Explores Cu-Cu bonding in copper(II) acetates, suggesting implications for coordination chemistry.
Starting from the X-ray structure of [Cu 2 (µ 2 -O 2 CCH 3 ) 4 ] 0 •2H 2 O, the structures of [Cu 2 (CH 3 COO) n ] q , n = 1 → 4, with charges q = 4-n and 2-n for the oxidation states Cu(II) and Cu(I), respectively, were optimized in the singlet and triplet ground spin states. Their electronic structures were evaluated in terms of Quantum Theory of Atoms-in-Molecule (QTAIM). Molecular graphs of Cu(II) complexes with two or fewer acetate bridges exhibit no Cu-Cu bonding. Their Cu-Cu distances decrease with the number of acetate ligands. The O-O distances in the same carboxyl group are always shorter than the Cu-Cu ones, therefore, it can be concluded that two or fewer carboxylate bridges are not sufficient to press both Cu atoms together to form a bond critical point (BCP) between them. Hypothetical dicopper(I) acetates exhibit the BCP between both Cu atoms even in 3 [Cu 2 (µ 2 -O 2 CCH 3 )] + unlike its unbridged singlet counterpart. The instability of the hypothetical [Cu 2 (µ 2 -O 2 CCH 3 ) 4 ] 2− complex can be ascribed to the limited coordination number of Cu(I) central atoms (with subsequent Cu-O bond splitting). The QTAIM characteristics of the BCPs between both Cu atoms in all complexes under study are not sufficient to distinguish true Cu-Cu bonding from an artifact of pressing both copper atoms together by carboxylate bridges.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jelemenská et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: