posted on 2012-04-09, 00:00authored byLouis J. Farrugia, Cameron Evans, Hans Martin Senn, Mikko
M. Hänninen, Reijo Sillanpää
The experimental and theoretical charge densities in
the sulfido-bridged
cluster compounds Fe<sub>2</sub>(μ-S<sub>2</sub>)(CO)<sub>6</sub> (<b>1</b>), Fe<sub>3</sub>(μ<sub>3</sub>-S)<sub>2</sub>(CO)<sub>9</sub> (<b>2</b>), Mn<sub>2</sub>(μ-S<sub>2</sub>)(μ-CO)(CO)<sub>6</sub> (<b>3</b>), and Fe<sub>2</sub>(μ-S<sub>2</sub>)(CO)<sub>5</sub>(PPh<sub>3</sub>) (<b>4</b>) have been studied using the quantum theory of atoms in molecules
(QTAIM) methodology. High-resolution X-ray diffraction data have been
measured for compounds <b>2</b>–<b>4</b> at 100
K. The topological analyses show that only in compounds <b>1</b> and <b>4</b> is there any evidence for metal–metal
bonding in terms of the presence of a bond path. For compound <b>1</b>, the topology of the Fe<sub>2</sub>S<sub>2</sub> cage is
highly dependent on the Fe–Fe separation, and the deformation
along this vector is an extremely soft mode. The experimentally observed
topology for compound <b>4</b> is the open “butterfly”
topology. The orbital decomposition of the delocalization indices
associated with the metal–metal interactions, δ(Ω<sub>M</sub>–Ω<sub>M</sub>), implies significant direct Fe–Fe
bonding in compounds <b>1</b> and <b>4</b> and for two
of the Fe–Fe vectors in <b>2</b> but only a very minor
Mn–Mn interaction in compound <b>3</b>. The crystal structure
of <b>2</b> shows a small amount (∼1%) of orientational
disorder. As a result, a small degradation of the derived topological
parameters is detectable, in comparison with the ordered structures
of <b>3</b> and <b>4</b>, and this leads us to discourage
any quantitative QTAIM studies on disordered systems.