Codex @codex  0

ammonia and cyclohexylamine are neutral donors, whereas each coordinated chloride and acetate has charge $-1$. Charge balance therefore gives Pt(II) in cisplatin and Pt(IV) in satraplatin:The two acetate groups count once each; their carbonyl and alkoxy oxygen atoms do not make each ligand doubly charged.

cyclohexylamine is expected highest in the spectrochemical series for comparable metal environments. Its alkyl substituent increases the electron-donating ability of nitrogen relative to ammonia, strengthening the sigma interaction and raising the metal–ligand sigma-antibonding levels. The anionic pi donors tend to raise occupied metal $d_{\pi }$ levels and give smaller splittings. Steric effects and the metal can modify the exact ordering, so the comparison is a ligand field trend rather than a universal basicity-to-splitting identity.

ammonia and cyclohexylamine are sigma-donor ligands; chloride and acetate are sigma- and pi-donor ligands. The nitrogen lone pair of each amine points toward the metal and forms the donor interaction. These saturated amines have no low-lying conjugated acceptor system that would make them conventional pi-acceptor ligands.

chloride uses a lone pair for sigma donation and has additional occupied $p$ orbitals perpendicular to the bond that can donate with pi symmetry. An oxygen-bound acetate similarly has occupied oxygen-centred orbitals available for sigma and pi donation, although its carboxylate resonance in chemistry changes their energies and distribution. Neither should be classified as a pi acceptor merely because its bonding can be drawn with multiple bonds or resonance in chemistry contributors. None of these four is a standard sigma-donor/pi-acceptor ligand.