Metal–Metal (MM) Bond Distances and Bond Orders in Binuclear Metal Complexes of the First Row Transition Metals Titanium Through Zinc

Abstract

This survey of metal–metal (MM) bond distances in binuclear complexes of the first row 3d-block elements reviews experimental and computational research on a wide range of such systems. The metals surveyed are titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, and zinc, representing the only comprehensive presentation of such results to date. Factors impacting MM bond lengths that are discussed here include (a) the formal MM bond order, (b) size of the metal ion present in the bimetallic core (M2) n+, (c) the metal oxidation state, (d) effects of ligand basicity, coordination mode and number, and (e) steric effects of bulky ligands. Correlations between experimental and computational findings are examined wherever possible, often yielding good agreement for MM bond lengths. The formal bond order provides a key basis for assessing experimental and computationally derived MM bond lengths. The effects of change in the metal upon MM bond length ranges in binuclear complexes suggest trends for single, double, triple, and quadruple MM bonds which are related to the available information on metal atomic radii. It emerges that while specific factors for a limited range of complexes are found to have their expected impact in many cases, the assessment of the net effect of these factors is challenging. The combination of experimental and computational results leads us to propose for the first time the ranges and “best” estimates for MM bond distances of all types (Ti–Ti through Zn–Zn, single through quintuple).

Trapping an unprecedented Ti3C3 unit inside the icosahedral C80 fullerene: a crystallographic survey

“…The Ti-Ti distances among the three titanium atoms are 2.976Å for Ti1-Ti1A and 3.604Å for Ti1-Ti2 and Ti1A-Ti2, respectively, which are comparable to the values observed in organotitanium complexes, indicating weak metal-metal interactions between the titanium atoms. [27][28][29] From a geometric point of view, the three titanium atoms intercalate between the cage and the C 3unit, preventing the encapsulated carbon atoms from being merged with the cage framework. Fig.…”

Synthesis and Characterization of Bidentate Isonitrile Iron Complexes

“…This is especially challenging, given that excited-state lifetimes of iron complexes are often in the picosecond range and have been reported at best in the low-nanosecond range . However, there is only limited data available on coordination complexes of iron with bidentate isonitriles, − in contrast with monodentate isonitrile iron complexes, which have attracted considerable attention due to the high prevalence of iron carbonyl complexes . For example, dinuclear iron complexes such as [CpFe­(CNPh) 2 ] ( A , Ph = C 6 H 5 ) and [Fe 2 (CNPh) 9 ] ( B ) feature terminal and bridging isonitrile ligands (Figure ).…”

Pathways to Metal–Ligand Cooperation in Quinoline-Based Titanium(IV) Pincers: Nonelectrophilic N-methylation, Deprotonation, and Dihydropyridine Formation

“…There is a constraint of the angles around the metal center that is probably induced by the presence of the second bulky monomeric unit included in the unit cell of compound 6 . The Ti–Ti distance (3.2388(6) Å) is close to the expected length for a Ti–Ti bond . However, on consideration of the lack of electrons associated with the hypothetical Ti­(IV)–Ti­(IV) bond formation (ionic formalism), such a short Ti–Ti distance in complex 6 must be only forced by the geometrical constraint imposed by the κ 3 ligand.…”