= Solution
\b[The readily displaced <acetonitrile> sites have both been exhausted.] A second chloride would have to displace a strongly bound <carbonyl ligand>, open the <chelate ring>, or associate to an already 18-electron center to make an unfavorable crowded 20-electron species. The product is neutral, so further chloride uptake also lacks the charge-neutralization advantage of $D\to E$ and would generate an anionic complex if substitution occurred. The <chelate effect> disfavors loss of the tethered <pyridine>, while strong <pi backbonding> helps retain CO under the stated conditions. These combined kinetic and bonding arguments explain the absence of further reaction. The <18-electron rule> alone would not forbid replacing CO by chloride, since that replacement is isoelectronic; it therefore cannot be the whole explanation.
Back to article page
