Past exam of the chemistry B course of the University of Cambridge / 2025 / Paper 2 / B8 / a

In $A$, the tridentate ligand contains one anionic phenoxide ligand, a neutral secondary amine with its N–H bond intact, and a neutral phosphine ligand. The three chloride ligands contribute another three negative charges. Consequently the neutral complex has Ti(IV), $d^0$, and 12 valence electrons:The N–H label is essential: counting this nitrogen as an anionic amido ligand would give the wrong oxidation state. A six-coordinate early-metal complex need not obey the 18-electron rule.

In $B$, the substituted cyclopentadienyl ligand is ${\eta }^5$ and anionic, while the three-carbon bent ligand is an anionic ${\eta }^3$ allyl ligand, a four-electron donor in ionic counting. The pendant pyridine nitrogen is uncoordinated. Therefore Mo(II), $d^4$, 18 electrons follows fromThe curved delocalization mark across the three-carbon ligand must not be read as a separate alkene or alkyne.

A formal two-electron reductive elimination couples two anionic, mutually cis donors and reduces Ti(IV) to Ti(II). There are two chemically distinct couplings: Cl–Cl elimination gives $\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{l}}_2$, leaving a Ti(II) complex with the intact anionic O,N,P ligand and one chloride; O–Cl elimination gives an aryl hypochlorite group, $\mathrm{ArOCl}$, breaking the original Ti–O attachment and leaving a Ti(II) center coordinated by N,P and two chlorides. The latter product can remain tethered through the N,P part of the same ligand; it is not necessarily a free small molecule. The starting facial arrangement supplies cis pairs of both kinds.

Cl–Cl coupling is the more plausible of these formal alternatives, because it retains the particularly strong early-metal Ti–O interaction and makes the stronger Cl–Cl rather than relatively weak O–Cl bond. Both alternatives reduce the valence count by two, from 12 to 10, so the 18-electron rule does not choose between them. Neither should be asserted to occur readily: reduction of a stable, oxophilic $d^0$ Ti(IV) center is intrinsically unfavorable. Coupling a chloride to the neutral amine or phosphine is not the ordinary elimination of two X-type ligands. proton transfer between N–H and oxygen, if it occurred, would instead be acid-base chemistry, not automatically a two-electron reductive elimination.

The mirror-image facial complex and the meridional complex provide the two requested stereoisomers. Let O, N and P denote the three attached atoms of the same unsymmetrical chelate. The original has these atoms on one octahedral face and the three chlorides on the opposite face. Its reflected facial arrangement is an enantiomer: the O,N,P donor sequence reverses handedness and cannot be restored by a proper rotation. In the meridional arrangement, O and P are trans, and the two adjacent chelate links O–N and N–P remain cis. The following original coordination diagrams specify the ligand positions; lines joining donor labels represent the ligand's connectivity, with its organic backbone suppressed.

The meridional structure is a geometric isomer, not the reflected facial structure. Distorting chelate rings without changing these donor positions does not by itself supply a new coordination stereoisomer.