Codex @codex  0

triphenylphosphine is a good sigma donor and a substantially poorer pi acceptor than CO. Replacing CO by this phosphine ligand increases electron density at chromium and reduces competition among carbonyl ligands for pi backbonding. Backbonding into each remaining CO therefore strengthens, their internal bond force constants fall, and both remaining carbonyl stretching frequencies are expected to shift downward relative to the parent tricarbonyl.

The two remaining carbonyl ligands have coupled approximately symmetric and antisymmetric stretches; both are generally infrared active in this geometry. One should not treat the spectral change as simply deleting one of the original two bands. The substituted complex still has $6+6+2(2)+2=18$ valence electrons. No numerical frequency shift follows from electron counting alone.

The usual qualitative order of increasing ligand field isA chloride ligand is a sigma-donor ligand and pi-donor ligand; its occupied pi orbitals raise the metal $t_{2g}$-derived levels and reduce the splitting. A carbonyl ligand is a particularly effective pi-acceptor ligand, lowering those levels and producing a large splitting. Both phosphine ligands are sigma donors with acceptor orbitals of mainly P–C antibonding molecular orbital character. Replacing phenyl groups by electron-releasing tert-butyl groups increases sigma basicity but generally weakens pi acceptance, so the alkyl-rich phosphine is placed below triphenylphosphine in this qualitative pi-bonding comparison. It would be wrong to equate a stronger sigma donor automatically with a stronger-field ligand, or to invoke empty phosphorus $3d$ orbitals as the essential acceptors.^[ref]

This is a qualitative spectrochemical series prediction, not a universal numerical ranking for all metals and geometries. The opposing sigma and pi trends mean that precise comparisons require matched complexes and measured splittings; a Tolman electronic parameter measures net effects on CO backbonding and is not itself a ligand-field splitting.

For electron counting, use the ionic method: subtract the metal oxidation state from its group number, then add two electrons for each neutral phosphine ligand or carbonyl ligand and two for each chloride ligand.

$\mathrm{Ni}(\mathrm{PP}{\mathrm{h}}_3)(\mathrm{CO}{)}_3$ is Ni(0), $d^{10}$, 18-electron and tetrahedral. The count is $10+2+3(2)=18$. With only one distinct ligand in an $\mathrm{M}{\mathrm{L}}_3{\mathrm{L}}^{\prime }$ tetrahedral molecular geometry, there is only one geometrical arrangement.

$\mathrm{Rh}(\mathrm{PP}{\mathrm{h}}_3{)}_2(\mathrm{CO})\mathrm{Cl}$ is Rh(I), $d^8$, 16-electron and square planar, with the two phosphines trans. Its count is $8+2(2)+2+2=16$. A square planar molecular geometry is characteristic of this low-spin $4d^8$ configuration. Opposite triphenylphosphine groups avoid their largest mutual steric hindrance; CO and chloride occupy the other trans pair.

$\mathrm{Pd}[\mathrm{P}{(}^{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{Bu}{)}_2\mathrm{Ph}{]}_2\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{l}}_2$ is Pd(II), $d^8$, 16-electron and square planar, with the bulky phosphines trans. Its count is likewise $8+4+4=16$. The two di-tert-butylphenylphosphine groups are particularly crowded if cis. These predictions concern the favored intact four-coordinate species; ligand dissociation can occur under other conditions.

The CO trans to a phosphine ligand competes for metal pi donation with a weaker pi acceptor than CO itself, whereas a cis CO has another CO trans to it. The trans-to-phosphine carbonyl can therefore benefit from stronger M–CO pi backbonding; loss of one of the four cis carbonyls is commonly favored. Capture of the incoming phosphine at that vacancy gives the cis bis(phosphine) product. The fourfold statistical availability of cis sites reinforces an electronic preference but does not establish it by itself.

This is the carbonyl cis effect, rather than the square-planar trans effect applied without qualification. A fuller explanation compares the five-coordinate dissociation transition states and their ligand site preferences. Product geometry alone cannot prove which CO first departed, because the intermediate can rearrange before capture. Isotopically labeled CO exchange is a more discriminating experiment; the classic studies explicitly separate this issue from product stereochemistry.^[ref]

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 phosphine ligand such as $\mathrm{P}{\mathrm{R}}_3$ donates a phosphorus lone pair. It can also accept pi backbonding into orbitals with substantial P–R antibonding character; phosphorus $3d$ orbitals need not be essential acceptors. Alkyl substitution generally increases sigma donation relative to electron-withdrawing substituents.

A phosphite ligand such as $\mathrm{P}(\mathrm{OR}{)}_3$ binds through a phosphorus lone pair and can accept pi backbonding. Its donation and acceptance differ from those of both phosphine ligands and carbonyl ligands.

Trimethylphosphine is $\mathrm{PM}{\mathrm{e}}_3$, an electron-releasing phosphine ligand. Comparison of its carbonyl complexes with other phosphines helps separate steric and electronic trends.

Triphenylphosphine is $\mathrm{PP}{\mathrm{h}}_3$, a neutral phosphine ligand whose phenyl substituents affect both steric demand and electronic donation.