Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We present a comprehensive overview of our current knowledge of the interactions of valence M( n s n p 3 P) and M( n s n p 1 P 1 ) excited states with H−H, Si−H, and C−H bonds, where M = Mg, Zn, Cd, and Hg. It is proposed that the high reactivity of M( n s n p 3 P 1 ) states with H−H and Si−H bonds compared to C−H bonds is due to the lack of steric hindrance in the localized, side-on, M( n pπ)−XH(σ*) donor−acceptor molecular orbital interactions, since the Si−H bond length in SiH 4 is ∼1.5 Å compared to C−H bond lengths of ∼1.1 Å. It is also concluded that Mg(3s3p 1 P 1 ) and Zn(4s4p 1 P 1 ) efficiently activate C−H bonds as well as H−H and Si−H bonds not just because of their higher energy but because of better M( n pπ)−XH(σ*) energy matches and overlap, which overcomes M( n s)−XH(σ) repulsion and the steric hindrance. It is further proposed that the striking differences in the microscopic mechanisms of attack of C−H bonds by Mg( 1 P 1 ) versus Zn( 1 P 1 ) may be due to the fact that the Zn(4s) “core” is substantially (∼0.2 Å) smaller than the Mg(3s) “core”, allowing true insertion of the Zn( 1 P 1 ) state (but not the Mg( 1 P 1 ) state) into C−H bonds to form (by surface hopping) long-lived ground-state zinc alkyl hydrides which decompose in a non-RRKM fashion to yield the observed ZnH product. Finally, the experimental results to date (as well as ab initio calculations) indicate that direct, end-on “abstractive” attack of M( n s n p 1 P 1 ) states [as well as O( 1 D 2 )] of H−H, Si−H, and C−H bonds probably does not occur.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
W. H. Breckenridge (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: