Molecular Geometry & Bonding
what the shape decides
Concept

Two-centre bonding — where it appears

A bond described by one pair of electrons shared between exactly two atoms. It is the special case rather than the general one, and molecules that cannot be drawn with them are not anomalies.

Named by 6 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Donation strengthens the C–O bond, back-donation weakens it. Two interactions computed as two-level problems: 0.39 of an electron donated out of the ligand's σ orbital, worth 0.06 on the C–O bond order, and 0.5 donated back into π*, worth -0.4. Beside them, six measured stretching frequencies: five isoelectronic species differing only in charge, and free CO.

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.

applied · Electron count One metal orbital, two ligands competing for it. Metal–ligand bond orders in a three-orbital model as the left-hand ligand's interaction is turned up. Its own bond order rises and the bond order to the ligand opposite falls, from 0.62 at equal strengths to 0.42 at the strongest. Nothing else in the model can carry the effect: switch the second bond off and it vanishes exactly.

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.

applied · Overlap π bond orders in benzene. Each bond drawn with a thickness set by its computed pi bond order, and the number printed beside it. The orders come from the eigenvectors and cost nothing extra once the matrix is diagonalised.

What one pair can hold together

Put a single electron pair into a ring of any size and it supplies a total bond order of exactly two and a π energy of exactly 4β — three atoms, eight atoms or six hundred. Spreading a pair over more centres divides the bonding among them; it neither creates nor destroys any.

beyond · Multicentre How many centres, by two measures that do not agree. For each of eight systems, the number of atoms one localised pair has real amplitude on, and its participation number — which weights those atoms by how much of the pair each holds. Where the sharing is even the two coincide; where it is not they differ by more than a whole centre, and that gap is what electron deficiency looks like from the inside. one of the systems has more than one localisation, so for it neither number is an answer.

One scale, from two centres to a cage

How many centres a pair of electrons holds together is two different numbers, and they separate exactly where the bonding is most deficient: the methyllithium tetramer's pairs sit on four atoms each and have a participation number of 2.54. Run the same measurement up the scale and the twelve-vertex borane refuses it — its localisation has at least ten maxima differing by six parts in a thousand, so the number of centres is not an output for it at all.

beyond · Multicentre The bonding follows the overlap over, and turns where it turns. The stabilisation of three pairs of orbitals against how far apart they are, each scaled to its own largest, with the coupling taken from the computed overlap. Two orbitals with no radial node are stabilised less at every separation further out; the two with one turn over — and the maximum of the bonding is at exactly the separation of maximum overlap, to five decimal places, because a coupling proportional to the overlap makes the stabilisation a strictly increasing function of it.

The same overlap, a different bond

A 1s and a 2s change their overlap by two thirds between two and seven bohr, and change what they are bonded by by 0.154 per cent. The overlap turns over and the bonding turns over with it, at exactly the same separation to five decimal places — the arithmetic refused the expectation that the secular denominators would move it — and what separates one pair from another is not where the maximum is but how little of it there is.

wrong · Overlap The pair's regime is not a property of the pair. How much the pair's bonding responds to its own overlap — the ratio of what it is bonded by at an overlap of 0.4 to what it is bonded by at 0.1 — with and without a third orbital coupled to both. Alone it is 11.83, which is the regime in which bonding tracks overlap. With a third orbital present it falls to 1.46, 0.92, 0.74 — and two of those are below one, meaning a fourfold increase in the overlap between the two atoms buys them less bonding rather than more. The coupling comes from the overlap by the Wolfsberg–Helmholz rule with K = 1.75, which is fitted rather than derived. Every stabilisation here inherits that; the shape of the curve against separation does not, because K is a constant.

A regime that belongs to the neighbours

Two orbitals at the same energy are bonded in proportion to their overlap and two far apart are barely bonded at all — two regimes, and the natural question is whether the regime is a property of the pair. It is not. Put a third orbital beside them and the pair's response to its own overlap falls from twelvefold to less than one: more overlap buys less bonding.

wrong · Overlap

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Three-centre bondingAntibondingBond orderModel limitMulticentre bondingBondingConventionElectron countElectron-deficient bondingHOMO–LUMO gapLigand fieldNon-bonding orbitals

All concepts