Methylation Reaction – A small test!

Today was a good day! I learned a lot from the research reactions that I have been carrying out. Its really a great learning exprience. Okay, today what I did was methylation of my product that I have synthesized earlier. I have described the product synthesis here. Let me call the reactant “A”. Okay, here is what I did. I took up 5 ml of acetone in a test tube. I took about 0.5 g of “A” in the test tube. The compound got dissolved and formed a light yellow solution. To that, about 0.2 g of K₂CO₃ was added. This resulted into a little bit of extra K₂CO₃ remaining undissolved. The test tube was shaked vigorously and I tried to make sure that the K₂CO₃ dissoved as much in the reaction mixutre as possible. After about 5 minutes of vigorous shaking and breaking of K₂CO3 with a glass rod, quite a bit of K2CO3 had dissolved. After that about 0.2 ml of methyl iodide was added to the reaction mixture. This resulted into deepening of the yellow colour of the reaction mixture. The temperature of the test tube rose by about 1 C. I will check the results of the tests by tomorrow. Hopefully, it would give me something to cheer about!

Gallacetophenone Synthesis – Synthesis of Gallacetophenone

Here pyrogallol reacts with Acetic Anhydride in presence of Zinc Chloride (Lewis Acid) and acetic acid as a solvent.

Pyrogallol:

• IUPAC Name: benzene-1,2,3-triol
• Chemical Formula: C6H6O3
• Exact Mass: 126.03
• Molecular Weight: 126.11
• m/z: 126.03 (100.0%), 127.04 (6.7%)
• Elemental Analysis: C, 57.14; H, 4.80; O, 38.06
• Boiling Point: 309°C
• Melting Point: 131-134 °C
• Critical Temp: 792.92 [K]
• Critical Pres: 99.8 [Bar]
• Critical Vol: 311.5 [cm3/mol]
• Gibbs Energy: -342.18 [kJ/mol]
• Log P: 0.87
• MR: 30.72 [cm3/mol]
• Henry’s Law: 12.61
• Heat of Form: -451.1 [kJ/mol]
• tPSA: 60.69
• CLogP: 0.211
• CMR: 3.1479

Gallacetophenone:

• IUPAC Name: 1-(2,3,4-trihydroxyphenyl)ethanone
• Chemical Formula: C8H8O4
• Exact Mass: 168.04
• Molecular Weight: 168.15
• m/z: 168.04 (100.0%), 169.05 (8.9%), 170.05 (1.2%)
• Elemental Analysis: C, 57.14; H, 4.80; O, 38.06
• Boiling Point: 705.05 [K] (Calc)
• Melting Point: 171-172 °C
• Critical Temp: 828.83 [K]
• Critical Pres: 76.28 [Bar]
• Critical Vol: 429.5 [cm3/mol]
• Gibbs Energy: -463.89 [kJ/mol]
• Log P: 0.18
• MR: 41.97 [cm3/mol]
• Henry’s Law: 15.35
• Heat of Form: -616.43 [kJ/mol]
• tPSA: 77.76
• CLogP: 0.861434
• CMR: 4.1112

Synthetic Procedure:

In a 250-cc. round-bottomed flask, fitted with a reflux condenser, 28 g. (0.21 mole) of freshly fused zinc chloride is dissolved in 38 cc. of glacial acetic acid by heating in an oil bath at 135–140°.  Try to make sure that the quality of Zinc Chloride used is good. It is always preferred to freshly fused Zinc Chloride. The temperature of the solution remains close to about 132 °C. Once the temprature reaches this point, forty grams (0.37 mole) of 95 per cent acetic anhydride is then added to the clear, pale brown liquid, followed by the addition in one lot of 50 g. (0.4 mole) of distilled pyrogallol. The addition should be done only after about 30 minutes of free stirring of pale brown liquid. The mixture is heated at 140–145° (Note 3) for forty-five minutes with frequent and vigorous shaking.  Once again, due to the acetic acid synthesized in the reaciton, the temprature of the flask should not exceed 138 °C. You can try to maintain the bath temperature at 150°. The unused acetic anhydride and acetic acid are removed by distilling under reduced pressure. The temperature should NOT exceed 150 °C.  The red-brown cake is broken up by the addition of 300 cc. of water with mechanical stirring for a few minutes. The mixture is cooled in ice water, filtered with suction, and washed with cold water. The crude material, 45–50 g., is crystallized from 500 cc. of boiling water saturated with sulfur dioxide. The yield of straw-colored needles melting at 171–172° is 36–38 g. (54–57 per cent of the theoretical amount). On saturating the mother liquor with salt and cooling to 10°, 4–5 g. of crude material is obtained, which on recrystallization yields 3–4 g. of pure material.

The method described above is a modification of the process of Nencki and Sieber. Gallacetophenone has also been prepared by treating pyrogallol with acetyl chloride, and from 2-formyl-4-acetylresorcinol by treatment with hydrogen peroxide and alkali.

Related References:

1. Witt and Braun, Ber. 47, 3227 (1914).
2. Cheema and Venkataraman, J. Chem. Soc. 1932, 919.
3. Nencki and Sieber, J. prakt. Chem. (2) 23, 151, 538 (1881);
4. Nencki, Ber. 27 2737 (1894).
5. Crabtree and Robinson, J. Chem. Soc. 121, 1038 (1922).
6. Einhorn and Hollandt, Ann. 301, 107 (1898);
7. Fischer, Ber. 42, 1020 (1909).
8. Nakazawa, J. Pharm. Soc. Japan 59, 297 (1939) [C. A. 33, 8186 (1939)].

Research Introduction

What I am going to do from now on, is probably write down every thing I research.  I will try to be as regular as I can be in the course of my writing. Let me begin with writing about the reaction that I carried out the other day. See you soon!

WOODWARD-HOFFMANN PERICYCLIC SELECTION RULES

We wish to develop a notation that will permit us to state a generalized selection rule summarizing the conclusions of the pericyclic theory.

Local Symmetry and Interaction Topology

We have taken care to emphasize in the discussion that the important symmetry is the local symmetry of the part of the molecule actually involved in the reaction. We have already given in Section 11.1 a justification for this course; another example is appropriate here, now that we have gained an appreciation of the role of orbital symmetry in pericyclic reactions. In Equation below,

the substitution of a methyl for one hydrogen on the diene 11 destroys the symmetry. Now a mirror plane reflection (for disrotatory closure) or twofold rotation axis (for conrotatory closure) is no longer a symmetry operation. No symmetry element remains to provide a distinction among different orbitals.22 Yet we know fromthe success of ? electron and localized bonding pictures of molecules that the methyl group should have at most a secondary influence. It is clearly the topology of the interactions among the basis orbital functions that should determine the course of the reaction. The inherent symmetry of this topology, shorn of minor disturbances by substituents or by distortion, is the symmetry with which we need be concerned. The examples we have used to illustrate the ideas of orbital symmetry control serve a useful function because they allow us to visualize that inherent symmetry in terms of the molecule as a whole. But we can as well abstract the essential features of the pattern of orbital interaction by discarding altogether the molecular framework and keeping only the pericyclic reacting orbitals. This argument justifies the Woodward and Hoffmann stipulation (p. 586) that a pericyclic process must be reduced to its highest inherent symmetry for analysis.

Interaction Diagrams
In order to develop this idea further, we adopt an approach similar to that of DewarZ3 and introduce the orbital interaction diagram as a topological notation for paths of interaction amongst basis orbitals in pericyclic processes. We depict an orbital system by a schematic drawing of the basis orbitals, and use a short curved line to indicate interaction between two orbitals. When we wish to
distinguish interactions present in starting materials from those in products, we use dotted lines for the former and solid lines for the latter; we call such a picture a directed orbital interaction diagram, or, more briefly, a directed diagram. When the distinction is unimportant, solid lines serve throughout and the result is the orbital interaction diagram or, more simply, the interaction diagram. A closed loop of interconnected orbitals then symbolizes the pericyclic process. By way of example, Structure 12 shows the ethylene .rr bond in this convention; 13 would be hexaInteraction Diagrams In order to develop this idea further, we adopt an approach similar to that of DewarZ3 and introduce the orbital interaction diagram as a topological notation for
paths of interaction amongst basis orbitals in pericyclic processes. We depict an orbital system by a schematic drawing of the basis orbitals, and use a short curved line to indicate interaction between two orbitals. When we wish to distinguish interactions present in starting materials from those in products, we use dotted lines for the former and solid lines for the latter; we call such a picture a directed orbital interaction diagram, or, more briefly, a directed diagram. When the distinction is unimportant, solid lines serve throughout and the result is the orbital interaction diagram or, more simply, the interaction diagram. A closed loop of interconnected orbitals then symbolizes the pericyclic process. By way of example, Structure 12 shows the ethylene .rr bond in this convention; 13 would be hexatriene; 14 a a bond between two centemZ4 We note first that the arrangement of orbitals and their orientations are unimportant; we assume that we have examined
the structures of reactant and product and have determined which basis orbitals to use and what the significant interactions are; thenceforth we need maintain only the topology intact. Thus 15 and 16 are entirely equivalent to 14;

Wolff Rearrangement

There are several transformations that are conceptually related to carbene reactions but do not involve carbene, or even varbenoid intermediates. Usually these are reactions in which the generation of a carbene is circumcented by a concerted rearrangement process. An important example of this type of reaction is the thermal and photochemical reactions of ?-diazoketons. When ?-diazoketons are decomposed thermally or phtochemically, the usually undergo rearrangement to ketenes. This reaction is known as Wolff Rearrangement.

If this reaction procedes in a concerted fashion, a carbene intermediate is avoided. Mechanistic studies have been aimed at determining if migration is concerted with loss of nitrogen. The conclusion that has emerged is that a carbene is generated in photochemical reactions but the reaction can be concerted under the thermal conditions. A realted issue is weather the carbene, when involved, is in equillibrium with a ring closed isomer, and oxirene. this aspect o the reaction has been probed by isotopic labelling. If a symmetrical oxirene is formed, teh label should be distributed to both the carbony carbon and the ?-carbon. A concerted reaction or a carbene intermediate that did not equillibriate with the oxirene should ahve been only in the carbonyl carbon. The extendt to which teh exorene is formed depends upon the structre of the diazo compound. For diazoacealdehyde, photolysis leads to only 8% migration of label which would correspond to the formation of 16% product through oxirene.

The diphenyl analog shows about 20-30 % rearrangement. ?-Diazocyclohexanone gives no evidence of an oxirene intermediate, since all the label remains at the carbonyl carbon.

The main synthetic application of Wolff rearrangement is for the one-carbon homologation of carboxylic acids. In this procedure, a diazomethyl ketone is syntehsized from an acyl chloride. The rearrangement is then carried out in a nucleophilic solved which traps the ketene to form a carboxylic acid or an ester. Silver oxide is often used as a catalyst because it seems to promote the rearrangement over carbene formation. The photolysis of ?-diazoketons results in ring contraction to a ketene which is usually isolated as the corresponding ester.

Extension Of Molecular Orbitals to Other Atoms

The hydrogen atomic orbitals would not do us a great deal of good if orbitals of other atoms were radically different, since in that case different pictures would be required for each atom. But the feature of the hydrogen atom problem that determines the most important characteristics of the hydrogen atom orbitals is the spherical symmetry. Since all the atoms are spherically symmetric, the atomic orbitals of all atoms are similar, the main difference being in their radial dependence, that is, in how rapidly they approach zero as one moves away from the nucleus. Because the radial dependence is of minimal importance in qualitative applications, one may simply use orbitals of the shapes found for hydrogen to describe behavior of electrons in all the atoms.

Ground and Excited States

We know that an electron ina hydrogen atom in a stationary state will be described by one of the atomic orbital functions ?_1s, ?_2s,?_2px and so forth. We can make this statement in a more abbriviated form by saying that the electron is in one of the orbitals ?_1s, ?_2s,?_2px,…, and we use this more economical kind of statement.

The orbital that has associated with the lowest energy is ?_1s if the electron is in this orbital, it has the lowest total energy possible, and we say that the atom is in its electronic ground state. If we were to give more energy, say enough to put it to ?_2px orbital, the atom would be in an electronic excited state. In general, for any atom or molecule, the state in which all the electrons are in teh possible energy orbitals is the electronic ground state. Any higher energy state is called an electronic excited state.

MOLECULAR ORBITALS

Lewis structures serve admirably for many aspects of mechanistic organic chemistry. Frequently, however, we need a more accurate bonding model.

Models Based on the Quantum Theory

The description of chemical bonding must ultimately be based on an understanding of the motions of electrons. In order to improve our model, we need to appeal to the quantum theory, which summarizes the current understanding of the behavior of particles of atomic and subatomic size. The quantum theory provides the mathematical framework for describing the motions of electrons in molecules. When several electrons are present, all interacting strongly with each other through their mutual electrostatic repulsion, the complexity is so great that exact solutions cannot be found. Therefore approximate methods must be used even for simple molecules. These methodstake various forms, ranging from complex ab initio calculations, which begin from first principles and have no parameters adjusted to fit experimental data, to highly approximate methods such as the Hiickel theory, which is discussed further in Appendix 2. The more sophisticated of these methods now can give results of quite good accuracy for small molecules, but they require extensive use of computing eq~ipmentS.~uc h methods are hardly suited to day-to-day qualitative chemical thinking. Furthermore, the most generally applicable and therefore most powerful methods are frequently simple and qualitative. Our ambitions in looking at bonding from the point of view of the quantum theory are therefore modest. We want to make simple qualitative arguments that will provide a practical bonding model.

Atomic Orbitals

The quantum theory specifies the mathematical machinery required to obtain a complete description of the hydrogen atom. There are a large number of functions that are solutions to the appropriate equation; they are functions of the x, y, and z coordinates of a coordinate system centered at the nuc l eu~E.~ac h of these functions describes a possible condition, or state, of the electron in the atom, and each has associated with it an energy, which is the total energy (kinetic plus potential) of the electron when it is in the state described by the function in question. The functions we are talking about are the familiar Is, 2s, 2P, 3s,. . . atomic orbitals, which are illustrated in textbooks by diagrams like those in Figure 1.1. Each orbital function (or wave function) is a solution to the quantum mechanical equation for the hydrogen atom called the Schrodinger equation. The functions are ordinarily designated by a symbol such as ?, ?, ?, and so on. We shall call atomic orbitals ?, or ?, and designate by a subscript the orbital meant, as for example ?_1s, ?_2s, and so on. Later, we may abbreviate the notation by simply using the symbols Is, 2s, . . . , to indicate the corresponding orbital functions. Each function has a certain numerical value at every point in space; the value at any point can be calculated once the orbital function is known. We shall never need to know these values, and shall therefore not give the formulas; they can be found in other source.

The important things for our purposes are, first, that the numerical values are positive in certain regions of space and negative in the other regoins and second, that the value of each function approaches zero as one moves farther from the nucleus. In the figure above the positive regions are shaded and negative ones are unshaded.

Imagine walking around inside an orbital and suppose that there is some was of sensing the value – positive, negative and zero – of the orbital function as you walk from point to point. On moving from a positive region to a negative region, you must pass through some point where the value is zero. The collections of all the adjecent points at which the function is zero are called nodes. They are the surfaces in the three dimensional space ans most important ones for our purposes are like those shown in the figure above for p and d orbitals illustated. Nodes can also be spherical and of other shapes, but these are of less concern to a chemist.

The Physical Significance Of Atomic Orbital Function

The fact that an orbital function ? is of different algebraic sign in different regions has no particular physical significance for the behavior of an electron that finds itself in the state defincd by the orbital. (We shall scc shortly that the significance of the signs comes from the way in which orbitals can be combined with each other.) The quantity that has physical meaning is the value at each point of the function ?², which is positive everywhere, since the square of a negative number is positive. the squared function, ?², gives the probability of finding the electron at various points in the space. Diagrams like that  in the figure below, with the shading of vairous regions or, more succinictly, the electron distribution or electron density, are actually pictures of ?², and not ? itself. The general shape of ?² will be similar to the shape of ?. the orbitals and their shapes have no edges, even though definite outlines are usually drawn in the diagrams. The values merely approach closer and closer to zero as one goes away from the nucleus.

Molecular Geometry

Lewis structures provide a simple method of estimating molecular shapes. The geometry about any atom covalently bonded to two or more other atoms is found by counting the number of electron groups around the atom. Each unshared pair counts as one groups and each bond, weather single or multiple counts as one group. The number of electron groups around and atom is therefore equal to the sum of the number of electron pairs on the atom and the number of other atoms bonded to it. The geometry is linear if the number of electron groups is two, trigonal if its 3, and tetrahedral if its 4.

The rule is based on teh electron pair repulsion model, which postulates that because electron pairs repel each other, they will try to stay as far apart as possible. In trigonal and tetrahedral geometries, the shape will be exactly trigonal (120° bond angles), or exactly tetrahedral (109.5° bond angles) if the electron groups are all equivalent, as for example in BH₃, or CH₃⁺ (trigonal), or in CH₄, or NH₄⁺ (tetrahedral).

If the groups are not all equivalent, the angles will deviate from the ideal values. Thus in NH, (four electron groups, three in N-H bonds, one an unshared pair), the unshared pair, being attracted only by the nitrogen nucleus, will be closer to the nitrogen on the average than will the bonding pairs, which are also attracted by a hydrogen nucleus. Therefore the repulsion between the unshared pair and a bonding pair is greater than between two bonding pairs, and the bonding pairs will be pushed closer to each other. The H-N-H angle should therefore be less than 109.5°. It is found experimentally to be 107°. Similarly, in H₂O (four electron groups, two unshared pairs, and two 0-H bonds), the angle is 104.5°.

Ambiguity may arise when more than one structure contributes. Then unshared pairs in one structure may become multiple bonds in another, so that the number of electron groups around a given atom is not the same in both structures. An example is methyl azide (19). The central nitrogen is clearly linear (two electron groups), but the nitrogen bonded to CH₃, has three electron groups in

19a and four in 19b. In such a situation, the number of electron groups is determined from the structure with the larger number of honds. Thus the nitrogen in question in 19 is trigonal, not tetrahedral.

Resonance

The Lewis structure notation is useful because it conveys the essential qualitative information about properties of chemical compounds. The main features of the chemical properties of the groups that make up organic molecules,

and so forth, are to a first approximation constant from molecule to molecule, and one can therefore tell immediately from the Lewis structure of a substance that one has never encountered before roughly what the chemical properties will be.

There is a class of structures, however, for which the properties are not those expected from the Lewis structure. A familiar example is benzene, for which the heat of hydrogenation (Equation 1.1) is less exothermic by about 37 kcal/mole than one would have expected from Lewis structure 1 on the basis of the measured

heat of hydrogenation of ethylene. The thermochemical properties of various
types of bonds are in most instances transferable with good accuracy from molecule to molecule; a discrepancy of this magnitude therefore requires a fundamental modification of the bonding model. The difficulty with model 1 for benzene is that there is another Lewis structure, 2, which is identical to 1 except for the placement of the double bonds.

Whenever there are 2 alternative structures for a single compound, and any one of the strucutre becomes an inaccurate representation for the molecular structure. The actual structure of the molecule is actually a hybrid of these 2 strucutres. It is like a “superposition” of these 2 strucutres. The superposition of two more more Lewis structures into a composite picture of the compound is called resonance.

This terminology is well established, but unfortunate, because the term resonance when applied to a pair of pictures tends to convey the idea of a changing back and forth with time. It is therefore difficult to avoid the pitfall of thinking of the benzene molecule as a structure with three conventional double bonds, of the ethylene type, jumping rapidly back and forth from one location to another. This idea is incorrect. The electrons in the molecule move in a field of force created by the six carbon and six hydrogen nuclei arranged around a regular hexagon.

Each of the six sides of the hexagon is entirely equivalent to the otehr side, which is why electrons should, even momentarily, seek out three sides and make them different from the other three, as the two alternative pictures 3 seem to imply that they do. The symmetry of the ring of nuclei (4) is called a sixfold symmetry because rotating the picture by one-sixth of a circle will give the identical picture again. This sixfold symmetry must be reflected in the electron distribution.

A less misleading picture would be the one above, in which the circle in the middle of the ring implies a distribution of the six double bond electrons of the same symmetry as the arrangement of nuclei. We shall nevertheless usually continue to use the notation 3, as it has certain advantages for thinking about reactions.

The most important features of the structures for which the resonance is needed are, first, that the molecule is more stable (of lower energy) than one would expect from looking at one of the individual strucutres. and second that the actual distribution of the electrons in the molecule is different form what one would expect from either of the resonance strucutres. Since the composite picture shows that certain electrons are free to move to a larger area, of the molecule than a single one of the  structure implies, resonance is often referred to as delocalization. We shall have more to say about delocalization later in connection with molecular orbitals.

While the benezene ring is the most fimiliar example of the necessity for modifying the Lewis strucutre language by addition of resonance concept, there are many others. The carboxylic acids, for example are much stronger acids than the alcohols; this difference must be largely due to greater stability of the carboxylate ion over the alkoxide iiion. It is the possiblity of writing two equivalent Lewis structures for the carboxylate ions that alertts us to this difference.

Another example is the allylic system. The ally1 cation (8), anion (9), and

radical (10), are all more stable than their saturated counterparts. Again, there is for each an alternativestructure :

In all the examples we have considered so far, the alternative structures have been equivalent. This will not always be the case, as the following examples illustrate :

Whenever there are nonequivalent strucutres, each will contribute to the composite picture to a different extent. The structure would represent the most stable (lowest-energy) molecule, where such a molecule actually to exist, contributes the most to composite, and the others successively less as they represent the higher energy molecules.

It is because the lowest-energy structures are most important that we specifiedin the rules for writing Lewis structures that the number of bonds should be maximum and the valence-shell occupancy not less than 8 whenever possible. Structures that violate these stipulations, such as 11 and 12, represent high-energy forms and hence do not contribute significantly to the structural pictures, which

The followinp; rules are useful in using resonance notatinn:

1. All nuclei must be in the same location in every structure. Structures with nuclei in different locations, for example 15 and 16, are chemically distinct substances, and interconversions between them are actual chemical changes, always designated by .

   

2. Structures with fewer bonds or with greater seperation of formal charge are less stable than those with more bonds or less charge seperation. thus 11 and 12 are higer energy respectively than 12 and 14.

3. When 2 structures with formal charge have the same number of bonds and approximately same charge seperation, the structure with charge on the more electronegative atom will usually be somewhat in the lower energy state, but the difference will ordinarily be small enough that both structures can be included in the composite picture.



4. All four groups attached to a pair of atoms joined by a double bond in any structure must lie in the same plane. For example, structure 18b cannot contribute because the bridged ring prevents the carbon 6 and 7 from lying in the same place as carbon 3, and the hydrogen on carbon 2. The impossiblity of strucures with double bonds at bridgeheads of small bridged rings is known as Bredt’s rule. Double bonds can occur at bridgehead if the rings are sufficiently large.
   

THE COVALENT BOND – Introduction

Because the covalent bond is of central importance to organic chemistry, we begin with a review of bonding theory. Later, in Chapter 10, we shall return to develop certain aspects of the theory further in preparation for the discussion of pericyclic reactions.

MODELS OF CHEMICAL BONDING

Understanding and progress in natural science rest largely on models. A little reflection will make it clear that much of chemical thinking is in terms of models, and that the models useful in chemistry are of many kinds. Although we cannot see atoms, we have many excellent reasons for believing in them, and when we think about them we think in terms of models. For some purposes a very simple
model suffices. Understanding stoichiometry, for example, requires only the idea of atoms as small lumps of matter that combine with each other in definite proportions and that have definite weights. The mechanism by which the atoms are held together in compounds is not of central importance for this purpose. When thinking about stereochemistry, we are likely to use an actual physical model consisting of small balls of wood or plastic held together by springs or sticks. Now the relative weights of atoms are immaterial, and we do not bother to reproduce them in the model; instead we try to have the holes drilled carefully so that the model will show the geometrical properties of the molecules. Still other models are entirely mathematical. We think of chemical rate processes in terms of sets of differential equations, and the details of chemical bonding require still more abstract mathematical manipulations. The point to understand is that there may be many ways of building a model for a given phenomenon, none of which is complete but each of which serves its special purpose in helping us understand some
aspect of the physical reality.

The Electron Pair Bond-Lewis Structures

The familiar Lewis structure is the simplest bonding model in common use in organic chemistry. It is based on the idea that, at the simplest level, the ionic bonding force arises from the electrostatic attraction between ions of opposite charge, and the covalent bonding force arises from sharing of electron pairs between atoms. The starting point for the Lewis structure is a notation for an atom and its valence electrons. The element symbol represents the core, that is, the nucleus and all the inner-shell electrons. The core carries a number of positive charge equal to the number of valence electrons. This positive charge is called corecharge. Valence electrons are shown explicitly. For elements in the third and later rows ofthe periodic table, the d electrons in atoms of Main Groups 111, IV, V, VI, and VII are counted as part of the core. Thus :

Ions are obtained by adding or removing electrons. The charge on an ion is given by

charge = core charge – number of electrons shown exvlicidy

An ionic compound is indicated by writing the Lewis structures for the two ions. A covalent bond model is constructed by allowing atoms to share pairs of electrons. Ordinarily, a shared pair is designated by a line:

H-H

All valence electrons of all atoms in the structure must be shown explicitly. Those electrons not in shared covalent bonds are indicated as dots, for example:

If an ion contains two or more atoms covalently bonded to each other, the total charge on the ion must equal the total core charge less the total number of electrons, shared and unshared:

In order to write-correct Lewis structures, two more concepts are needed. First, consider the total number of electrons in the immediate neighborhood of each atom. This number is called the valence-shell occupancy of the atom, and to find it, all unshared electrons around the atom and all electrons in bonds leading to the atom must be counted. The valence-shell occupancy must not exceed 2 for hydrogen and must not exceed 8 for atoms of the first row of the periodic table. For elements of the second and later rows, the valence-shell occupancy may exceed 8. The structures

are acceptable.
The second idea is that of formal charge. For purposes of determining formal charge, partition all the electrons into groups as follows: Assign to each atom all of its unshared pair elec_tronsa nd half of all electrons in bonds leading it. Call the number of electrons assigned to the atom by this process its electron ownership. The formal charge of each atom is given by

formal charge = core charge – electron ownership

To illustrate formal charge, consider the hydroxide ion, OH-. The electron ownership of H is 1, its core charge is + 1, and its formal charge is therefore zero. The electron ownership of oxygen is 7, and the core charge is +6; therefore the formal charge is – 1. All nonzero formal charges must be shown explicitly in the
structure. The reader should verify the formal charges shown in the following examples

The algebraic sum of all formal charges in a structure is equal to the total charge. Formal charge is primarily useful as a bookkeeping device for electrons, but it also gives a rough guide to the charge distribution within a molecule. In writing Lewis structures, the following procedure is to be followed:

1. Count the total number of valence electrons contributed by the electrically neutral atoms. If the species being considered is an ion, add one electron to the total for each negative charge; subtract one for each positive charge.
2. Write the core symbols for the atoms and fill in the number of electrons determined in Step 1. The electrons should be added so as to make the valence shell occupancy of hydrogen 2 and the valence-shell occupancy of other atoms not less than 8 wherever possible.
3. Valence-shell occupancy must not exceed 2 for hydrogen and 8 for a first-row atom; for a second-row atom it may be 10 or 12.
4. Maximize the number of bonds, and minimize the number of unpaired erectrons, always taking care not to violate Rule 3.
5. Find the formal charge on each atom.

We shall illustrate the procedure with two examples.

• What I'm Doing...

  • I just uploaded 4 documents to Docstoc.com, check them out: http://tinyurl.com/34yn77b 2010-06-02
  • Taking 3 days off labs... Will be reading in these days... 2010-05-28
  • Started off again... And now it seems things are better!! Getting a few results atleast 2010-02-12
  • More updates...

  Posting tweet...

  Powered by Twitter Tools.

• Categories

  • Molecules (1)
  • Name Reactions (3)
  • Reaction Mechanisms (3)
  • StereoChemistry (3)
  • Synthetic Chemistry (5)
  • Theory (7)
    • Covalent Bond (5)
  • Uncategorized (15)

• Archives

  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • January 2010
  • July 2009
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • July 2008

• Tags

  3:4: 5-Triiodobenzoates. acylation ALCOHOLS Aldehydes aldol aldol condensation alkoxide amino acid bipolar ion chalcone synthesis chemist chemistry column chromatography diary dimethylation DISTILLATION effort field of chemistry gallacetophenone HYDROCARBONS introduction methylation methyl iodide mild reducing agent nucleoic acds proteins Pseudo-saccharin ethers pyrogallol reading reduction reaction Revisiting selective methylation sodium borohydride Sodium Triacetoxyborohydride StereoChemistry synthesis Synthetic Chemistry toluene UREA zinc chloride zncl2