jp211451y_si_001.pdf (69.57 kB)
Download file

FCl:PCX Complexes: Old and New Types of Halogen Bonds

Download (69.57 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 08.03.2012, 00:00 by Ibon Alkorta, Goar Sanchez-Sanz, José Elguero, Janet E. Del Bene
MP2/aug′-cc-pVTZ calculations have been performed to investigate the halogen-bonded complexes FCl:PCX, for X = NC, CN, F, H, CCH, CCF, CH3, Li, and Na. Although stable complexes with a F–Cl···P halogen bond exist that form through the lone pair at P (configuration I), except for FCl:PCCN, the more stable complexes are those in which FCl interacts with the CP triple bond through a perturbed π system (configuration II). In complexes I, the nature of the halogen bond changes from traditional to chlorine-shared and the interaction energies increase, as the electron-donating ability of X increases. The anionic complex FCl:PC has a chlorine-transferred halogen bond. SAPT analyses indicate that configuration I complexes with traditional halogen bonds are stabilized primarily by the dispersion interaction. The electrostatic interaction is the most important for configuration I complexes with chlorine-shared halogen bonds and for configuration II complexes except for FCl:PCNa for which the induction term is most important. The F–Cl stretching frequency is red-shifted upon complexation. EOM-CCSD/(qzp,qz2p) spin–spin coupling constants have been obtained for all FCl:PCX complexes with configuration I. 1J(F–Cl) decreases upon complexation. 2XJ(F–P) values are quadratically dependent upon the F–P distance and are very sensitive to halogen-bond type. 1XJ(Cl–P) tends to increase as the Cl–P distance decreases but then decreases dramatically in the chlorine-transferred complex FCl:PC as the Cl–P interaction approaches that of a covalent Cl–P bond. Values of 1J(F–Cl) for configuration II are reduced relative to configuration I, reflecting the longer F–Cl distances in II compared to those of the neutral complexes of I. Although the F–P and Cl–P distances in configuration II complexes are shorter than these distances in the corresponding configuration I complexes, 2XJ(F–P) and 1XJ(Cl–P) values are significantly reduced, indicating that coupling through the perturbed C–P π bond is less efficient. The nature of F–P coupling for configuration II is also significantly different, as evidenced by the relative importance of PSO, FC, and SD components.