Angewandte
Research Articles
Chemie
The compounds 1–3 are colorless crystals or white
powders, moderately soluble in acetonitrile. Bromide 2 and
especially iodide 3 tolerate air atmosphere well, while
chloride 1 is slowly oxidized under ambient conditions. The
phase identities of the synthesized samples were verified by
powder XRD (Supporting Information, Figures S3–S5),
FTIR spectroscopy, and microanalysis data. Surprisingly,
unlike most neutral CuI halide complexes, compounds 1–3
demonstrate enhanced thermal stability remaining pristine up
to about 2708C (Supporting Information, Figure S6).
The solution behavior of complexes 1–3 was studied by
NMR spectroscopy (Supporting Information, Figures S10–
12). The 1H NMR spectra reveal a single set of ligand
multiplets, which are significantly downfield-shifted in com-
parison with those of the free ligand L. Interestingly, the
methylene protons of CH2Py groups of 1–3 appear as
a doublet of triplets, while in free L, they resonate as
a multiplet. The 31P{1H} spectra of the complexes show
a singlet peaking at the range from ꢀ42.70 (1) to ꢀ65.74 (3)
[cf. dP = ꢀ28 ppm for free ligand]. Taken together, these data
imply that the above complexes 1–3 do not dissociate upon
dissolution, which is consistent with the computational results
(see below).
The molecular geometries of complexes 1–3, optimized in
the gas phase at the B97-D3 level, are in good agreement with
those obtained from sc-XRD analysis (Table 1; Supporting
Information, Tables S2, S3), and the calculated IR spectra
coincide well with the experimental ones (Supporting In-
formation, Figure S13). The results of calculations for iodide
complex 3 are representative. For this complex, the difference
between the experimental structure and the optimized one is
most noticeable, namely, the deviation of the optimized
structure from the C3 symmetry is insignificant (Table 1).
Electronic structure and bonding interactions have been
analyzed for the sc-XRD geometries of the complexes using
the QTAIM,[28] NBO[30] and NEDA[31] procedures. Table 1
shows that the Cu–I, Cu–N, and Cu–P coordination bonds in 3
are characterized by a low electron density at the bond critical
points (BCPs), which are in the range of 0.03–0.09 a.u. For all
these BCPs, the electron density Laplacian is positive. It
differs significantly for the bonds of different types, while for
the bonds of the same type it correlates with their length and
bond order (Table 1). The values of the discussed topological
descriptors are typical of closed-shell (CS) bonding interac-
tions, although the j Vb j /Gb values are slightly higher than
unity, thus indicating their partial covalence.[32]
The most interesting is the first discovered m3-P-bridging
coordination with significantly different Cu–P distances.
Nevertheless, BCPs are localized even for the longest Cu–P
distances (e.g. 2.84 ꢁ in 3). This fact gives evidence of the
formation of a coordination bond, although with a very low
bond order (0.13 in 3). The sum of the Myers bond orders for
three Cu-P coordination bonds is close to unity (ca. 0.84). The
Cu···Cu interactions also exhibit a low bond order (Pav ꢁ 0.15).
Other coordination bonds, namely, Cu–N and Cu–I, have
much higher bond orders (ca. 0.5–0.6). Note that the Mayer
bond order for typical P-C covalent bonds is close to unity
(Table 1).
According to the natural energy decomposition analysis
(NEDA), the energy of interaction between the CuI cations,
halide ions, and the ligand L is 647 kcalmolꢀ1 for complex 3
(663 and 682 kcalmolꢀ1 for 1 and 2, respectively). The charge
transfer (or orbital) contribution (ECT) to this value for 3 is
624.2 kcalmolꢀ1, which is 96% of the total bonding energy.
Similar results were obtained for complexes 1 and 2 (for
details, see the Supporting Information, Section 7.3). Thus, to
estimate the energy of all coordination bonds (Table 1;
Supporting Information, Tables S2, S3), we performed NBO
analysis, which treated each complex (1–3) as seven inde-
pendent units (namely, three CuI cations, three halides, and
the ligand L). The charge transfer contributions (ECT) to the
bond energies were calculated using the second-order pertur-
bation theory (Table 1; Supporting Information, Tables S2
and S3).
Figure 3 displays the pairs of the Lewis donor and non-
Lewis acceptor NBOs, the interactions of which contribute
mainly to the energies of the considered coordination bonds.
Note that the same lone pair (LP) on the phosphorus atom
interacts with the valence 4s-orbital of each Cu ions. Taken
together, these interactions may be viewed as a four-center
two-electron interaction, resulting from the donation of
a phosphorus lone pair into three vacant copper 4s orbitals.
It should be clarified that a smaller, albeit noticeable,
contribution (ca. 10%) to the P-Cu bonding is made by the
interactions of the same LP with the Rydberg orbitals of Cu.
In addition, the PCu3 core is also stabilized by a series of Cu!
Table 1: Selected experimental and calculated[a] bond lengths (rb, ꢀ) in complex 3, sums of the covalent radii[27] of the bonded atoms (rcov, ꢀ), the
QTAIM topological descriptors:[28] electron density (1b), its Laplacian (D1b), and ratio of the potential Vb and kinetic Gb energy densities (jVb j/Gb) at
the bond critical points (BCPs),[b] Mayer bond orders (P) and orbital (or CT) contributions (ECT) to the bond energies, estimated using the NBO
analysis and second-order perturbation theory.
P
P
Eð2Þ[c]
2
Bond
rb
rcov
1b
r 1b
jVb j/Gb
P
ECT
=
XRD
B97-D3
Cu-I
2.59 to 2.68
2.68
2.58
2.05
2.55
1.88
2.71
2.39
2.03
2.64
1.83
0.053 to 0.045
0.059 to 0.030
0.085 to 0.083
0.040 to 0.033
0.162 to 0.158
0.116 to 0.045
0.12 to 0.06
0.38 to 0.36
0.099 to 0.069
ꢀ0.28 to ꢀ0.25
1.13 to 1.11
1.32 to 1.17
ca. 1.20
1.19 to 1.21
2.91 to 2.70
0.59 to 0.47
0.41, 0.30, 0.13
0.53 to 0.49
0.17 to 0.13
0.98 to 0.88
60.9 to 51.8
34.6, 23.8, 10.7
39.2, 36.4, 30.6
2.6 to 2.9
Cu-P
Cu-N
Cu···Cu
P-C
2.41, 2.53, 2.84
2.01 to 2.05
2.47 to 2.59
1.85 to 1.87
[a] Geometry optimization was performed at the B97-D3/def2-TZVP (with ECP for I) level.[29] [b] Based on the gas-phase B3LYP/def2-TZVP (with an
ECP for I) calculations at XRD geometry; values of 1 and D1 are given in a.u., that is, e/a 3 and e/a0 , respectively. [c] Every contribution is evaluated
5
ꢀ ꢀ
ꢁ
ꢂ
b
b
0
2
ꢀ ꢀ
b
using the second-order perturbation theory as Eð2Þ
¼
nDhFD F F i =ðeD ꢀ eAÞ, where FD and FA, and eD and eD are the NBOs of donor and
ꢀ ꢀ
A
acceptor units and their energies, respectively;[30] nD is the occupation number of the donor NBO, and F is a Fock operator.
b
&&&&
ꢀ 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021, 60, 2 – 10
These are not the final page numbers!