Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
By application of the QALE model (quantitative analysis of ligand effects) to the standard reduction potentials (E° values) and the standard enthalpies of reduction (ΔH°) of the η-Cp(CO)(PZ3)Fe(COMe)+/0 couple (PZ3 = a phosphorus(III) ligand), and νCO for η-Cp(CO)(PZ3)Fe(COMe)0, we have determined that a minimum of four parameters are necessary to describe the stereoelectronic properties of the set of ligands PPhi(Pyr)3 − i (Pyr = pyrrolyl) and P(NC4H8)3 (NC4H8 = pyrrolidinyl). These parameters are χd, θ, Ear and the π acidity parameter, πp. The values of these parameters were determined by linear regression analysis of a set of QALE equations. The coefficients of these equations were based on the analyses of data for PR3, PPhiR3 − i, P(p-XC6H4)3, P(OR)3, and P(O-p-XC6H4)3. The parameters for P(Pyr)3 are χd = 31.9 ± 0.7, θ = 145 ± 3, Ear = 3.3 ± 0.2 and πp = 1.9 ± 0.2; and for P(NC4H8)3 the parameters are χd = −1.2 ± 1.4, θ = 145 ± 5, Ear = −0.6 ± 0.4 and πp = 0.9 ± 0.3. P(Pyr)3 is a poor σ donor that possesses an Ear parameter comparable to P(p-XC6H4)3 and a π acidity that is about two thirds that of P(OR)3 and half that of P(O-p-XC6H4)3. On the other hand, P(NC4H8)3, which is one of the strongest σ donor phosphorus(III) ligands, is a weak π acid with a value for Ear that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. PPhi(Pyr)3 − i and P(NC4H8)3 appear to be isosteric to P(p-XC6H4)3.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fernandez et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: