/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 9 For many years, a controversy ra... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

For many years, a controversy raged concerning the structures of so-called "electron-deficient" molecules, that is, molecules with insufficient electrons to make normal two-atom, two- electron bonds. Typical is ethyl cation, \(\mathrm{C}_{2} \mathrm{H}_{5}^{+}\) formed from protonation of ethene. Is it best represented as an open Lewis structure with a full positive charge on one of the carbons, or as a hydrogenbridged structure in which the charge is dispersed onto several atoms? Build both open and hydrogen-bridged structures for ethyl cation. Optimize the geometry of each using the B3LYP/6-31G* model and calculate vibrational frequencies. Which structure is lower in energy, the open or hydrogenbridged structure? Is the higher energy structure an energy minimum? Explain your answer.

Short Answer

Expert verified
The two possible structures for the ethyl cation (C2H5+) are the open and hydrogen-bridged structures. By performing geometry optimization using the B3LYP/6-31G* model and calculating vibrational frequencies, we can compare the energies of these two structures. The lower energy structure is more stable and represents a better approximation of the ethyl cation. To determine if the higher-energy structure is an energy minimum, examine its vibrational frequencies; if they are all positive without any imaginary frequencies, the structure can be considered an energy minimum.

Step by step solution

01

Building the Open and Hydrogen-Bridged Structures for Ethyl Cation

First, draw both the open and hydrogen-bridged Lewis structures for the ethyl cation (C2H5+). For the open structure: 1. Place two carbon atoms side by side, forming a single bond between them. 2. Add three hydrogen atoms to each carbon atom, completing their octets. 3. Add a positive charge to one of the carbons, indicating the electron deficiency. For the hydrogen-bridged structure: 1. Place two carbon atoms side by side, forming a single bond between them. 2. Add two hydrogen atoms to each of the carbons, completing their octets except for one hydrogen atom on each carbon. 3. Place a hydrogen atom, bridging the carbons with a 3-center-2-electron bond and add a positive charge indicating that the charge is dispersed onto several atoms.
02

Optimizing Geometry Using B3LYP/6-31G* Model

Using a computational chemistry software program, input the open and hydrogen-bridged structures of the ethyl cation, and perform a geometry optimization using the B3LYP/6-31G* method. Make sure to calculate vibrational frequencies for each structure to confirm they are proper energy minima.
03

Comparing Energies of Open vs Hydrogen-Bridged Structures

After the geometry optimization and analysis of vibrational frequencies, compare the calculated energies of the open and hydrogen-bridged structures to determine which structure is lower in energy. The lower energy structure is more stable and represents a better approximation of the actual ethyl cation.
04

Determining if the Higher-Energy Structure is an Energy Minimum

Examine the vibrational frequencies calculated in Step 2 for the higher energy structure. If all vibrational frequencies are positive and there are no indications of an imaginary frequency, this structure can be considered an energy minimum. If not, it might not be an energy minimum, and other stable structures may exist.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Lewis Structures
Understanding the basics of chemistry often involves visual representations, and this is where Lewis structures come into play. Lewis structures are diagrams that show the bonding between atoms of a molecule and the lone pairs of electrons that may exist. They are named after Gilbert N. Lewis, who introduced them in 1916. The ethyl cation, \(\mathrm{C}_2\mathrm{H}_5^+\), is a fascinating example when studying Lewis structures because it requires the depiction of an electron-deficient molecule — a concept which is critical to grasp for understanding advanced chemistry topics.

When drawing a Lewis structure for the ethyl cation, we visualize the carbon atoms, the hydrogen atoms attached to them, and indicate where there are missing electrons using a positive charge. This skill is foundational for anyone looking to dive deep into the world of organic chemistry.
Electron-Deficient Molecules
Some molecules, like the ethyl cation, do not have enough valence electrons to complete a conventional set of two-electron bonds. These are known as electron-deficient molecules. They present an interesting challenge in structural chemistry because they do not follow the 'octet rule', which states that atoms tend to combine in such a way that each atom has eight electrons in its valence shell. This rule is ingrained in much of chemical understanding, so exceptions like electron-deficient molecules truly test the robustness of our chemical models and theories.

An understanding of electron-deficient molecules is important not only for grasping oddities within chemical structures but also for interpreting reaction mechanisms and the behavior of reactive intermediates in organic chemistry.
B3LYP/6-31G* Optimization
The B3LYP/6-31G* optimization is a specific method used in computational chemistry to predict the most stable structure of a molecule. The B3LYP part of the name refers to a hybrid functional that combines Hartree-Fock methods with density functional theory (DFT) to model electron correlation. The 6-31G* identifies a particular set of basis functions that describe the electron orbitals. Together, this method allows for a balance of accuracy and computational demand, making it a popular choice for geometry optimization in molecules like the ethyl cation.

Using this level of theory to optimize the geometry of the open and hydrogen-bridged ethyl cation structures provides us with theoretical insight into which structure is energetically favored, and thus which is more likely to be encountered in reality.
Vibrational Frequency Analysis
After optimizing the structure of a molecule, vibrational frequency analysis is used to characterize its energy profile. This analysis helps determine if the optimized structure corresponds to a true energy minimum on the potential energy surface. By examining the vibrational modes and confirming that all frequencies are positive, chemists can ensure the predicted structure is not artificially stabilized and indeed represents a realistic, stable configuration.

In computational studies like the one involving the ethyl cation, vibrational frequency analysis serves as a critical checkpoint. All positive frequencies indicate a local minimum, but if one or more frequencies are imaginary (indicated by a negative number), then the structure may correspond to a transition state or a saddle point, not an energy minimum.
Computational Chemistry
Computational chemistry is an invaluable tool that provides virtual models of chemical structures and predicts various properties and behaviors. This branch of chemistry employs computer simulation to assist in solving chemical problems, offering a digital lab where experiments can be conducted in silico. The use of computational methods can expedite the understanding of complex molecules like the ethyl cation. Advanced level computational chemistry methods include quantum mechanical models, such as B3LYP/6-31G* optimizations and molecular dynamics simulations, which can predict the energetic and structural characteristics of molecules.

By using these techniques, chemists can 'see' the unseen, providing valuable insights into the potential energy surfaces and reactivity of molecules without the need for expensive and time-consuming laboratory experiments.
3-Center-2-Electron Bond
A 3-center-2-electron (3c-2e) bond is a type of bond where two electrons are shared between three atoms. It's a bonding concept that is beyond the traditional descriptions offered by Lewis structures, which typically illustrate two-electron bonds between two atoms. The 3c-2e bond is an essential feature of certain electron-deficient molecules, as it helps to distribute the electron density over multiple centers, thereby enabling a stable structure even when the octet rule is not followed.

The ethyl cation, when depicted with a hydrogen-bridged structure, relies on a 3c-2e bond. This type of bond is key in understanding the stabilization of the molecule and represents a fascinating aspect of chemical bonding that challenges conventional perspectives on how atoms come together to form molecules.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Benzyne has long been implicated as an intermediate in nucleophilic aromatic substitution, for example, Although the geometry of benzyne has yet to be conclusively established, the results of a \(^{13} \mathrm{C}\) labeling experiment leave little doubt that two (adjacent) positions on the ring are equivalent: There is a report, albeit controversial, that benzyne has been trapped in a low-temperature matrix and its infrared spectrum recorded. Furthermore, a line in the spectrum at \(2085 \mathrm{cm}^{-1}\) has been assigned to the stretching mode of the incorporated triple bond. Optimize the geometry of benzyne using the HF/6-31G* model and calculate vibrational frequencies. For reference, perform the same calculations on 2 -butyne. Locate the \(\mathrm{C} \equiv \mathrm{C}\) stretching frequency in 2 -butyne and determine an appropriate scaling factor to bring it into agreement with the corresponding experimental frequency \(\left(2240 \mathrm{cm}^{-1}\right) .\) Then identify the vibration corresponding to the triple-bond stretch in benzyne and apply the same scaling factor to this frequency. Finally, plot the calculated infrared spectra of both benzyne and 2-butyne. Does your calculated geometry for benzyne incorporate a fully formed triple bond? Compare with the bond in 2 -butyne as a standard. Locate the vibrational motion in benzyne corresponding to the triple bond stretch. Is the corresponding (scaled) frequency significantly different \(\left(>100 \mathrm{cm}^{-1}\right)\) from the frequency assigned in the experimental investigation? If it is, are you able to locate any frequencies from your calculation that would fit with the assignment of a benzyne mode at \(2085 \mathrm{cm}^{-1} ?\) Elaborate. Does the calculated infrared spectrum provide further evidence for or against the experimental observation? (Hint: Look at the intensity of the triple-bond stretch in 2-butyne.)

Aromatic molecules such as benzene typically undergo substitution when reacted with an electrophile such as \(\mathrm{Br}_{2},\) whereas alkenes such as cyclohexene most commonly undergo addition: What is the reason for the change in preferred reaction in moving from the alkene to the arene? Use the Hartree- Fock \(6-31 G^{*}\) model to obtain equilibrium geometries and energies for reactants and products of both addition and substitution reactions of both cyclohexene and benzene (four reactions in total). Assume trans addition products (1,2-dibromocyclohexane and 5,6-dibromo-1,3-cyclohexadiene). Is your result consistent with what is actually observed? Are all four reactions exothermic? If one or more are not exothermic, provide a rationale as to why.

Diels-Alder reactions commonly involve electronrich dienes and electron- deficient dienophiles: The rate of these reactions generally increases with the \(\pi\) -donor ability of the diene substituent, \(Y\), and with the \(\pi\) -acceptor ability of the dienophile substituent, \(\mathrm{X}\) The usual interpretation is that electron donors will push up the energy of the HOMO on the diene and that electron acceptors will push down the energy of the LUMO on the dienophile: The resulting decrease in the HOMO-LUMO gap leads to a stronger interaction between diene and dienophile and to a decrease in the activation barrier. a. Obtain equilibrium geometries for acrylonitrile, 1,1 dicyanoethylene, \(c i s-\) and \(t r a n s-1,2-\) dicyanoethylene tricyanoethylene, and tetracyanoethylene using the HF/3-21G model. Plot the LUMO energy for each dienophile versus the \(\log\) of the observed relative rate for its addition to cyclopentadiene (listed below the structures in the preceding figure). Is there a reasonable correlation between LUMO energy and relative rate? b. Obtain transition-state geometries for Diels-Alder cycloadditions of acrylonitrile and cyclopentadiene and tetracyanoethylene and cyclopentadiene using the HF/3-21G model. Also obtain a geometry for cyclopentadiene. Calculate activation energies for the two reactions. How does the calculated difference in activation energies compare with the experimental difference (based on a value of 7.61 for the difference in the log of the rates and assuming \(298 \mathrm{K}) ?\)

VSEPR (valence state electron pair repulsion) theory was formulated to anticipate the local geometry about an atom in a molecule (see discussion in Section 25.1). All that is required is the number of electron pairs surrounding the atom, broken down into bonded pairs and nonbonded (lone) pairs. For example, the carbon in carbon tetrafluoride is surrounded by four electron pairs, all of them tied up in \(\mathrm{CF}\) bonds, whereas the sulfur in sulfur tetrafluoride is surrounded by five electron pairs, four of which are tied up in SF bonds with the fifth being a lone pair. VSEPR theory is based on two simple rules. The first is that electron pairs (either lone pairs or bonds) will seek to avoid each other as much as possible. Thus, two electron pairs will lead to a linear geometry, three pairs to a trigonal planar geometry, four pairs to a tetrahedral geometry, five pairs to a trigonal bipyramidal geometry, and six pairs to an octahedral geometry. Although this knowledge is sufficient to assign a geometry for a molecule such as carbon tetrafluoride (tetrahedral), it is not sufficient to specify the geometry of a molecule such as sulfur tetrafluoride. Does the lone pair assume an equatorial position on the trigonal bipyramid leading to a seesaw geometry, or an axial position leading to a trigonal pyramidal geometry? The second rule, that lone pairs take up more space than bonds, clarifies the situation. The seesaw geometry in which the lone pair is \(90^{\circ}\) to two of the SF bonds and \(120^{\circ}\) to the other two bonds is preferable to the trigonal pyramidal geometry in which three bonds are \(90^{\circ}\) to the lone pair. Although VSEPR theory is easy to apply, its results are strictly qualitative and often of limited value. For example, although the model tells us that sulfur tetrafluoride adopts a seesaw geometry, it does not reveal whether the trigonal pyramidal structure (or any other structure) is an energy minimum, and if it is, what its energy is relative to the seesaw form. Also it has little to say when more than six electron pairs are present. For example, VSEPR theory tells us that xenon hexafluoride is not octahedral, but it does not tell us what geometry the molecule actually assumes. Hartree-Fock molecular orbital calculations provide an alternative. a. Optimize the structure of \(\mathrm{SF}_{4}\) in a seesaw geometry \(\left(C_{2 v} \text { symmetry }\right)\) using the HF/3-21G model and calculate vibrational frequencies (the infrared spectrum). This calculation is necessary to verify that the energy is at a minimum. Next, optimize the geometry of \(\mathrm{SF}_{4}\) in a trigonal pyramidal geometry and calculate its vibrational frequencies. Is the seesaw structure an energy minimum? What leads you to your conclusion? Is it lower in energy than the corresponding trigonal pyramidal structure in accordance with VSEPR theory? What is the energy difference between the two forms? Is it small enough that both might actually be observed at room temperature? Is the trigonal pyramidal structure an energy minimum? b. Optimize the geometry of \(\mathrm{XeF}_{6}\) in an octahedral geometry \(\left(\mathrm{O}_{\mathrm{h}} \text { symmetry }\right)\) using the HF/3-21G model and calculate vibrational frequencies. Next, optimize \(\mathrm{XeF}_{6}\) in a geometry that is distorted from octahedral (preferably a geometry with \(\left.C_{1} \text { symmetry }\right)\) and calculate its vibrational frequencies. Is the octahedral form of \(\mathrm{XeF}_{6}\) an energy minimum? What leads you to your conclusion? Does distortion lead to a stable structure of lower energy?

Pyramidal inversion in the cyclic amine aziridine is significantly more difficult than inversion in an acyclic amine, for example, requiring \(80 \mathrm{kJ} / \mathrm{mol}\) versus \(23 \mathrm{kJ} / \mathrm{mol}\) in dimethylamine according to HF/6-31G* calculations. One plausible explanation is that the transition state for inversion needs to incorporate a planar trigonal nitrogen center, which is obviously more difficult to achieve in aziridine, where one bond angle is constrained to a value of around \(60^{\circ},\) than it is in dimethylamine. Such an interpretation suggests that the barriers to inversion in the corresponding four- and fivemembered ring amines (azetidine and pyrrolidine) should also be larger than normal and that the inversion barrier in the six-membered ring amine (piperidine) should be quite close to that for the acyclic. Optimize the geometries of aziridine, azetidine, pyrrolidine, and piperidine using the HF/6-31G* model. Starting from these optimized structures, provide guesses at the respective inversion transition states by replacing the tetrahedral nitrogen center with a trigonal center. Obtain transition states using the same Hartree-Fock model and calculate inversion barriers. Calculate vibrational frequencies to verify that you have actually located the appropriate inversion transition states. Do the calculated inversion barriers follow the order suggested in the preceding figure? If not, which molecule(s) appear to be anomalous? Rationalize your observations by considering other changes in geometry from the amine to the transition state.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Chemistry Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.