English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Quantum chemical calculations at the BP86/def2-TZVPP level have been carried out for the donor-acceptor complexes [(PMe3)2(E2Hn)] for n = 4, 2, 0. The focus of this works lies on the E–E bonding situation. The electronic structure of the molecules was analyzed with the EDA-NOCV meth-od and with NBO calculations. The EDA-NOCV analysis of the E–E interactions in [(PMe3)2(E2Hn)] (n = 4, 2, 0) provide deep insights into the nature and the strength of the bonds. The calculated intrinsic interactions ΔEint suggest that the trend for the bond strength of the E–E single bond [(PMe3)(H)2E–E(H)2(PMe3)] has the order B > Ga > Al > In. The orbital interactions ΔEorb which exhibit the same trend as ΔEint have one dominant contribution which comes from the coupling of the singly occupied orbitals in the (PMe3)(H)2E fragments. A slightly different trend B > Ga ~ In > Al is found for the in-teraction energy ΔEint of the E–E bonds in [(PMe3)(H)E–E(H)(PMe3)]. The orbital term ΔEorb which has the order B > Ga > In > Al has one major and one minor component which in case of the boron compound may be identified with a σ and a π bond. The heavier homologues [(PMe3)(H)E–E(H)(PMe3)] (E = Al – In) have pyramidally coordinated atoms E. The dominant orbital interactions in the latter species come from the formation of a “slipped” π bond while the minor component comes from the formation of the σ bond. This can be explained with the change in the hybridization of the orbitals at atom E along the formation of the E–E bond. The compounds [(PMe3)E–E(PMe3)] exhibit three different types of bonding situations depending on atoms E. The boron system [(PMe3)B≡B(PMe3)] has a classical triple bond which consist of a σ bond that provides 56 % to the orbital interactions and two degenerate π bonds which contribute 40 % to the covalent bonding. The aluminium and gallium complexes [(PMe3)E–E(PMe3)] (E = Al, Ga) are also triply bonded species where the covalent bonding has one strong and two weaker components. The strong component comes from the “slipped” π bond while the minor components come from the formation of the σ and π bonds. The indium complex [(PMe3)In–In(PMe3)] has only an In–In single bond and two electron lone pairs at the indium atoms. The charge donation Me3P → E2(Hn) ← PMe3 has for all atoms E the trend for n 4 > 2 > 0

Analysis of the E–E Bond in Group-13 Complexes [(PMe3)2(E2Hn)] (E = B – In, n = 4, 2, 0)