TY - JOUR
T1 - Can four-center two-electron bonding alone provide stability of a molecule?
AU - Glukhovtsev, Mikhail N.
AU - Schleyer, Paul Von R.
AU - Stein, Andreas
PY - 1993/1/1
Y1 - 1993/1/1
N2 - Ab initio calculations on the Li42+ and Na42+ Td structures show that two valence electrons are capable of binding four alkali metal centers. These structures have positive binding energies (Eb/n = 4.62 (Li42+, QCISD-(T)(full)/6-311G(2d)//MP2(full)/6-311G(2d); 4.74 MP4SDQ(full)/6-31+G(3d)//MP2(full)6-311G(2d)) and 1.66 kcal/mol (Na42+, QCISD(T)(full)/6-31G(d)//MP2(full)/6-31G(d)). However, they are thermodynamically unstable with respect to the dissociations into different two sets of cations, i.e. into M3+ (D3h) and M+ and into 2M2+. The decomposition barriers into M3+ and M+ are 3.4 kcal/mol for Li42+ (QCISD(T)(full)/6-311G(2d)//MP2(full)/6-311G(2d) + ZPE(MP2/6-31G(2d)) and 2.3 kcal/mol for Na42+ (MP4SDTQ(fc)/6-31G(2df)/6-31G(d)//MP2(full)/6-31G(d) + ZPE(HF/6-31G(d))), respectively. Four-center, two-electron (4c-2e) bonding suffices to stabilize an otherwise unsupported molecule. Alternative geometries of the M42+ clusters (e.g., linear (D∞h), Y-type (D3h), square (D3h), and rhombus (D2h)) are not minima. In contrast to H42+, the relative stabilities of the Li42+ forms strongly disagree with the expectations based on the charge alternation model. Effective 4c-2e bonding in Li42+ (Td) depends on the 2p lithium orbitals. When these orbitals are excluded from the basis set, Li42+ behaves somewhat similarly to H42+; in particular, the Td form is not a minimum. Topological analysis (AIM) of the electron charge density shows the existence of a nonnuclear maximum (attractor, in this case pseudoatom) in the center of the Li42+ tetrahedron. There is no direct Li-Li bonding. The electronic structure analysis shows that Li42+ (Td) is not very stable; this is consistent with the low dissociation barrier.
AB - Ab initio calculations on the Li42+ and Na42+ Td structures show that two valence electrons are capable of binding four alkali metal centers. These structures have positive binding energies (Eb/n = 4.62 (Li42+, QCISD-(T)(full)/6-311G(2d)//MP2(full)/6-311G(2d); 4.74 MP4SDQ(full)/6-31+G(3d)//MP2(full)6-311G(2d)) and 1.66 kcal/mol (Na42+, QCISD(T)(full)/6-31G(d)//MP2(full)/6-31G(d)). However, they are thermodynamically unstable with respect to the dissociations into different two sets of cations, i.e. into M3+ (D3h) and M+ and into 2M2+. The decomposition barriers into M3+ and M+ are 3.4 kcal/mol for Li42+ (QCISD(T)(full)/6-311G(2d)//MP2(full)/6-311G(2d) + ZPE(MP2/6-31G(2d)) and 2.3 kcal/mol for Na42+ (MP4SDTQ(fc)/6-31G(2df)/6-31G(d)//MP2(full)/6-31G(d) + ZPE(HF/6-31G(d))), respectively. Four-center, two-electron (4c-2e) bonding suffices to stabilize an otherwise unsupported molecule. Alternative geometries of the M42+ clusters (e.g., linear (D∞h), Y-type (D3h), square (D3h), and rhombus (D2h)) are not minima. In contrast to H42+, the relative stabilities of the Li42+ forms strongly disagree with the expectations based on the charge alternation model. Effective 4c-2e bonding in Li42+ (Td) depends on the 2p lithium orbitals. When these orbitals are excluded from the basis set, Li42+ behaves somewhat similarly to H42+; in particular, the Td form is not a minimum. Topological analysis (AIM) of the electron charge density shows the existence of a nonnuclear maximum (attractor, in this case pseudoatom) in the center of the Li42+ tetrahedron. There is no direct Li-Li bonding. The electronic structure analysis shows that Li42+ (Td) is not very stable; this is consistent with the low dissociation barrier.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=11744378823&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=11744378823&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1021/j100123a015
DO - 10.1021/j100123a015
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:11744378823
SN - 0022-3654
VL - 97
SP - 5541
EP - 5546
JO - Journal of Physical Chemistry
JF - Journal of Physical Chemistry
IS - 21
ER -