J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 121, No. 17, 1 November 2004
Rotational spectrum of CoCl
8391
dipolar hyperfine interactions have cross terms with the spin-
orbit matrix elements that involve both the 3⌽ and 1⌽ states.
The hyperfine parameters can also be used to establish
bonding characteristics of CoCl. For example, the a param-
eter, which has a value of 512 MHz, results from the I"L
interaction. Because the two unpaired electrons in CoCl are
predicted to be in and ␦ orbitals, they both contribute to
this term, and can account for its relatively large value. For
comparison, a(Co)ϭ604 MHz in CoF ͑Ref. 20͒ and a(Co)
ϭ621 MHz in CoH.22 Because a is inversely proportional to
the average distance, cubed, of the unpaired electrons from
the nucleus with the spin, or 1/r3 , a smaller value of this
of atomic cobalt. However, if chlorine does contribute to the
5 orbital, then the participation of cobalt is a factor less
than one. If cobalt’s contribution is expressed as the coeffi-
Co
cient c , then the above equations can be recast as20
5
Co
5
2ϩc
a Co͒Ϸ
a01
,
͑
ͫ
ͬ
3d
3
͑8͒
3 2ϪcCo
͒
͑
5
c Co͒Ϸ Ϫ
͑
a12
,
3d
ͫ
ͬ
14
͗
͘
parameter implies that the unpaired electrons are located fur-
k
where a3d is the hyperfine parameter for atomic cobalt. For
a031dϭ617.9 MHz and a312dϭ857.1 MHz,20 c5Co is estimated to
ther from the nucleus. In fact, 1/r3 ϭ2.7ϫ1031 mϪ3 for
͗
͘
CoCl, while this quantity is 3.3ϫ1031 mϪ3 in CoH ͑Ref. 22͒
be 0.486 and 0.339, from the a and c parameters, respec-
and 3.2ϫ1031 mϪ3 in CoF.21 The same quantity for the co-
Co
4
tively. In contrast, c for CoF was found to be 0.934. Ob-
22
balt atom is 4.4ϫ1031 mϪ3
.
Thus, the unpaired electrons
viously these calculations are only estimates, but they do
suggest that CoCl has more covalent character to its bonding
than CoF. Based on electronegativity arguments, such a re-
sult might be expected, although previous studies have indi-
cated that CoCl is as ionic as its fluorine analog.10,13
are located in more diffuse orbitals in CoCl than the other
species; the larger size of the electronegative chorine atom
relative to hydrogen and fluorine may be pushing the cobalt
electron density further from the Co nucleus.
The Fermi contact term bF primarily arises from elec-
trons in orbitals which, assuming a single electron configu-
ration, do not exist for CoCl. A nonzero value for bF can
arise from spin polarization, but then it is usually negative.26
Because (bϩc) is not well defined in CoCl, in turn neither is
bF . The value determined here for bF is 33Ϯ48 MHz—
which within the errors could be negative.
C. Bonding trends in 3d transition metal chlorides
Trends within the 3d transition metal oxides and sulfides
have been discussed in depth by various authors.29–31 The
so-called ‘‘double-hump’’ structure in bond length is appar-
ent in both these species, namely, there is an increase in the
bond distance occurring from vanadium to manganese, a de-
crease at iron, and then a second increase towards copper.
The increase from vanadium to manganese is due to the ad-
The dipolar constant c is calculated to be Ϫ305Ϯ140
MHz—roughly comparable to the c parameters for CoF
͑Ϫ196 MHz͒ and CoH ͑Ϫ456 MHz͒.20,22 This constant de-
pends on the expectation value of the operator ͚i (3 cos2
i
Ϫ1)/r3i , where i is the summation over the unpaired electrons.
From c, the angular factor 3 cos2 Ϫ1 can be calculated for
*
dition of electrons to antibonding orbitals. The highest
͗
͘
orbital does not receive an electron until manganese. After
this, bond lengths decrease due to core contraction of the
metal as no new antibonding orbitals are being filled; the
trend repeats in the second half of the third row.
CoCl, using 1/r3 derived from a; its value is Ϫ0.3901. For
͗
͘
pure d and d␦ orbitals, these angular factors are ϩ2/7 and
Ϫ4/7, respectively,27 which add to Ϫ0.286. Hence, the sign
of c appears to be correct. The slightly larger angular value
may result from polarization of the and ␦ orbitals by the
nearby chlorine atom.
A somewhat different trend is found in the 3d halides.
As discussed by Sheridan, McLamarrah, and Ziurys,16 the
fluorides exhibit a noticeable increase in bond length at MnF,
but only a minor one from cobalt to copper. In addition,
another large increase in bond distance appears at titanium.
This trend is shown in Fig. 5. The difference in bond length
trends between the oxides/sulfides versus the fluorides arises
from the presence of an extra electron in the latter species, as
well as the difference in the energies of the F and O atomic
orbitals. As a result, the orbital energies vary, and the elec-
tron configurations differ significantly from the oxides to the
fluorides ͑see Ref. 17͒.
The hyperfine constants can be used as well to calculate
the percent contribution of the two atoms in CoCl to the
molecular orbitals of the unpaired electrons. The valence
electron configuration of CoCl is (11)2(1␦)3(5)3.10 The
␦ orbital must exclusively be created from cobalt 3d orbitals,
but the 5 orbital could also arise in part from Cl 3p. Be-
cause both and ␦ electrons contribute to the a and c, these
parameters can be expressed as28
1
N 3
a Co͒ϭ2 g 2 1/r3 ϩ 1/r3
,
͔
5
͑
͓
͗
͘
͗
͘
B
N
1␦
The bond lengths of the chlorides are also plotted in Fig.
5. At first glance, the chlorides and fluorides exhibit a similar
trend, as might be expected from their identical electron con-
figurations. The bond distances of the chlorides are naturally
longer than the fluorides by about 0.4 Å due to the difference
in atomic or ionic radii ͑0.35 or 0.45 Å͒.32 However, the
bond distances shorten slightly at CrCl and CuCl, while they
increase in the fluoride species. The decrease in bond dis-
tance from MnCl to CoCl is more dramatic than in the fluo-
rides, as well. These variations may result from the fact that
͑7͒
3
1
2
3 cos2 Ϫ1
c Co͒ϭ gsBgN
͑
N
ͳ
ʹ
ͫ
r3
2
1␦
3 cos2 Ϫ1
ϩ
.
ͳ
ʹ
ͬ
r3
5
If only cobalt contributed to a and c, then the expectation
values of 1/r3 and 3 cos2 Ϫ1 could be replaced by those
͗
͘
͗
͘
130.18.123.11 On: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 01:13:07