting means one more overlap integral over the same two orbitals at the same distance. It removes a fifth of the error. Telling the model which ligand is a π acceptor — one word per ligand, quoted rather than computed — removes forty-five per cent, because an overlap cannot know whether the orbital it reaches is full or empty.
One was a symmetry and one was not
A square-planar complex has a direction the sixteen-electron gap does not move along, and the repulsion falls along it — so the distortion looked free in both senses at once. Both results came from four ligands at the same bond length, and the two behave completely differently when that is relaxed. Two per cent of a bond length gives the gap a first-order slope; the repulsion keeps falling out to a fifty per cent mismatch, and its curvature never changes sign. The blindness was a symmetry; the fall is a property of the arrangement.
Four lifts and one that matters
The direction a sixteen-electron gap cannot see was found in a plane of two folds, where it was the antisymmetric fold of the two trans pairs. That plane hid a choice: the ligands were moved in pairs and they were all alike, and nothing separated which of those the blindness needed. Let each of the four ligands lift by its own angle and the answer is plain. The gap's gradient has four equal parts, so every distortion whose lifts add to zero is blind — three directions, not one — and the pairing never mattered. What sorts the three is the second order, and there the two models agree: the pair fold is rewarded by both and the tilt of a pair is penalised by both.
The blindness needed a single top level
Every distortion of a folded sixteen-electron complex whose four ligand lifts add to zero leaves its gap unchanged to first order — while the highest filled level is dz². Past a fold of 17.90° it is the degenerate dxz, dyz pair, and the pair fold, which splits that pair, closes the gap at 0.026 eσ a degree whichever way the pairs move; the tilts, which cannot split it, stay blind. Exactly at the crossing the tilts see too, seventeen times more faintly. And the energy of the filled levels sees none of it at first order: its own turn along the pair fold comes at 13.8°, before the crossing, where nothing in the gap changes.
The pair fold was the road to a tetrahedron
Past a fold of 13.8° both of the model's energies fall along the pair fold, and the question left was where a folded sixteen-electron complex goes. It goes nowhere from there, because a folded square is not at rest: both energies rise along the common fold. Applied to the flat square, the same pair fold is the road to a tetrahedron, and on it the minimum of any weighting of the two energies is a flattened tetrahedron that flattens continuously, as a square root, into the square at a weight of 0.0762. The d levels cannot tell the two roads apart.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Electron countd orbitalsLigand fieldModel limitAngular overlapEighteen-electron ruleDegeneracyIrreducible representationsSplittingClosed-shell configurationsLigand repulsionPi-acceptor