“…To verify that the observed geometric differences did not stem from crystal packing effects, the DFT-optimized conformations of these complexes in vacuum were also inspected (for details, see Section S6); relevant geometrical parameters, also shown in Figure , gratifyingly agreed with the observed experimental tendencies. To gain further insight on this matter, topological analyses of the electronic charge density, ρ( r ), and its Laplacian, ∇ 2 ρ( r ), were carried out within the framework of Bader’s Quantum Theory of Atoms-in-Molecules (QTAIM), , a rigorous method employed in the study of covalent and noncovalent interactions; − the data for relevant bond critical points (BCP) lying along the Ru-NO (BCP1) and N–O (BCP2) bond paths, are gathered in Table , where low positive values of ∇ 2 ρ( r ) at BCP1 are in good agreement with the Ru-NO bond lying in between a covalent and a closed-shell interaction, whereas negative values at BCP2 reflect the covalent nature of the N–O bond; perhaps the most important information from these analyses is the differences in ρ( r ) for both complexes at these BCPs, as electron density at the BCP correlates with bond strengths; the obtained values indeed show that the Ru–NO and N–O bonds are stronger and weaker, respectively, for acac-RuNO , as expected; moreover, the low ellipticity (ε) at BCP2 for both complexes is indicative of a cylindrical distribution of electron density around the N–O axis, resembling related linear ruthenium and iron nitrosyls and depicting a dominant triple bond character; it should be noted, however, that ε at this BCP is ca. 8 times higher for acac-RuNO, evidencing the slight deviation of the nitrosyl from the triple bond character as a consequence of the stronger Ru–NO π-backbonding.…”