The nature of the silicon-oxygen bond

Organometallics

Volumn 30, Issue 21, 2011, Pages 5815-5824

  Weinhold, Frank ^a   West, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENT'S RULE; BOND ANGLE; DONOR-ACCEPTORS; H-BONDING; HYPERCONJUGATION; HYPERCONJUGATIVE INTERACTIONS; NATURAL BOND ORBITAL;

ALKALINITY; CHEMICAL BONDS; CHEMICAL INDUSTRY; ELECTRONEGATIVITY; ETHERS; ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; OXYGEN; RESONANCE; SILICON COMPOUNDS; SILICONES;

SILICON;

EID: 80755130110     PISSN: 02767333     EISSN: 15206041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/om200675d     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Shambayati, S.; Schreiber, S. L.; Blake, J. F.; Wierschke, S. G.; Jorgenson, W. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990, 112, 697-703.
2. Pitt, C. G. J. Organomet. Chem. 1973, 61, 49-70.
3. Cypryk, M.; Apeloig, Y. Organometallics 1997, 16, 5938-5949.
4. Gillespie, R. J.; Johnson, S. A. Inorg. Chem. 1997, 36, 3031-3039.
5. 8
6. Baney, R. H.; Lake, K. J.; West, R.; Whatley, L. A. Chem. Ind. 1959, 1129-1130.
7. West, R.; Whatley, L. S.; Lake, K. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1961, 83, 761-764.
8. West, R.; Wilson, L. S.; Powell, D. L. J. Organomet. Chem. 1979, 178, 5-9.
9. Pitt, C. G.; Bursey, M. M.; Chatfield, D. A. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1976, 2, 434-438.
10. Shepherd, B. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1991, 113, 5581-5583.
11. Bock, H.; Mollere, P.; Becker, G.; Fritz, G. J. Organomet. Chem. 1973, 61, 113.
12. Pola, J.; Jakoubovka, M.; Chvalovsky, V. Collect. Czech. Chem. Commun. 1978, 43, 3373-3370.
13. Borisov, S. N.; Timofeeva, N. P.; Yuzhelevskii, Yu. A.; Kagan, E. G.; Kozlova, N. V. Zh. Obshch. Khim. 1972, 43, 873-878.
14. Craig, D. P.; Maccoll, A.; Nyholm, R. S.; Orgel, L. E.; Sutton, L. E. J. Chem. Soc. 1954, 332-353, 354-357.
15. Ebsworth, E. A. V. Volatile Silicon Compounds; Pergamon: Oxford, 1963; pp 162ff.
16. Johnson, C. T. Clay Miner. 2010, 45, 245-279.
17. O'Lenick, T.; O'Lenick, K. Cosmet. Toiletries 2010, 125, 46-49.
18. Kropfgans, M. Speciality Chem. Mag. 2005, 25, 27-29.
19. Lehrmann, R. G.; Varapath, S.; Frye, C. L. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1994, 13 (106-1064), 1753-1759.
20. Brook, M. A. Can. Chem. News 2008, 60, 22-24.
21. Reisch, M. S. Storm Over Silicones. Chem. Eng. News 2011, May 2, 10.
22. See, for example: Bickelhaupt, F. M.; Baerends, E. J. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 4183-4187.
23. Weinhold, F. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 4188-4192.
24. Cramer, C. J. Essentials of Computational Chemistry: Theories and Models, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Chichester, 2004.
25. Reed, A. E.; Curtiss, L. A.; Weinhold, F. Chem. Rev. 1988, 88, 899-926.
26. Weinhold, F. Natural Bond Orbital Methods. In Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry; Schleyer, P. v. R., Allinger, N. L., Clark, T., Gasteiger, J., Kollman, P. A., Schaefer, H. F., III, Schreiner, P. R., Eds.; 1998; Vol. 3, pp 1792-1811.
27. Glendening, E. D.; Badenhoop, J. K.; Reed, A. E.; Carpenter, J. E.; Bohmann, J. A.; Morales, C. M.;Weinhold, F. NBO 5.0 Program; Theoretical Chemistry Institute, University of Wisconsin: Madison, WI, 2001); http:// www.chem.wisc.edu/~nbo5.
28. For a comprehensive overview of NBO theory and applications, see: Weinhold, F.; Landis, C. R. Valency and Bonding: A Natural Bond Orbital Donor-Acceptor Perspective; Cambridge Univ. Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005.
29. Brunck, T. K.; Weinhold, F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1979, 101, 1700-1709.
30. Pophristic, V.; Goodman, L. Nature 2001, 411, 565-568.
31. Schreiner, P. R. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 114, 3579-3582.
32. Ref 23, pp 220ff.
33. Reed, A. E.; Weinhold, F.; Curtiss, L. A.; Pichatko, D. J. Chem. Phys. 1986, 84, 5687-5705.
34. Weinhold, F. Adv. Protein Chem. 2006, 72, 121-155.
35. Ref 23, pp 593ff.
36. Mulliken, R. S. J. Chem. Phys. 1939, 7, 339-352
37. Salzner, U.; Schleyer, P. v. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 10231-10236.
38. Weinhold, F. NBO 5.0 Program Manual; Theoretical Chemistry Institute, University of Wisconsin: Madison, WI, 2001; pp B-16ff; http://www.chem.wisc.edu/ ?nbo5/tut-del.htm.
39. Koput, J. J. Chem. Phys. 1990, 148, 299-308.
40. Koput, J. J. Phys. Chem. 1995, 99, 15874-15880.
41. Durig, J. R.; Flanagan, M. J.; Kalasinsky, V. F. J. Chem. Phys. 1977, 66, 2775-2785.
42. Koput, J.; Wierzbicki, A. J. Mol. Spectrosc. 1983, 99, 116-132.
43. For standard method and basis set designations used herein, see: Foresman, J. B.; Frisch, A.E., Exploring Chemistry with Electronic Structure Methods: A Guide to Using Gaussian, 2nd ed.; Gaussian Inc.: Pittsburgh, PA, 1996.
44. Frisch, M. J.; Trucks, G. W.; Schlegel, H. B.; Scuseria, G. E.; Robb, M. A.; Cheeseman, J. R.; Scalmani, G.; Barone, V.; Mennucci, B.; Petersson, G. A.; Nakatsuji, H.; Caricato, M.; Li, X.; Hratchian, H. P.; Izmaylov, A. F.; Bloino, J.; Zheng, G.; Sonnenberg, J. L.; Hada, M.; Ehara, M.; Toyota, K.; Fukuda, R.; Hasegawa, J.; Ishida, M.; Nakajima, T.; Honda, Y.; Kitao, O.; Nakai, H.; Vreven, T.; Montgomery, J. A., Jr.; Peralta, J. E.; Ogliaro, F.; Bearpark, M.; Heyd, J. J.; Brothers, E.; Kudin, K. N.; Staroverov, V. N.; Kobayashi, R.; Normand, J.; Raghavachari, K.; Rendell, A.; Burant, J. C.; Iyengar, S. S.; Tomasi, J.; Cossi, M.; Rega, N.; Millam, J. M.; Klene, M.; Knox, J. E.; Cross, J. B.; Bakken, V.; Adamo, C.; Jaramillo, J.; Gomperts, R.; Stratmann, R. E.; Yazyev, O.; Austin, A. J.; Cammi, R.; Pomelli, C.; Ochterski, J. W.; Martin, R. L.; Morokuma, K.; Zakrzewski, V. G.; Voth, G. A.; Salvador, P.; Dannenberg, J. J.; Dapprich, S.; Daniels, A. D.; Ö. Farkas, Foresman, J. B.; Ortiz, J. V.; Cioslowski, J.; Fox, D. J. Gaussian 09; Gaussian, Inc.: Wallingford, CT, 2009.
45. Al Derzi, A. R.; Gregusova, A.; Runge, K.; Bartlett, R. J. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2008, 108, 2088-2096.
46. Flory, P. J. Macromolecules 1974, 7, 381-392.
47. Goodman, L.; Pophristic, V. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1996, 259, 287-295.
48. Pophristic, V.; Goodman, L.; Guchhait, N. J. Phys. Chem. A 1997, 101, 4290-4297.
49. With regard to ethane-type barrier analysis, a referee has called our attention to a recent article [Mo, Y. Nat. Chem. 2011, 469, 76-79.
50. cf. Mo, Y.; Peyerimhof, S.D. J. Chem. Phys. 1998 109 1687-1697
51. for original exposition of this viewpoint] with the remark that "...the NBO technique...is known for its overestimation of hyperconjugation energies, as the derivation of the Lewis wavefunction from the molecular wavefunction is non-optimal." To this we would reply that Mo's preferred BLW assessment is intrinsically based on the ambiguities of nonorthogonal orbitals, in which significant "overlap density" (not uniquely assignable to one center or another) makes the assessment of hyperconjugative charge "transfer" essentially subjective and arbitrary. In contrast, overlap-free NBO estimates of hyperconjugation energy, whether evaluated by complementary perturbative or $DEL-deletion techniques, have been demonstrated to correlate accurately with one another as well as with NBO-based weightings of the associated resonance structures [see, for example,.Glendening, E. D.; Landis, C. R.; Weinhold, F. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science (in press; DOI 1002/wcms.51); ref 46; ref 23, pp 622ff].
52. These resonance weightings in turn exhibit close agreement with experimentally inferred values [see, for example., Kemnitz, C. R.; Loewen, M. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 2521-2528], which precludes any significant "overestimation" of hyperconjugation energy or related structural effects. It should also be emphasized that the sum of all hyperconjugation energies, as defined with respect to the idealized NLS limit of eq 4b, is obtained from a rigorous variational expectation value (not a "nonoptimal" estimate), so any purported tendency to overestimate successive hyperconjugation energies must necessarily lead to (unobserved) violations of the variational theorem.
53. Berendsen, H. C.; Grigera, J. R.; Straatsma, T. P. J. Phys. Chem. 1987, 91, 6269-6271.
54. Reed, A. E.; Weinstock, R. B.; Weinhold, F. J. Chem. Phys. 1985, 83, 735-746.
55. Bent, H. A. Chem. Rev. 1961, 61, 275-311. Ref 23, pp 138ff
56. for early computational evidence of the strong dependence of XOH bending angle on electronegativity, see Schleyer, P. v. R. Pure Appl. Chem. 1987, 59, 1647.
57. Coulson, C. A. Valence, 2nd ed.; Oxford Univ. Press: London, 1952; Chapter 8.
58. Laing, M. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 124-128.
59. Bartlett, G. J.; Choudhary, A.; Raines, R. T.; Woolfson, D. N. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2010, 6, 615-620.
60. Alabugin, I. V.; Gilmore, K. M.; Peterson, P. W. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science 2011, 1, 109-141.
61. Current textbook definitions of H-bonding (or, indeed, those of the past half-century) employ near-identical verbiage to express concurrence with the classical electrostatic "dipole-dipole" viewpoint, viz., "a special type of dipole-dipole force" [Silverberg, M. S. Chemistry: The Molecular Nature of Matter and Change, 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill: Boston, 2009; p 452]
62. "particularly strong dipolédipole forces" [Zumdahl, S. S. Chemical Principles, 6th ed.; Houghton-Mifflin: Boston, 2009; p 779]
63. "an extreme form of dipole-dipole interaction" [ Kotz, J. C.; Treichel, P. M.; Townsend, J. R. Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity, 7th ed.; Brooks-Cole: Belmont, CA, 2009; p 562]
64. "unique dipole-dipole attractions" [ Brown, T. L.; LeMay, H. E., Jr.; Bursten, B. E.; Burdge, J. R. Chemistry: The Central Science, 9th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003; p 413]
65. "a sort of super dipolédipole force" [ Tro, N. J., Chemistry: A Molecular Approach, 2nd ed.; Prentice-Hall: Boston, 2011; p 464], and the like.
66. Grabowski, S. J. Chem. Rev. 2011, 111, 2597-2625.