Vallet Valérie, Wahlgren Ulf, Grenthe Ingmar
Institute of Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, Technical University of Munich, D-85747 Garching, Germany.
J Am Chem Soc. 2003 Dec 3;125(48):14941-50. doi: 10.1021/ja036646j.
The accuracy of quantum chemical predictions of structures and thermodynamic data for metal complexes depends both on the quantum chemical methods and the chemical models used. A thermodynamic analogue of the Eigen-Wilkins mechanism for ligand substitution reactions (Model A) turns out to be sufficiently simple to catch the essential chemistry of complex formation reactions and allows quantum chemical calculations at the ab initio level of thermodynamic quantities both in gas phase and solution; the latter by using the conductor-like polarizable continuum (CPCM) model. Model A describes the complex formation as a two-step reaction: 1. M(H2O)x + L(aq) <==>[M(H2O)x], L(aq); 2. [M(H2O)x], L(aq) <==>[M(H2O)(x-1)L],(H2O)(aq). The first step, the formation of an outer-sphere complex is described using the Fuoss equation and the second, the intramolecular exchange between an entering ligand from the second and water in the first coordination shell, using quantum chemical methods. The thermodynamic quantities for this model were compared to those for the reaction: M(H2O)x + L(aq) <==>M(H2O)(x-1)L + (H2O)(aq) (Model B), as calculated for each reactant and product separately. The models were tested using complex formation between Zn(2+) and ammonia, methylamine, and ethylenediamine, and complex formation and chelate ring closure reactions in binary and ternary UO(2)(2+)-oxalate systems. The results show that the Gibbs energy of reaction for Model A are not strongly dependent on the number of water ligands and the structure of the second coordination sphere; it provides a much more precise estimate of the thermodynamics of complex formation reactions in solution than that obtained from Model B. The agreement between the experimental and calculated data for the formation of Zn(NH(3))(2+)(aq) and Zn(NH(3))(2)(2+)(aq) is better than 8 kJ/mol for the former, as compared to 30 kJ/mol or larger, for the latter. The Gibbs energy of reaction obtained for the UO(2)(2+) oxalate systems using model B differs between 80 and 130 kJ/mol from the experimental results, whereas the agreement with Model A is better. The errors in the quantum chemical estimates of the entropy and enthalpy of reaction are somewhat larger than those for the Gibbs energy, but still in fair agreement with experiments; adding water molecules in the second coordination sphere improves the agreement significantly. Reasons for the different performance of the two models are discussed. The quantum chemical data were used to discuss the microscopic basis of experimental enthalpy and entropy data, to determine the enthalpy and entropy contributions in chelate ring closure reactions and to discuss the origin of the so-called "chelate effect". Contrary to many earlier suggestions, this is not even in the gas phase, a result of changes in translation entropy contributions. There is no simple explanation of the high stability of chelate complexes; it is a result of both enthalpy and entropy contributions that vary from one system to the other.
金属配合物结构和热力学数据的量子化学预测准确性,既取决于量子化学方法,也取决于所使用的化学模型。事实证明,配体取代反应的Eigen-Wilkins机制的热力学类似物(模型A)足够简单,能够抓住配合物形成反应的基本化学过程,并允许在气相和溶液中从头计算热力学量的量子化学计算;后者通过使用类导体极化连续介质(CPCM)模型来实现。模型A将配合物形成描述为两步反应:1. M(H₂O)ₓ + L(aq) ⇌ [M(H₂O)ₓ], L(aq);2. [M(H₂O)ₓ], L(aq) ⇌ [M(H₂O)(ₓ₋₁)L],(H₂O)(aq)。第一步,外球配合物的形成使用福斯方程描述,第二步,进入配体与第一配位层中的水之间的分子内交换,使用量子化学方法。将该模型的热力学量与反应M(H₂O)ₓ + L(aq) ⇌ M(H₂O)(ₓ₋₁)L + (H₂O)(aq)(模型B)的热力学量进行比较,后者是分别针对每种反应物和产物计算得出的。使用锌(II)与氨、甲胺和乙二胺之间的配合物形成,以及二元和三元UO₂²⁺-草酸盐体系中的配合物形成和螯合环闭合反应对模型进行了测试。结果表明,模型A的反应吉布斯自由能对水配体的数量和第二配位层的结构依赖性不强;与模型B相比,它对溶液中配合物形成反应的热力学提供了更精确的估计。对于Zn(NH₃)₂⁺(aq)和Zn(NH₃)₂²⁺(aq)的形成,实验数据与计算数据之间的一致性,前者优于8 kJ/mol,而后者为30 kJ/mol或更大。使用模型B获得的UO₂²⁺草酸盐体系的反应吉布斯自由能与实验结果相差80至130 kJ/mol,而与模型A的一致性更好。反应熵和焓的量子化学估计误差比吉布斯自由能略大,但仍与实验结果相当吻合;在第二配位层中添加水分子可显著改善吻合度。讨论了两种模型表现不同的原因。量子化学数据用于讨论实验焓和熵数据的微观基础,确定螯合环闭合反应中的焓和熵贡献,并讨论所谓“螯合效应”的起源。与许多早期观点相反,即使在气相中,这也不是平移熵贡献变化的结果。螯合配合物的高稳定性没有简单的解释;它是焓和熵贡献共同作用的结果,不同体系有所不同。