Oxidation State & Shapes of Ni(CO)4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big-Daddy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Oxidation State
AI Thread Summary
In Ni(CO)4, the oxidation state of nickel is 0, as carbon monoxide is a neutral ligand. The two likely geometries for Ni(CO)4 are tetrahedral and square planar, with tetrahedral being the predominant structure. Carbon monoxide coordinates to nickel through the carbon atom, not the oxygen, due to pi backbonding, which enhances the stability of the complex. Concerns about the oxidation states of ligands changing upon coordination are addressed, confirming that the overall charge balance dictates the metal's oxidation state. The discussion clarifies that CO consistently acts as a sigma donor through carbon, making linkage isomers involving oxygen unlikely.
Big-Daddy
Messages
333
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


In Ni(CO)4 each carbon monoxide acts as a ligand coordinating to nickel. Suggest two possible shapes for Ni(CO)4; what is the oxidation state of Ni?

The Attempt at a Solution



The oxidation state of Ni seems to be likely to be 0, because carbon monoxide itself is neutral. But is it always safe to say that the oxidation state of the atoms in a ligand do not change when the coordination bond is formed?

As for the possible shapes, they most likely mean one tetrahedral structure and one square planar structure. But my doubt there is this: with the carbon monoxide ligand, it is ever possible to get the O providing the lone electron pair and thus you could have linkage isomers where O donates instead of C? (After all, even though it is formally positive in the carbon monoxide molecule, O still has a lone pair of electrons.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Big-Daddy said:
The oxidation state of Ni seems to be likely to be 0, because carbon monoxide itself is neutral.
This is correct, and the correct way to think about the problem: add up all the charges on the ligands, and enforce neutrality with the metal's oxidation state.

Big-Daddy said:
But is it always safe to say that the oxidation state of the atoms in a ligand do not change when the coordination bond is formed?
I don't quite understand this. If the ligand is reducing or oxidizing, then the oxidation number of the metal may change. But if you're simply referring to something along the lines of: if I have two Cl- ligands, will the metal be anything but 2+ charged if the overall species is neutral? then the answer is no.

Big-Daddy said:
As for the possible shapes, they most likely mean one tetrahedral structure and one square planar structure. But my doubt there is this: with the carbon monoxide ligand, it is ever possible to get the O providing the lone electron pair and thus you could have linkage isomers where O donates instead of C? (After all, even though it is formally positive in the carbon monoxide molecule, O still has a lone pair of electrons.)
Probably these are the two they're looking for. In fact, nickel carbonyl is tetrahedral. Also, CO always bonds to transition metals through the C. There are a number of reasons for this, most importantly pi backbonding (also known as pi acidity), where the sigma metal-carbon bond is augmented by backdonation of electrons from a filled metal d orbital into the empty CO ##\pi^*## antibond.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top