328
H. Ihee et al. / Chemical Physics Letters 353 (2002) 325–334
product structure can be isolated by adding the
appropriately scaled parent diffraction signal to
the difference curves. In this product-only curve
ðsMðsÞpoÞ, the parent component present in the
DsMðsÞ curve is cancelled out and only the signal
from the products remains [18,22].
CpCoðCOÞ obtained with the pump laser off. The
2
best fit was obtained by floating several parameters
of the molecular structure of the parent molecule
until reaching the minimum v2. The final structural
parameters are shown and compared with the re-
sults of our density functional calculations. In the
analysis of the previous conventional ED experi-
Before fitting, the raw experimental data ðItotÞ
was divided by the atomic scattering curve ob-
tained by simulating Xenon scattering data to
compensate for the s5 fall-off of the raw data. This
modification of the data made it easier to fit a
polynomial to the background and therefore ob-
tain a better starting place for structural fitting.
The fit was performed in a least-squares manner to
minimize the scaled differences ðv2Þ between the
theoretical sMðsÞ curve and the experimental one
while varying the structural parameters. The
structural fitting parameters were in the form of a
geometrically consistent z-matrix. This permitted
fitting of the whole molecule based on only a few
independent variables. The mean amplitudes of
vibration ðlÞ of the inter-nuclear distances were
approximated using Mastryukov’s semi-empirical
equations [26,27].
The geometric parameters we present are the
result of a partial refinement due to some simpli-
fications intended to eliminate parameter correla-
tion effects in the Cp ring of both the parent and
the products. Specifically, the C–H bond distances
were not fit and instead taken as given by theory.
Also, only one C–C bond and two C–C–C angles
in the ring were fit. This allows us to use the one
refined bond distance and the two refined angles to
derive the rest by geometrical considerations using
DFT-determined results for differences between
the bond distances and angles. The error bars
represent one standard deviation of the least-
squares fit. The R values [25] which are often used
to represent the goodness of fit for ED data were
less than 0.08 for all final refinements reported
here; R < 0:1 is considered to represent a good fit.
ment [12], it was assumed that the CpCoðCOÞ had
2
fivefold symmetry for the ring and twofold sym-
metry as a whole, but our diffraction analysis and
electronic structure calculations show that this
assumption is an over-simplification.
From our data, the Co–Cring distances take
ꢀ
values of 1.93 and 2.26 A for the shortest and
longest distances, respectively; the average value of
ꢀ
all five Co–Cring distances is 2.09 A. The DFT
ꢀ
values vary from 2.09 to 2.15 A (average value of
ꢀ
ꢀ
2.13 A) and a single value (2.12 A) was reported
for all Co–Cring bonds in the conventional ED [12]
analysis. The Co–Cring distances reported here are
more consistent with X-ray crystallographic data;
from one report [11], the Co–Cring bonds are given
ꢀ
ꢀ
as 2.01–2.23 A (average value of 2.09 A) and from
another report [10] the Co–Cring bonds vary from
ꢀ
ꢀ
2.06 to 2.11 A (average value of 2.08 A). The
Co–Ccarbonyl distance of this work is within one
standard deviation of the previous ED data and
shorter than the theoretically determined value by
ꢀ
0.067 A. The C–C bonds within the Cp ligand take
ꢀ
values from 1.41 to 1.46 A and the average value
ꢀ
(1.44 A) is consistent with the only Cring–Cring bond
ꢀ
distance supplied by conventional ED (1.45 A).
Finally, the Ccarbonyl–O bond length ð1:211 Æ
ꢀ
:015 AÞ is also consistent with the conventional
ꢀ
ED data ð1:191 Æ :004 AÞ [12] and longer by 0.064
ꢀ
A than what is predicted by theory. The main in-
ter-nuclear distances are assigned in the f ðrÞoff
curve in Fig. 1, with excellent agreement between
the experimental data and the refined theoretical
model.
Next, we consider the diffraction–difference
curves in order to establish which reaction chan-
nel(s) shown in Scheme 1 is(are) dominant. Fig. 2
shows the comparison between the data and the-
ory for these three possible products. For a start-
ing point, the structural parameters of these
different species were obtained from our own DFT
calculations and also from the literature [13]. The
5. Results and discussion
In Fig. 1, we present the modified molecular
scattering intensity, sMðsÞoff , and the radial dis-
tribution function, f ðrÞoff , for the parent molecule