Ligand field — where it appears
Named by 38 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The splitting is a symmetry statement
Put six ligands round a metal and the five d orbitals stop being degenerate. Which of them stay together, and how many sets there are, follows from the point group alone — before any account of what the ligands are made of, and before any number is computed.
Two models, one ratio
A tetrahedron splits a d shell by four ninths of what an octahedron does. Two models that share nothing but the ligand directions — an integral over a point-charge potential and a rotated diagonal matrix — both produce that number to eight decimal places, and neither was told it.
Where a d–d band falls
A splitting is an energy and an energy is a wavelength, so the ligand field fixes where a complex absorbs. Only three of nine common ligands put that band inside the visible range at all — and the most intensely coloured transition-metal compound in the cupboard has no d electrons to excite.
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.
Back-bonding is two interactions
A carbon monoxide molecule bound to a metal donates from an orbital that is slightly antibonding and accepts into one that is strongly antibonding, so the two halves of the bonding move its stretching frequency in opposite directions. Five isoelectronic complexes differing only in charge settle which wins — and one of them stretches above free CO.
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.
Copper is never quite octahedral
A d⁹ ion in an octahedral field has three electrons in a doubly degenerate pair, which cannot be shared evenly. The energy it gains by distorting is linear in the distortion and the elastic cost is quadratic, so no stiffness holds the symmetric structure — and the four configurations with an even occupation gain exactly nothing.
A moment counts electrons, not orbitals
A magnetic moment is one of the few chemical measurements that returns an integer. Feed the count of unpaired electrons into √(n(n+2)) and nine first-row ions come back within a hundredth for five of them — and the five that miss all miss the same way, which is what a missing term looks like.
The pairing energy decides the moment
Whether the sixth d electron pairs up in the lower set or goes alone into the upper one is a competition between the splitting and the cost of pairing. Run the filling rules over the whole shell and exactly four configurations have a choice — and every one of them changes state at Δ = P exactly.
Why a d–d band is weak
In a centrosymmetric complex the transition between the two halves of a split d shell is forbidden — exactly, by parity, with no small quantity anywhere. What makes it visible at all is that the molecule is never quite centrosymmetric, and the computation says which vibrations do the work.
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.
Overlap is not interaction
Two orbitals interact by the square of their coupling divided by the distance between them in energy. A coupling half again as large, with a gap four times worse, buys a third less stabilisation — so the pair that overlaps best is often not the pair that bonds best.
An orbital carries no angular momentum
The d orbitals every chemist draws carry exactly no orbital angular momentum, and the proof is one line about a matrix being antisymmetric. A set of three of them carries a whole unit, which is why the spin-only formula works for most ions and fails for cobalt by nearly a Bohr magneton.
The spectrochemical series is not electrostatics
Ligands can be put in order by how hard they split a d shell, and the order is highly reproducible. It is not the order of charge — three of twenty mixed-charge pairs come out the way a point-charge model predicts, which is worse than tossing a coin — and the two ligands at the strong end are electrically neutral.
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 g-value is the orbital coming back
A ligand field quenches the orbital angular momentum of a d electron, and spin-orbit coupling gives some of it back — upward for a shell more than half full and downward for one less than half full. Which way a resonance line moves counts the electrons, and the size of the move comes from two matrix elements and one optical splitting.
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.
A moment between two integers
A magnetic moment is celebrated as one of the few chemical measurements that returns an integer: count the unpaired electrons, feed the count into a formula, and nine first-row ions come out right. That works when one state lies far below the others. Sit a complex at its own crossover and the same measurement returns 0.30 at 80 K and 3.61 at 400 K — a quantity that counts nothing and is a temperature in disguise.
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.
A distortion needs two states
A degenerate electronic state cannot survive — that is the Jahn–Teller theorem, and it can be computed. A closed shell can fail to survive too, and the condition is a number: the symmetric structure holds only while the nearest excited state of the right symmetry lies above 2λ²/k, and one of ten symmetry species in an octahedron is the right one.
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.
The splitting against something structural
The angular overlap model says a ligand field splitting is proportional to the square of one overlap integral and to no other power. Computing that integral from Slater functions at the measured bond lengths, for five chromium complexes whose splittings run from 13,600 to 26,700 wavenumbers, the ratio varies by thirty-one per cent with nothing fitted. And a power law on the donor's effective charge, at an exponent nobody predicted, does slightly better.
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.
The count that cannot be broken by strength
Back-donation puts electrons into orbitals that are not the metal's, and the eighteen-electron rule counts the metal's nine. Turning the π channel up as far as it will go never breaks it: the counted orbital's metal share falls from 100 per cent to 54.67 and approaches a half from above without reaching it. What does flip it is not strength but order.
The orbital a ligand cannot reach
The sixteen-electron count of a square plane is a statement about an energy rather than about symmetry matching, so it was the count that ought to be sensitive to a π channel where the eighteen-electron one is not. It is not sensitive either — and for a sharper reason. The orbital that sets its gap is d(z²), and a square-planar ligand set contains nothing of that symmetry, so the gap is exactly 2eσ until the π strength reaches a quarter of the σ one.
The gap that would have to be smaller
An angular overlap parameter is an overlap squared over an energy denominator, and the usual fit folds the denominator away. Put the measured ionisation energies back in and the denominator alone over-predicts the trend down the halide group at every metal level a donor permits — the smallest it can give is 1.67 against a fitted 1.43. So the overlap has to shrink down the group, which is the opposite of the usual expectation.
The gap that only a tetrahedron closes
The sixteen-electron gap is 2eσ exactly, and a square-planar π set cannot touch it because d(z²) has no partner there. Fold the ligands out of the plane and the gap survives almost intact for fifteen degrees, closes to nothing only at the tetrahedron — and loses its exactness at the very first degree.
A denominator that fails both ways
The energy gap an e_π folds away over-predicts the halide trend at every metal level a donor allows, and the acceptors look out of reach because a π* is not an atomic level. It is measurable — a slow electron is captured by it — and on that side the same denominator under-predicts. No metal level fixes either, and the two want it moved in opposite directions.
The ligand the rule was waiting for
A sixteen-electron complex is called reactive because it can add a ligand, and the gap that makes it sixteen points straight at where the ligand arrives. Bringing one in closes the gap exactly linearly — and leaves its exactness completely untouched, which is the opposite of what bending the same complex does.
The distortion that opens the gap
Two distortions close the sixteen-electron gap — one by bending all four ligands, one by adding a fifth. Folding two of the four makes it larger, by five per cent, before it makes it smaller. And it costs the exactness at the first degree, while the gap is still growing, so the size of a gap and whether it is exact are not one measurement.
The overlap the model is not proportional to
Without a computed π overlap, the natural argument reasons about one instead: the denominator over-predicts the halide trend, so the overlap must shrink down the group to cancel part of it. Computed, it grows — 3.5 times from fluoride to chloride. And the fitted parameter changes sign across the series, which no ratio of squared overlaps can do.
A contraction that cannot reach three of them
The angular overlap model's own derivation gives a π/σ ratio that disagrees with the fitted parameters by up to sixfold, and the metal's contraction is the obvious candidate to account for it. The whole range Slater's rules allow moves the ratio by a factor of two. Two ligands need charges far outside it, one needs a charge past where the overlap rule can be trusted at all, and two are unreachable at any charge because a quotient of squared overlaps cannot be zero or negative.
The direction the gap cannot see
A two-ligand fold opens the sixteen-electron gap and a four-ligand bend closes it, so a distortion mixing the two must pass through a direction the gap does not move along. It does, and the direction is the antisymmetric fold — one pair of trans ligands up, the other down. Its blindness is exact, because exchanging the two pairs is a symmetry of the arrangement.
A blindness that is inherited
There is a direction the sixteen-electron gap does not move along, and it is tempting to call it the one a complex is softest along without paying for it. That second half is a claim about an energy the gap model has no term for. Put the ligand repulsion on the same family and the answer splits: where a symmetry fixes the blind direction the repulsion is blind to it too, exactly, and slightly downhill — and where no symmetry fixes it, the two are nearly perpendicular.
The correction that moves three of them backwards
Every ligand radial function in the angular overlap sweeps was a neutral atom's, while three of the five donors carry a formal charge. Giving each one the charge it actually has moves three of the five computed ratios — and moves all three away from the fitted parameter, none towards it. The whole window each donor's own oxidation states allow sits above the value it was meant to reach.
The channel that points at the metal
Two ligands in the spectrochemical series carry a fitted π parameter no quotient of squared overlaps can produce, because it is negative. Giving the derivation the second interaction it lacks makes both of them negative at every metal level — and the reason is not the energy denominators, which favour the donor channel in all three cases. It is where each orbital keeps its amplitude.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
d orbitalsModel limitDegeneracyElectron countSplittingPi acceptorAngular overlapApproximationCoordination complexIrreducible representationsOverlap integralPi-donor