Professional Documents
Culture Documents
.
Essays
DOI: 10.1002/anie.201407561
Oxidation State
2 2015 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 2 – 13
Ü
Ü
As discussed in Appendix B of Ref. [14], most electro- Appendix B of Ref. [14], only the Allen electronegativity is
negativity scales depend on the atoms bonding state, which truly independent of the oxidation state, as it relates to the
makes the assignment of the oxidation state a somewhat average valence-electron energy of the free atom.[18–20] Such
circular argument. Some scales lead to unusual oxidation an ionic approximation is obtained when the bonds implied in
states, such as 6 for platinum in PtH42 with Pauling or Figure 1 are abstracted away (Figure 2).
Mulliken scales. Appendix E of Ref. [14] shows that a Lewis-
basic atom with an electronegativity lower than its Lewis-
acidic bond partner would lose the often weak and long bond
upon ionic approximation of their adduct, thereby yielding an
unusual oxidation state. Appendix A of Ref. [14] points out
that dipole moments of molecules such as CO and NO, which
are oriented with their positive end towards oxygen,[15–17] Figure 2. The ionic approximation according to the relative energies of
would lead to abnormal oxidation states. Appendix C of the free-atom valence orbitals, conveniently derived from Allen’s
Ref. [14] illustrates the variety of calculated quantum-chem- electronegativities.
ical atomic charges. This leaves the atoms contribution to the
bonding MO, the atomic-orbital energy, as the criterion for
ionic approximation (Figure 1). The electronegativity criterion for the ionic approxima-
tion carries an exception if the more electronegative atom is
reversibly bonded as a Lewis acid (a so called Z-ligand,
Appendix E of Ref. [14]): Its acceptor orbital is high, and the
less-electronegative Lewis-base donor atom retains the elec-
trons because of its larger contribution to the bonding MO.
An allegiance criterion by Haaland[21] identifies such an
adduct: Applied to ionic approximation, one asks where the
Figure 1. The essence of the adopted ionic approximation based on bonding electrons go when the bond is split thermally. If the
the contribution to the bonding MO. The mixing coefficients cA and cB
split is heterolytic, the ionic approximation follows the
refer to the atomic–orbital wavefunctions yA and yB in an MO-LCAO
approach (LCAO = linear combination of atomic orbitals).
electrons; if homolytic, electronegativity applies. Table 1 lists
the Allen scale.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 2 – 13 2015 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.angewandte.org 3
Ü
Ü
Figure 5. Oxidation states (in red) by assigning a metal–metal bond Figure 6. The unit cell and coordination polyhedra of the AuORb3
according to the atoms’ contributions to the bonding MO. An assign- perovskite with its bond graph of ideal bond orders (values in blue)
ment according to the electronegativity needs to invoke the caveat of obtained from the 8N rule for O, the 8 + N rule for Rb, and the
a Lewis-basic atom with electronegativity lower than the Lewis-acidic 12N rule for Au. The bond orders are shown with signs, which sum
one (in the formula on the right). up at each atom to yield that atom’s oxidation state (in red).
4 www.angewandte.org 2015 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 2 – 13
Ü
Ü
line-earth metals. The 8 in its name symbolizes the preceding bond length between them, and B is a variable parameter
noble-gas shell. often fixed to 0.37. Although for the best accuracy R0ij is
The 8N rule: An electronegative sp atom with N valence a function of the coordination number and oxidation state of
electrons tends to form 8N but not more than four two- the “cation” for a given “anion” (fitted[33, 34] to a set of such
electron bonds with atoms of equal or lower electronegativity. structures), a general approach[35] lists two parameters for
As an example, phosphorus with 5 valence electrons forms 3 each atom, related to the size and electronegativity, from
two-electron bonds in the P4 tetrahedron, and nitrogen does which R0ij is calculated for any atom pair i and j. As the
the same in N2. In heteroatomic molecules, the 8N rule is oxidation state operates on integer electrons, a round off is
enforced by higher electronegativity. For example: In sulfur required on the obtained bond valences/orders or on their
fluorides, the 8N rule concerns fluorine. Bonds in SF2, SF4, ionized sums at an atom.
and SF6 have all approximately the length of a single bond.[28] We will now analyze WCl4 in Figure 8. The bond graph of
In the series BF, CO, and N2, the full triple bond suggested by its infinite chain has a W-W group and eight Cl atoms, with
the octet rule only occurs in N2, whereas O and F force the each W coordinating six Cl atoms by two single, two 3=4, and
bond order towards 2 and 1, respectively.[29] The 8N rule is two 1=2 bonds, as estimated from experimental bond lengths[36]
not the same as the octet rule, as each can be violated in Ref. [14c]. Participation of more than one p orbital at the
independently: The Lewis formula of N2O can be drawn as
j NN-O j , which has octets yet violates the 8N rule on
oxygen. Hydrogen obeys an analogous 2N rule.
The 12N rule: An element having close to 12 dsp
electrons in its outermost shells tends to lose those that
exceed 12 or to gain in bonds those less than 12. While the first
tendency (to form s2 cations) is magnified by other trends in
the main groups of the periodic system, the second (to form s2
anions) is specific to Pt and Au, which in such compounds are
called relativistic chalcogens and halogens, respectively.[30]
Besides bond graphs, the algorithm works on Lewis
formulas that display bond orders. It works directly if the
formula does not carry formal charges. If it does, the atoms
Figure 8. Top: A segment of the infinite WCl4 chain with alternate
formal charge FC is added to the atoms positive or negative
WW bonds. Bottom: Bond graph of the chain with idealized bond
sum of bond orders iBOS to yield its oxidation state orders (in blue, rounded off bond-length to bond-valence calculations),
[Eq. (1)].[14b] This relationship is illustrated for CO and which sum at each atom with the formal charges (in black) to the
[Cr(CO)6] in Figure 7. oxidation state of that atom (in red).
OS ¼ iBOS þ FC ð1Þ
Cl bridge above and below W-W makes its bond-order sum
The bond orders in extended solids are not always obvious (1.5 at Cl) exceed the 8N rule. A chain edge resembles
and may have to be estimated from bond lengths. This is done locally a molecule, and such a Cl atom in a Lewis formula
by converting each bond length into the so-called bond would carry a formal charge of 0.5 + , compensated by 0.25
valence, which is a value entirely equivalent to the bond order at each of the two W atoms it bridges. This feature can be seen
in terms of two-electron bonds in molecules. The origins of in the bond graph in Figure 8.
the bond-valence approach—one[31] ionic and one[32] cova- The bond-valence approach to bond orders can also be
lent—are associated with Linus Pauling. In Ref. [32], an used for finite species. An example is Cu5I72 [37] in Figure 9.
expression is given that morphed into the current relation for One of the five Cu atoms bonds to four iodine atoms, while
bond valence versus bond length [Eq. (2)]. the remaining four Cu atoms bond three. Two of the seven
iodine atoms bond to three Cu atoms and the remaining five
BV ij ¼ exp½ðR0 ij dij Þ=B ð2Þ only to two. The oxidation state is evaluated as a round off
value of the positive and negative sums of bond valences
In this expression, BVij and dij are the respective bond calculated with Equation (2)] from bond distances dCuI in
valence and distance of the atoms i and j, R0ij is the single- Ref. [37] and R0CuI = 2.188 obtained from parameters in
Ref. [35]. As the CuCu bonds are not approximated to be
ionic, only the CuI bonds are relevant besides the 2=7 bonds
from each iodine atom to the cations omitted in Figure 9,
which yields ionized bond valence sums of 1.05(4) per
iodine and + 1.07(2) per Cu atom. A round off yields a single
oxidation state for each element in a nice demonstration of
the Paulings[31] parsimony rule.
Figure 7. Oxidation state (in red) in carbon monoxide (left) and
chromium hexacarbonyl (right) calculated from Lewis formulas of An example of an sp molecule shows another kind of
idealized bond orders (in blue) featuring nonzero formal charges (in bonding compromise: (C6H5)3P=C=P(C6H5)3. This extreme
black). Lewis formula emphasizes the high order of the phosphorus-
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 2 – 13 2015 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.angewandte.org 5
Ü
Ü
Figure 9. Bond valences (in blue) in Cu5I72 and the sums of the
ionized bond valence at the atoms (in pink) that yield the oxidation
states (in red) upon rounding off. Blue sphere Cu, yellow sphere I.
6 www.angewandte.org 2015 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 2 – 13
Ü
Ü
makes sulfur enforce the 8N rule almost as strongly as an oxidation state of + 2 for three of these B atoms (those in
nitrogen. front) and + 3=2 for the remaining two. The apical B atom has
When there is sufficient difference in electronegativity, an oxidation state of + 1 arising from one single bond to H.
bonding predictions with the generalized 8N rule are
precise. Consider GaSe with VECA = 9: The single electron
in excess of 8 would remain on Ga, thereby forming single- 7. What if the Compound is Metallic?
bonded GaGa dumbbells. That is indeed the case, and the
oxidation states in GaSe are evaluated by summing bond When bonding and antibonding orbitals/bands overlap in
orders in Figure 12. a metal, we are no longer entitled to make the ionic
extrapolations as in Figure 1. However, there are simple
metallic compounds with obvious oxidation states, such as the
golden TiO, dark RuO2, or silvery ReO3. Some sp elements
also form stoichiometric metallic compounds: Ba3Si4 obeys
the Zintl concept[47] in that it forms butterfly-shaped Si46
anions, in which two Si atoms have two bonds and two Si
atoms three bonds to each other according to the generalized
8N rule, but the compound is weakly metallic.[55]
Ultimately, the assignment of conducting electrons to one
of the two bonded atoms has its limits. An indication of the
problem is an unexpected electron configuration or an
Figure 12. Unit cell of GaSe with one full Ga coordination shown (left, unexpected bonding pattern. The former is exemplified by
two of the three coordinated Se atoms are outside the unit cell) and
the AuNCa3 perovskite[56] (Figure 14), where neglecting its
the oxidation states determined from its bond graph (right). The bond
order dictated by the 8N rule is listed above the three connectivity
lines. Below them, the bond valence is listed, calculated from the bond
length determined[50] by X-ray diffraction.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 2 – 13 2015 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.angewandte.org 7
Ü
Ü
chemistry, the oxidation state sorts out compounds of an as elaborated in a recent review[69] by Bieske and co-workers.
element; in electrochemistry, it represents the electrochemi- An intriguing ambiguity arises: with some metal ions, the
cally relevant compound or ion in Latimer diagrams and Frost atoms of the H2 molecule remain bonded to each other, while
diagrams of standard (reduction) potentials. Such purpose- with others they form a dihydride. Crabtree[70] attributes this
oriented oxidation states that differ from those by definition to the central transition-metal atom having both empty and
may be termed nominal, here “systematic” and “electro- filled d orbitals: The former participate in the three-center
chemical”. bonding MO that binds the H2 moiety while the latter
An example of both is thiosulfate. Its structural proper- sabotage this by back donation into the empty antibonding
ties[59] suggest that all its terminal atoms carry some of the MO of H2. The two extreme outcomes are presented
anion charge, even if the SS and SO bond orders are not schematically in Figure 16.
entirely equal. The SS bond distance of 2.025 [59] is shorter
than the single bond of 2.055 [46] in crystalline S8 or
2.056 [60] in H2S2 gas, but substantially longer than the
double bond of 1.883 [61, 62] in S2O or 1.889 [63] in S2.
Although the single SS bond is the closest approximation,
two limiting Lewis formulas are considered in Figure 15. Figure 16. Two extremes of an H2 adduct with a generic metal atom
M.
8 www.angewandte.org 2015 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 2 – 13
Ü
Ü
back because it is the main contributor to this additional {Fe8.2(NO)}10 (8.2 was calculated). Figure 18 illustrates the
metal–ligand bonding interaction, which is antibonding with stabilizing 18-plet at Fe.
respect to the HH bond. Allen electronegativities also yield
zero for the oxidation state of all such h2 hydrogen atoms.
11. Oxidation-State Tautomerism
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 2 – 13 2015 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.angewandte.org 9
Ü
Ü
10 www.angewandte.org 2015 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 2 – 13
Ü
Ü
Table 2: Overview of the three oxidation-state algorithms based on ionic approximation according to electronegativity.
Algorithm Valid for Input Performed on
direct ionic ap- homoleptic binaries of sp summary formula, total number of valence electrons individual atom symbols of
proximation terminal atoms the summary formula
assigning finite molecules or ions[a] Lewis formula of the above, showing all bond pairs and lone pairs, and, if Lewis formula
bonds present, all fractional bond pairs and fractional lone pairs
summing bond finite molecules or ions[a] Lewis formula with all of the above, and formal charges for all atoms Lewis formula
orders
solids with 1D, 2D,[b] or 3D bond graph with all bonding connectivities marked as lines, bond order bond graph
infinite networks (bond valence) for all connectivity lines
[a] The simplifying use of electronegativity as a criterion for the ionic approximation (Figure 1 versus Figure 2) carries an exception: In reversible
adducts of a Lewis-acidic atom with an electronegativity higher than its Lewis-basic counterpart, the base keeps the donated pair. [b] In 1D and 2D
networks, possible formal charges of atoms at molecule-like edges or faces need to be identified on the bond graph (see example in Figure 8).
bonded together by each particular MO. Although merely ated by M. Nic, J. Jirat, B. Kosata; updates compiled by A.
Jenkins. Version 2.3.2, p. 1049.
illustrative of a conceptual suggestion, the oxidation-state
[4] B. Pedersen, Generell kjemi, 2nd ed., Universitetsforlaget, Oslo,
approach in Figure 22 circumvents the dilemma encountered 1998, p. 67.
in Ref. [14f] over two alternative Lewis formulas of N2O. [5] D. Steinborn, J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 1148 – 1154.
[6] H.-P. Loock, J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 282 – 283.
[7] L. Pauling, General Chemistry, W. H. Freeman and Co., San
15. A Summary of the Algorithms Francisco, CF, 1948, p. 173.
[8] W. B. Jensen, J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1599 – 1600.
A simplified approach to the ionic approximation and [9] D. W. Smith, J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1202 – 1204.
[10] G. Parkin, J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 791 – 799.
oxidation states identifies the negative atom by comparing
[11] G. Calzaferri, J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 362 – 363.
Allen electronegativities with the exception of the more [12] V. Gupta, H. Ganegoda, M. H. Engelhard, J. Terry, M. R.
electronegative atom being bonded as a Lewis acid. This Linford, J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 232 – 238.
approach comes in three algorithms for three different types [13] M. Jansen, U. Wedig, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 10026 –
of chemical formulas (summary formula, Lewis formula, bond 10029; Angew. Chem. 2008, 120, 10176 – 10180.
graph) covering molecules, ions, and 1D (chains), 2D [14] P. Karen, P. McArdle, J. Takats, Pure Appl. Chem. 2014, 86,
(planes), or 3D infinite networks of solids. An overview of 1017 – 1081; a) p. 1048; b) p. 1029; c) p. 1043; d) p. 1058;
e) p. 1049–1053; f) p. 1055; g) p. 1038; h) p. 1041; i) p. 1040;
the inputs and validity is given in Table 2.
j) p. 1037; k) p. 1061 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/pac-2013-0505).
[15] B. Rosenblum, A. H. Nethercot, C. H. Townes, Phys. Rev. 1958,
109, 400 – 412.
16. Conclusion [16] J. S. Muenter, J. Mol. Spectrosc. 1975, 55, 490 – 491.
[17] A. Gijsbertsen, W. Siu, M. F. Kling, P. Johnsson, S. Stolte, M. J. J.
The suggested oxidation-state definition justifies both Vrakking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007, 99, 213003.
IUPAC algorithms in Ref. [3], while removing exceptions and [18] L. C. Allen, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1989, 111, 9003 – 9014.
[19] J. B. Mann, T. L. Meek, L. C. Allen, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122,
including some defiant cases, such as those of ligand acceptor
2780 – 2783.
atoms with an electronegativity higher than the donor. Being
[20] J. B. Mann, T. L. Meek, E. T. Knight, J. F. Capitani, L. C. Allen, J.
based on chemical bonding, our definition does not replace Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 5132 – 5137.
the algorithms needed early on in the chemistry curriculum. It [21] A. Haaland, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1989, 28, 992 – 1007;
might be helpful at a higher level. Angew. Chem. 1989, 101, 1017 – 1032.
[22] G. N. Lewis, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1916, 38, 762 – 785.
Received: July 24, 2014 [23] J. M. Burlitch, J. H. Burk, M. E. Leonowicz, R. E. Hughes, Inorg.
Revised: October 9, 2014 Chem. 1979, 18, 1702 – 1709.
Published online: && &&, &&&& [24] J. M. Burlitch, M. E. Leonovicz, R. B. Petersen, R. E. Hughes,
Inorg. Chem. 1979, 18, 1097 – 1105.
[25] I. D. Brown, Z. Kristallogr. 1992, 199, 255 – 272.
[26] G. H. Rao, I. D. Brown, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B 1998, 54, 221 –
230.
[1] F. Wçhler, Grundriss der Chemie, Anorganische Chemie, 3rd ed., [27] C. Feldmann, M. Jansen, J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Commun. 1994,
Duncker und Humblot, Berlin, 1835, p. 4. 1045 – 1046.
[2] P. W. Atkins, T. L. Overton, J. P. Rourke, M. T. Weller, F. A. [28] D. E. Woon, T. H. Dunning, Jr., J. Phys. Chem. A 2009, 113,
Armstrong, Shriver & Atkins Inorganic Chemistry, 5th ed., 7915 – 7926, and references therein.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, p. 61. [29] R. J. Martinie, J. J. Bultema, M. N. V. Wal, B. J. Nirkhart,
[3] IUPAC. Compendium of Chemical Terminology, 2nd ed. (the D. A. V. Griend, R. L. DeKock, J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88,
“Gold Book”), (Compiled by A. D. McNaught, A. Wilkinson), 1094 – 1097.
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1997. XML on-line [30] P. Pyykkç, Chem. Rev. 1988, 88, 563 – 594.
corrected version http://dx.doi.org/10.1351/goldbook 2006, cre- [31] L. Pauling, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1929, 51, 1010 – 1026.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 2 – 13 2015 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.angewandte.org 11
Ü
Ü
[32] L. Pauling, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1947, 69, 542 – 553. [65] “Electric Polarizability, Innocent Ligands and Spectroscopic
[33] I. D. Brown, D. Altermatt, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B 1985, 41, Oxidation States”: C. K. Jørgensen in Structure and Bonding,
244 – 247. Vol. 1, Springer, Heidelberg, 1966, pp. 234 – 248.
[34] N. E. Brese, M. OKeeffe, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B 1991, 47, [66] “Forum on Redox-Active Ligands” (Ed.: P. J. Chirikm): Inorg.
192 – 197. Chem. 2011, 50, 9737 – 9914.
[35] M. OKeeffe, N. E. Brese, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1991, 113, 3226 – [67] “Ditholenes and non-innocent redox active ligands” (Ed.: A.
3229. Vlec): Coord. Chem. Rev. 2010, 254, 1357 – 1588.
[36] V. Kolesnichenko, D. C. Swenson, L. Messerle, Inorg. Chem. [68] W. Kaim, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2012, 343 – 348.
1998, 37, 3257 – 3262. [69] V. Dryza, B. L. J. Poad, E. J. Bieske, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.
[37] E. Jalilian, S. Lidin, Solid State Sci. 2011, 13, 768 – 772. 2012, 14, 14954 – 14965.
[38] A. T. Vincent, P. J. Wheatley, J. Chem. Soc. Dalton Trans. 1972, [70] R. H. Crabtree, Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 95 – 101.
617 – 622. [71] G. J. Kubas, R. R. Ryan, B. I. Swanson, P. J. Vergamini, H. J.
[39] G. E. Hardy, J. I. Zink, W. C. Kaska, J. C. Baldwin, J. Am. Chem. Wasserman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 451 – 452.
Soc. 1978, 100, 8001 – 8002. [72] L. Vaska, J. W. DiLuzio, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1962, 84, 679 – 680.
[40] L. Pauling, The Nature of the Chemical Bond, 3rd ed., Cornell [73] C. E. Johnson, R. Eisenberg, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1985, 107, 3148 –
University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1960, p. 9. 3160.
[41] P. W. Atkins, T. L. Overton, J. P. Rourke, M. T. Weller, F. A. [74] L. Vaska, J. W. DiLuzio, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1961, 83, 2784 – 2785.
Armstrong, Shriver & Atkins Inorganic Chemistry, 5th ed., [75] M. Grellier, L. Vendier, B. Chaudret, A. Albinati, S. Rizzato, S.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, pp. 788 – 789. Mason, S. Sabo-Etienne, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 17592 –
[42] F. Ramirez, J. F. Pilot, N. B. Desai, C. P. Smith, B. Hansen, N. 17593.
McKelvie, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1967, 89, 6273 – 6276. [76] R. H. Morris, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2008, 252, 2381 – 2394.
[43] F. Ramirez, N. B. Desai, B. Hansen, N. McKelvie, J. Am. Chem. [77] D. G. Gusev, A. J. Lough, Organometallics 2002, 21, 2601 – 2603,
Soc. 1961, 83, 3539 – 3540. (supporting information).
[44] S. H. Irsen, P. Jacobs, R. Dronskowski, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. [78] T. Hascall, D. Rabinovich, V. J. Murphy, M. D. Beachy, R. A.
2001, 627, 321 – 325. Friesner, G. Parkin, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 11402 – 11417.
[45] M. J. Almond, G. A. Forsyth, D. A. Rice, A. J. Downs, T. J. [79] G. Chevrier, J. M. Kiat, J. Guidac, A. Navaza, Acta Crystallogr.
Jeffery, K. Hagen, Polyhedron 1989, 8, 2631 – 2636. Sect. C 2003, 59, i59 – i62.
[46] S. J. Rettig, J. Trotter, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. C 1987, 43, 2260 – [80] K. P. Huber, G. Herzberg, Molecular Spectra and Molecular
2262. Structure, Vol. IV, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York,
[47] E. Zintl, Angew. Chem. 1939, 52, 1 – 48. 1979, p. 476.
[48] A. Kjekshus, Acta Chem. Scand. 1964, 18, 2379 – 2384, and [81] D. J. Hodgson, N. C. Payne, J. A. McGinnety, R. G. Pearson,
references therein. J. A. Ibers, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1968, 90, 4486 – 4488.
[49] E. Parth, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B 1973, 29, 2808 – 2815. [82] C. G. Pierpont, R. Eisenberg, Inorg. Chem. 1972, 11, 1088 – 1094.
[50] S. Benazeth, N. H. Dung, M. Guittard, P. Laruelle, Acta [83] D. M. P. Mingos, D. J. Sherman, Adv. Inorg. Chem. 1989, 34,
Crystallogr. Sect. C 1988, 44, 234 – 236. 293 – 377.
[51] K. Wade, J. Chem. Soc. D 1971, 792 – 793. [84] G. B. Richter-Ado, P. Legzdins, Metal Nitrosyl, Oxford Univer-
[52] D. M. P. Mingos, Nature Phys. Sci. 1972, 236, 99 – 102. sity Press, Oxford, UK, 1992.
[53] K. Wade, Adv. Inorg. Chem. Radiochem. 1976, 18, 1 – 66. [85] T. W. Hayton, P. Legzdins, W. B. Sharp, Chem. Rev. 2002, 102,
[54] D. M. P. Mingos, Acc. Chem. Res. 1984, 17, 311 – 319. 935 – 991.
[55] U. Aydemir, A. Ormeci, H. Borrmann, B. Bçhme, F. Zrcher, B. [86] J. H. Enemark, R. D. Feltham, Coord. Chem. Rev. 1974, 13, 339 –
Uslu, T. Goebel, W. Schnelle, P. Simon, W. Carrillo-Cabrera, F. 406.
Haarmann, M. Baitinger, R. Nesper, H. G. von Schnering, Y. [87] J. E. M. N. Klein, B. Miehlich, M. S. Holzwarth, M. Bauer, M.
Grin, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 2008, 634, 1651 – 1661. Milek, M. M. Khusniyarov, G. Knizia, H.-J. Werner, B. Plietker,
[56] J. Jger, D. Stahl, P. C. Schmidt, R. Kniep, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 1790 – 1794; Angew. Chem.
Engl. 1993, 32, 709 – 710; Angew. Chem. 1993, 105, 738 – 739. 2014, 126, 1820 – 1824.
[57] A. Karpov, J. Nuss, U. Wedig, M. Jansen, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. [88] A. S. Attia, C. G. Pierpoint, Inorg. Chem. 1998, 37, 3051 – 3056.
2003, 42, 4818 – 4821; Angew. Chem. 2003, 115, 4966 – 4969. [89] C. G. Pierpont, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2001, 216 – 217, 99 – 125.
[58] A. Karpov, J. Nuss, U. Wedig, M. Jansen, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, [90] D. N. Hendrickson, C. G. Pierpont, Top. Curr. Chem. 2004, 234,
126, 14123 – 14128. 63 – 95.
[59] G. C. Lisensky, H. A. Levy, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B 1978, 34, [91] T. Tezgerevska, K. G. Alley, C. Boskovic, Coord. Chem. Rev.
1975 – 1977. 2014, 268, 23 – 40.
[60] J. Hahn, P. Schmidt, K. Reinartz, J. Behrend, G. Winnewisser, [92] M. Sircoglou, S. Bontemps, M. Mercy, N. Saffon, M. Takahashi,
K. M. T. Yamada, Z. Naturforsch. B 1991, 46, 1338 – 1342. G. Bouhadir, L. Maron, D. Bourissou, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
[61] E. Tiemann, J. Hoeft, F. J. Lovas, D. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys. 2007, 46, 8583 – 8586; Angew. Chem. 2007, 119, 8737 – 8740.
1974, 60, 5000 – 5004. [93] G. Parkin, Organometallics 2006, 25, 4744 – 4747.
[62] T. J. Dudley, M. R. Hoffmann, Mol. Phys. 2003, 101, 1303 – 1310. [94] J. Ren, W. Liang, M. H. Whangbo, Crystal and Electronic
[63] P. Pyykkç, M. Atsumi, Chem. Eur. J. 2009, 15, 12770 – 12779. Structure Analysis Using CAESAR, PrimeColor Software, Inc.,
[64] C. K. Jørgensen, Coord. Chem. Rev. 1966, 1, 164 – 178. Cary, NC, 1998.
12 www.angewandte.org 2015 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 2 – 13
Ü
Ü
Essays
Oxidation State What is an oxidation state? Oxidation
state has defining algorithms but lacks
P. Karen* &&&&—&&&& a comprehensive definition. Results of an
IUPAC project to find such a definition
Oxidation State, A Long-Standing Issue! have recently been published in an
extensive Technical Report. A summary in
this Essay is illustrated with applications
on Lewis, bond-graph, and summary
formulas of molecules, ions, or solids,
together with the most recent informa-
tion regarding tricky cases.
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 2 – 13 2015 The Authors. Published by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.angewandte.org 13
Ü
Ü