Weakly Coordinating Anions
Weakly coordinating anions should be as nonbasic4 as
possible: they should have low charge and a large size over
which the charge can be dispersed. Examples of this type of
Table 1. Average Metal-Organohalogen Distances for Halocarbon and
Halocarborane Complexes of Silver, Silicon, Thallium, and Cesium
complex
d(M‚‚‚X)
excess da CN(Ag)b
ref
-
anion include methanesulfonate (CH3SO3 ), tetraphenyl-
Ag(CH3CB11Cl11)
Ag(CB11H6Cl6)
Ag(CB11H6Br6)
Ag(CB11H6I6)
2.882 Å
2.780
2.824
0.37 Å
0.27 Å
0.14 Å
0.10 Å
0.15 Å
0.16 Å
0.15 Å
0.86 Å
0.24 Å
0.40 Å
0.39 Å
0.32 Å
0.20 Å
0.00 Å
0.43 Å
0.31 Å
6
6
6
5
c
d
d
d
e
e
e
f
c
g
g
h
h
h
borate ([B(C6H5)4]-), and 1-carba-closo-dodecaborate
(CB11H12)-.5 Coordinating ability of the anion is further
reduced by substituting the outside surface of the anion with
weakly coordinating functional groups containing very
electronegative atoms such as halogen, to give anions such
2.946
iPr3Si(CB11H6Cl6)
iPr3Si(CB11H6Br6)
iPr3Si(CB11H6I6)
2.323 Å
2.479 Å
2.661 Å
Tl(CB11H6Br6)‚2C7H8 3.469 Å
Cs(HCB11Br11) 3.733 Å
-6
as CF3SO3 and [B(C6F5)4]-.7 For the most important
Cs(HCB11I6Br5)‚THF 3.89 Å (Br)
Cs(HCB11I6Br5)‚THF 4.07 Å (I)
industrial application requiring weakly coordinating anions,
the metallocene process of producing stereoregular polym-
erization of alkenes,8 the most active catalyst of all is
obtained when (CB11H6X6)- (X ) Cl, Br, I) anions are
present.9 One might postulate that this is connected with the
fact that most weakly coordinating anions now being
investigated have fluorinated surfaces, and fluorine is a hard
base, more likely to coordinate to the (presumably) hard
zirconium(IV) active site in the metallocene catalysts, while
the carborane anions have softer surfaces. If this postulate
is valid, then the softest carborane anion, the iodinated one,
should show the weakest coordination to zirconium and,
conversely, the strongest coordination to the (more easily
isolated) silver salt. The crystal structures of all six silver
salts Ag(CB11H6X6) and Ag(CH3CB11H5X6) have been
determined,10 but the varying numbers, types, and bond
distances of donors to silver did not present an easily
analyzed pattern.
[Ag(Cl2CH2)n]+
[Ag(Br2CH2)n]+
[Ag(I2CH2)n]+
Ag(ClCH2SO3)
Ag(BrCH2SO3)
2.832 Å
2.865 Å
2.851 Å
2.945 Å
2.971 Å
6
6
4
6
6
this work
i
a Average distance in excess of M-X single bond distance ) sum of
covalent radii except in the case of Cs+, for which the single-bonded metallic
radius is used. b Coordination number of Ag+. c Ref 13a. d Ref 10a. e Ref
9b. f Ref 18. g Ref 13b. h From sources cited in Table 1 of ref 31. i Ref 16.
secondary bonding correspond to such a shallow potential
well that the differences merely represent variations in what
is needed to achieve good packing at the lowest energy in
the solid state?
The normal criterion for weak secondary bonding is that
the metal-donor distance should be greater than the sums
of single covalent or ionic radii but less than the sums of
van der Waals radii. But van der Waals radii are notoriously
hard to determine, because one must first be confident that
there is indeed no bonding in the direction in which the
contacts are measured. As an illustration of the difficulties,
solid halocarbons commonly pack with halogen-halogen
distances that are less than the sums of their van der Waals
radii. Consequently, one must ask whether the van der Waals
radii are incorrect, or differ in different directions around
an organohalogen atom, or whether there are hitherto-
unsuspected secondary bonding interactions present.12
In Table 1, we summarize metal-halogen distances found
in silver, silicon, thallium, and cesium salts of weakly
coordinating anions and related ligands.13 We can attempt
to analyze these distances by computing the excess bond
distance: the amount that the observed Ag-X distance is
in excess of the distance expected for a normal single bond
between Ag and X. For a neutral halogen atom in contact
with a cation, the types of radii that should be summed to
give the expected distance are not entirely clear, but the most
sensible results are obtained from the sums of covalent radii,
which are 2.51 Å for Ag-Cl, 2.66 Å for Ag-Br, and 2.85
Å for Ag-I. How much longer than the sums of covalent
radii must the metal-halogen contact be before we can
decide that it no longer represents coordination? Overall, it
may be seen that excess bond distances are broadly similar
for Ag, Cs, and Si, although cations of these elements would
be expected to bond in quite different ways to halogens.
Although X-ray crystallography is the most readily avail-
able and most commonly used method of detecting weak
secondary bonding11 of ligands to metal ions, it leaves several
important questions unanswered. Secondary bond distances
commonly show wide ranges, even in chemically equivalent
bonds in the same complex (e.g., from 2.640 to 2.926 Å in
Ag(CB11H6Cl6)). Is there any bonding significance to the
differences in contact distances commonly found, or does
(1) Strauss, S. H. Chem. ReV. 1993, 93, 927-42. Seppelt, K. Angew.
Chem., Intl. Ed. Engl. 1993, 32, 1025-1027.
(2) Strauss, S. H. Chemtracts: Inorg. Chem. 1994, 6, 1-13.
(3) Dagani, R. Chemical Superweaklings. Chem. Eng. News 1998, 76 (May
4), 49-54. This work was first presented in that symposium (Wulfs-
berg, G.; Rutherford, R.; Jackson, D.; Jones, F.; Jones, M.; Derrick,
D.; Strauss, S.; Terao, H.; Babushkina, T. A.; Gushchin, S. I. Presented
at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Dallas,
TX, March 1998; Paper INOR 102).
(4) Wulfsberg, G. Inorganic Chemistry; University Science Books:
Sausalito, CA, 2000; pp 68-73, 116-120.
(5) Reed, C. A. Acc. Chem. Res. 1998, 31, 133-139.
(6) Lawrance, G. A. Chem. ReV. 1986, 86, 17-33.
(7) Lambert, J. B.; Zhang, S.; Stern, C. L.; Huffman, J. C. Science 1993,
260, 1917-1918.
(8) Jordan, R. F. AdV. Organomet. Chem. 1991, 32, 325-382. Brintzinger,
H. H. Fischer, D.; Mu¨lhaupt, R.; Rieger, B.; Waymouth, R. M. Angew.
Chem., Intl. Ed. Engl. 1995, 34, 1143-1170. Deutsch, C. H. Finding
Flexibility in Plastics: High Technology Could Add New Life to an
Old Product. New York Times, Sept 9, 1997, p C1, C6.
(9) (a) Xie, Z.; Bau, R.; Reed, C. A. Angew. Chem., Intl. Ed. Engl. 1994,
33, 2433-2434. (b) Xie, Z.; Manning, J.; Reed, R. W.; Mathur, R.;
Boyd, P. D. W.; Benesi, A.; Reed, C. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996,
118, 2922-2928.
(12) Desiraju, G. R.; Parthasarathy, R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1989, 111, 8725-
8726.
(13) (a) Xie, Z.; Tsang, C.-W.; Sze, E.; Yang, Q.; Chan, D.; Mak, T. C.
W. Inorg. Chem. 1998, 37, 6444-6451. (b) Tsang, C.-W.; Yang, Q.;
Sze, E.; Mak, T. C. W.; Chan, D.; Xie, Z. Inorg. Chem. 2000, 39,
5851-5858.
(10) (a) Xie, Z.; Wu, B.-M.; Mak, T. C. W.; Manning, J.; Reed, C. A. J.
Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1997, 1213-1217. (b) Xie, Z.; Tsang, C.-
W.; Xue, F.; Mak, T. C. W. J. Organomet. Chem. 1999, 577, 197-
204.
(11) Alcock, N. W. AdV. Inorg. Chem. Radiochem. 1972, 1, 1-58.
Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 41, No. 8, 2002 2033