Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Ralph Pearson introduced the Hard Soft [Lewis] Acid Base (HSAB) principle in the early nineteen
sixties, and in doing so attempted to unify inorganic and organic reaction chemistry. The impact of
the new idea was immediate, however, over the years the HSAB principle has rather fallen by the
wayside while other approaches developed at the same time, such as frontier molecular orbital
(FMO) theory and molecular mechanics, have flourished.
This page discusses the profound limitations of the Pearson approach and compares & contrasts
the HSAB principle with the chemogenesis analysis as presented in this web book.
Introduction
The Irving-Williams stability series (1953) pointed out that for a given ligand the stability of
dipositive metal ion complexes increases:
Ba2+ < Sr2+ < Ca2+ < Mg2+ < Mn2+ < Fe2+ < Co2+ < Ni2+ < Cu2+ < Zn2+
It was also known that certain ligands formed their most stable complexes with metal ions like Al3+,
Ti4+ and Co3+ while others formed stable complexes with Ag+, Hg2+ and Pt2+.
In 1958 Ahrland et al. Classified metal cations as Type A and Type B, where:
Tendency to Complex
with Type B Metals
O << S ~ Se ~ Te
this analysis.
Pearson classified Lewis acids and Lewis bases as hard, borderline or soft.
According to Pearson's hard soft [Lewis] acid base (HSAB) principle:
Hard [Lewis] acids prefer to bind to hard [Lewis] bases
and
Soft [Lewis] acids prefer to bind to soft [Lewis] bases
At first sight, HSAB analysis seems rather similar to the Type A and Type B system. However,
Pearson classified a very wide range of atoms, ions, molecules and molecular ions as hard,
borderline or soft Lewis acids or Lewis bases, moving the analysis from traditional metal/ligand
inorganic chemistry into the realm of organic chemistry.
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
Pearson's Hard Lewis Acids (from the Chemical Thesaurus), here, and from the
congeneric array database, here:
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
Pearson's Hard Lewis Bases (from The Chemical Thesaurus), here, and from the
congeneric array database, here:
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
Soft [Lewis] acids bind to soft [Lewis] bases to give FMO-controlled (covalent)
The Ho Paper
Pearson suggested that hard-to-soft trends could be found amongst groups 15, 16 and 17 of the
periodic table.
in 1975 the idea was extended by Tse Lok Ho who used realistic chemical species and coined the
term congeneric.
[Your author has spent many hours reading this interesting paper.]
Softer <> Harder
Bi
Sb
As
Te
Se
Br
Cl
R3Sb:
R3As:
R3P:
R3N:
R3Sb:
R3As:
R3P:
R3N:
H3C
H2N
HO
Br
Cl
H3C+
(CH3)H2C+ (CH3)2HC+
(CH3)3C+
There are several examples of ambidentate selectivity in The Chemical Thesaurus reaction
chemistry database:
Elimination vs Substitution with 1,2-Dichloroethane
Elimination vs Substitution with 2-Bromopropane
-Propiolactone
Cyanide Ion
Enolate Ions
Nitrite Ion
Sulfinate Ion
Thiocyanate Ion
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
"With [the 'Hard-Soft'] nomenclature it is possible to make a simple, general statement: 'Hard
acids prefer to coordinate to hard bases, and soft acids prefer to coordinate soft bases.' This
is the Principle of Hard and Soft Acids and Bases, or the HSAB Principle.
"Note that this Principle is simply a restatement of the experimental evidence which led to
[the classification system in the first place]. It is a condensed statement of a very large
amount of chemical information. As such it might be called a law. But this label seems
pretentious in view of the lack of a quantitative definition of hardness.
"HSAB is not a theory, since it does not explain variations in the strength of chemical bonds.
The word 'prefer' in the HSAB Principle implies a rather modest effect.
"Softness is not the only factor which determines the value of H in the equation:
A + :B A:B
"There are many examples of very strong bonds between mismatched pairs, such as H2,
formed from hard H+ and soft H.
"H2O, OH and O2 are all classified as hard bases, but there are great differences in their
base strength, by any criterion."
One problem is that the full set of hard-borderline-soft interactions and complexations is simply not
considered using the Pearson analysis. Look how empty the HSAB interaction matrix is:
The Pearson HSAB principle states that "hard [Lewis] acids prefer to bind to hard [Lewis] bases
and that soft [Lewis] acids prefer to bind to soft [Lewis] bases", which may be true, but it says
nothing about mixed hard-soft complexes. Klopman simply states very unhelpfully that such
interactions are "undefined"!
Yet, many of the most interesting reagents of organic and inorganic reaction chemistry are hardsoft "strained" complexes:
Sodium hydride
Lithium aluminium hydride
Lead(IV) acetate
Methyl lithium
Triethyloxonium tetrafluoroborate
Ferrocene
NaH
Na+
LiAlH4
Al3+
Pb(AcO)4
Pb4+
AcO
CH3Li
Li+
CH3
[Et3O]+ [BF4]
CH3CH2+
:OR2
Fe(Cp)2
Fe2+
[C5H5]
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
Hard
Borderline
Soft
By comparison, the richness of known reaction chemistry arises naturally in the Lewis acid/base
interaction matrix, a central tenet of the chemogenesis analysis. There are two observations/rules
and both concern congeneric arrays of isoelectronic/isoreactive species:
Hard-to-soft trends can occur within congeneric arrays, but not between arrays.
Congeneric arrays are always found within the cells of the Lewis acid/base Interaction Matrix,
and not crossing cells.
Fajans' Rules
The Pearson-Klopman HSAB analysis is in direct contradiction with the well known "Fajans rules"
(1915-24) Wikipedia, even though no author appears to have addressed this issue to date.
Ionic-covalent character in metal plus non-metal binary materials can be calculated using the
Pauling equation, here, but the difference in electronegativity underestimates the effect of
polarisation: the extent to which one atom distorts or polarises the electron cloud of the other.
Fajans rules say:
A small positive ion is highly polarising, favours covalency, and for a given cation the covalent
character increases as the anion becomes bigger.
Large negative ions are highly polarisible, favour covalency, and for a given anion covalent
character increases as the cation gets smaller.
Covalent character increases with increasing ionic charge on either ion.
Polarisation, and hence covalency, is favoured if the positive ion does not have a noble gas
configuration. This is important for ions like: Tl+, Pb2+, Bi3+, Ti3+, V3+, Cr2+, Mn2+, Cu+, Ce3+
& Eu2+.
Consider beryllium chloride, BeCl2: compared with the other alkaline earth chlorides:
Cation
Be2+
41
1.57
34
Covalent-Molecular
Mg2+
86
1.31
42
Ionic Salt
Ca2+
114
1.00
51
Ionic Salt
Sr2+
132
0.95
52
Ionic Salt
Ba2+
149
0.89
54
Ionic Salt
Beryllium chloride, BeCl2, is covalent: the anhydrous material is soluble in organic solvents, it
sublimes (in a vacuum), and the molten material is a poor conductor of electricity. MgCl2, CaCl2,
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
sublimes (in a vacuum), and the molten material is a poor conductor of electricity. MgCl2, CaCl2,
SrCl2 and BaCl2 are ionic materials.
Fajans rules clearly explain this chemistry by saying that the very small, highly charged Be2+
ion is able to polarise the two chloride ions into a molecular covalent structure.
The Pearson-Klopman HSAB analysis states that the beryllium ion, being the smallest of the
Group II metal cations is also the hardest. Beryllium ion salts should therefore exhibit charge
controlled bonding and give rise to ionic materials, but they do not.
The chemogenesis analysis, here, says that Group II cations: Be2+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Sr2+ &
Ba2+, make up a congeneric series of charged s-LUMO Lewis acids, that linear behaviour
trends are found over this series. These linear behaviour trends can be ascribed to 'hard-soft'
behaviour, if so wished, however, the terms 'hard' and 'soft' can only be used with respect to
the congeneric series in question and 'hard-soft' comparisons cannot be made with other
Lewis acids.
H+
[NH4]+
BF3
Bold Claim
The one-dimensional hard-borderline-soft continuum of
Pearson's analysis actually has the effect of blurring much
of the rich, linear (predictable) behaviour that can be found
in Lewis acid/base reaction chemistry space.
The new chemogenesis analysis as presented in this web
book and backed by the reaction chemistry held in The
Chemical Thesaurus database avoids and explains the
pitfalls of Pearson's much hyped HSAB approach.
Comparing the "Top Down" HSAB Analysis with the "Bottom Up"
Chemogenesis Analysis
Pearson's Hard Soft [Lewis] Acid Base (HSAB) analysis is top down.
Starting with all species in reaction chemistry space, a number of important species are
identified as Lewis acids and Lewis bases.
Lewis acids and Lewis bases are then classified as hard, borderline or soft using empirical
observation and the principle that: hard Lewis acids prefer to complex with hard Lewis bases
and soft Lewis acids prefer to complex with soft Lewis bases:
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com