Hubbry Logo
Agostic interactionAgostic interactionMain
Open search
Agostic interaction
Community hub
Agostic interaction
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Agostic interaction
Agostic interaction
Agostic interaction
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In organometallic chemistry, agostic interaction refers to the intramolecular interaction of a coordinatively-unsaturated transition metal with an appropriately situated C−H bond on one of its ligands. The interaction is the result of two electrons involved in the C−H bond interaction with an empty d-orbital of the transition metal, resulting in a three-center two-electron bond.[1] It is a special case of a C–H sigma complex. Historically, agostic complexes were the first examples of C–H sigma complexes to be observed spectroscopically and crystallographically, due to intramolecular interactions being particularly favorable and more often leading to robust complexes. Many catalytic transformations involving oxidative addition and reductive elimination are proposed to proceed via intermediates featuring agostic interactions. Agostic interactions are observed throughout organometallic chemistry in alkyl, alkylidene, and polyenyl ligands.

History

[edit]

The term agostic, derived from the Ancient Greek word for "to hold close to oneself", was coined by Maurice Brookhart and Malcolm Green, on the suggestion of the classicist Jasper Griffin, to describe this and many other interactions between a transition metal and a C−H bond. Often such agostic interactions involve alkyl or aryl groups that are held close to the metal center through an additional σ-bond.[2][3]

Short interactions between hydrocarbon substituents and coordinatively unsaturated metal complexes have been noted since the 1960s. For example, in tris(triphenylphosphine) ruthenium dichloride, a short interaction is observed between the ruthenium(II) center and a hydrogen atom on the ortho position of one of the nine phenyl rings.[4] Complexes of borohydride are described as using the three-center two-electron bonding model.

Mo(PCy3)2(CO)3, featuring an agostic interaction

The nature of the interaction was foreshadowed in main group chemistry in the structural chemistry of trimethylaluminium.

Characteristics of agostic bonds

[edit]

Agostic interactions are best demonstrated by crystallography. Neutron diffraction data have shown that C−H and M┄H bond distances are 5-20% longer than expected for isolated metal hydride and hydrocarbons. The distance between the metal and the hydrogen is typically 1.8–2.3 Å, and the M┄H−C angle is in the range of 90°–140°. The presence of a 1H NMR signal that is shifted upfield from that of a normal aryl or alkane, often to the region normally assigned to hydride ligands. The coupling constant 1JCH is typically lowered to 70–100 Hz versus the 125 Hz expected for a normal sp3 carbon–hydrogen bond.

Structure of (C2H5)TiCl3(dmpe), highlighting an agostic interaction between the methyl group and the Ti(IV) center.[5]

Strength of bond

[edit]

On the basis of experimental and computational studies, the stabilization arising from an agostic interaction is estimated to be 10–15 kcal/mol. Recent calculations using compliance constants point to a weaker stabilisation (<10 kcal/mol).[6] Thus, agostic interactions are stronger than most hydrogen bonds. Agostic bonds sometimes play a role in catalysis by increasing 'rigidity' in transition states. For instance, in Ziegler–Natta catalysis the highly electrophilic metal center has agostic interactions with the growing polymer chain. This increased rigidity influences the stereoselectivity of the polymerization process.

[edit]
A sigma complex derived from (MeC5H4)Mn(CO)3 and triphenylsilane.[7]

The term agostic is reserved to describe two-electron, three-center bonding interactions between carbon, hydrogen, and a metal. Two-electron three-center bonding is clearly implicated in the complexation of H2, e.g., in W(CO)3(PCy3)2H2, which is closely related to the agostic complex shown in the figure.[8] Silane binds to metal centers often via agostic-like, three-centered Si┄H−M interactions. Because these interactions do not include carbon, however, they are not classified as agostic.

Anagostic bonds

[edit]

Certain M┄H−C interactions are not classified as agostic but are described by the term anagostic. Anagostic interactions are more electrostatic in character. In terms of structures of anagostic interactions, the M┄H distances and M┄H−C angles fall into the ranges 2.3–2.9 Å and 110°–170°, respectively.[2][9]

Function

[edit]

Agostic interactions serve a key function in alkene polymerization and stereochemistry, as well as migratory insertion.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Agostic interaction

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An agostic interaction is a three-center, two-electron in organometallic compounds, typically involving the intramolecular coordination of a ligand's σ-bond—most commonly a C–H bond—to an electron-deficient center, resulting in a shared bonded to both the carbon and the metal.85065-7) The term "agostic" was coined in 1983 by Maurice Brookhart and Malcolm L. H. Green to specifically denote these unusual carbon–hydrogen– (C–H–M) interactions, distinguishing them from typical inert C–H bonds in and likening them to known bridging systems.85065-7) Early evidence for agostic interactions emerged in the and through crystallographic studies of alkyl complexes, which revealed unexpectedly short metal–hydrogen distances suggestive of , though initial interpretations varied. Unambiguous structural confirmation came in the early with compounds like (Me₂PCH₂CH₂PMe₂)TiEtCl₃, where neutron diffraction showed an acute β-carbon angle of approximately 86° and a metal–hydrogen distance of about 2.1 . Spectroscopic signatures further characterize these interactions, including reduced ¹JCH constants (typically 50–100 Hz compared to 120–130 Hz for free C–H bonds) and upfield shifts in ¹H NMR spectra due to the partial metal– . Structurally, agostic bonds feature metal–hydrogen distances of 1.8–2.3 and M–H–C angles of 90–140°, contrasting with weaker "anagostic" interactions that exhibit longer distances (2.3–2.9 ) and wider angles (110–170°). Agostic interactions are prevalent in early and late transition metal complexes, particularly those with low electron counts (e.g., 14–16 electrons), where they stabilize coordinatively unsaturated species by donating electron density from the σ-bond to empty metal orbitals. Their dynamic nature allows for rapid exchange processes, observable via variable-temperature NMR, as seen in ethylcobalt complexes exhibiting equilibria between agostic and non-agostic forms. Beyond structure, these interactions profoundly influence reactivity: they facilitate migratory insertions in catalytic cycles, such as those in Ziegler–Natta olefin polymerization, by orienting alkyl chains and controlling stereochemistry in polymer chain growth. In titanium(IV) catalysts, for instance, β-agostic assistance lowers activation barriers for monomer insertion, enhancing overall catalytic efficiency. By 2007, over 1,500 publications had explored agostic effects, underscoring their fundamental role in understanding and designing organometallic catalysts for industrial applications like propylene polymerization.

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition

An agostic interaction refers to an intramolecular three-center two-electron (3c-2e) bond formed between a center and a σ-bond of a , most commonly a C-H bond, in which the two electrons of the σ-bond are delocalized and shared with the metal. This interaction typically arises when a bound to carbon is positioned such that it bridges the metal and carbon atoms, resulting in a weakened C-H bond and partial metal-hydrogen character. The term "agostic" originates from word agōstos, meaning "to hold to oneself" or "to draw towards," highlighting the intramolecular stabilizing effect of this mode. Agostic interactions are prevalent in electron-deficient transition metal complexes that possess vacant coordination sites or low electron counts, allowing the metal to accept electron density from the ligand's σ-bond. These conditions are commonly met in d-block metal systems, including early transition metals such as (Ti) and zirconium (Zr), as well as late transition metals like rhodium (Rh) and iridium (Ir), where the metal's ability to engage in back-donation or σ-donation facilitates the interaction. Schematically, the interaction is often depicted as M···H–C, where the dotted line indicates the partial M-H engagement and the associated elongation and of the C-H bond. In contrast to hydrogen bonding, which is predominantly electrostatic in nature involving a proton donor and acceptor, agostic interactions exhibit substantial covalent character due to the direct sharing of electrons in a multicenter orbital framework. This covalent aspect distinguishes agostic bonding as a key feature of organometallic reactivity, enabling stabilization of otherwise unstable complexes.

Types of Agostic Interactions

Agostic interactions are classified according to the position of the interacting σ-bond relative to the metal center, typically denoted by Greek letters indicating the carbon atom involved in the C-H bond. This nomenclature reflects the intramolecular geometry, where the hydrogen atom bridges the metal and the carbon chain, influencing the stability and reactivity of organometallic complexes. α-Agostic interactions involve the hydrogen atom on the carbon directly bound to the metal (M–C–H···M), forming a three-center, two-electron bond that stabilizes electron-deficient alkyl complexes. These are common in early transition metal alkyls, where the interaction manifests as an acute M–C–H angle and elongated C–H bond. A classic example is pentamethyltantalum, Ta(CH₃)₅, which displays α-agostic interactions in its methyl ligands (¹J_{C–H} ≈ 80 Hz), contributing to its thermal stability as a volatile precursor in chemical vapor deposition. Similarly, in (Me₂PCH₂CH₂PMe₂)TiMeCl₂, α-agostic bonding is evidenced by reduced ¹J_{C–H} ≈ 90 Hz and ¹³C NMR shifts around 60 ppm. β-Agostic interactions occur with the on the carbon adjacent to the metal-bound carbon (M–C–C–H···M), often stabilizing cationic intermediates in catalytic cycles. These are particularly prevalent in olefin polymerization, where they facilitate chain propagation by opening coordination sites for insertion. In zirconocene-based catalysts, such as [Cp₂Zr(CH₂CH₃)]⁺, β-agostic ethyl ligands are key, with computational studies showing they lower the barrier for insertion by assisting in the . Early olefin insertion products in these systems, like those from propene coordination, routinely feature β-agostic stabilization to prevent β-hydride elimination. γ-Agostic and higher-order interactions involve hydrogens on carbons further removed (M–C–C–C–H···M for γ), which are rarer and typically observed in strained or sterically congested systems. These interactions provide additional stabilization in metallacyclobutane intermediates, where the γ-hydrogen bridges to relieve . For instance, in scandium alkyl complexes like [Cp*₂Sc(CH₂CH₂CH₃)]⁺, γ-agostic interactions have been observed with M···H distances ~2.2 , supported by computational and spectroscopic data. Such interactions are less common beyond γ due to geometric constraints but occur in extended alkyl chains under high coordination demands. Beyond C–H agostics, analogous interactions exist with other σ-bonds, such as B–H or Si–H, particularly in involving main-group elements. B–H agostic interactions are notable in catalysts, where they activate reagents; for example, zirconocene amidoborane complexes like [Cp₂Zr(HB(NHMe₂)(NH₂))] exhibit β-B–H agostic bonding, stabilizing the and promoting B–H bond cleavage. Si–H agostic variants appear in hydrosilylation catalysts, as in tantalum hydridosilylamido complexes [Ta(N(SiHMe₂)(tBu))₃H], where β-Si–H interactions facilitate Si–H addition to unsaturated substrates. These non-C–H types follow similar three-center bonding motifs but are tuned by the and size of the donor atom.

Theoretical Description

Bonding Model

The bonding model of agostic interactions is characterized by a donor-acceptor mechanism, wherein the σ orbital of a C-H bond donates to an empty metal d orbital, typically in electron-deficient centers, while back-donation occurs from a filled metal d orbital to the σ* antibonding orbital of the C-H bond. This mutual interaction forms a three-center two-electron (3c-2e) bond, delocalizing two electrons across the metal-hydrogen-carbon unit and stabilizing coordinatively unsaturated complexes. This electronic description draws an analogy to in organic systems, where σ bond electrons delocalize into adjacent π* or empty orbitals, but in agostic cases, the actively participates, enhancing the interaction through its d orbitals. Recent computational analyses, however, emphasize that London dispersion forces provide a substantial contribution to the overall stability, particularly in complexes where covalent delocalization alone may not fully account for observed geometries and energies. Agostic bond strengths generally fall in the range of 5-25 kcal/mol, rendering them weaker than conventional covalent metal-hydride bonds (typically 40-60 kcal/mol) yet stronger than van der Waals contacts (1-5 kcal/mol). A simplified representation of the bonding orbital is given by ψ=c1σ(\ceC−H)+c2d(\ceM)+c3σ∗(\ceC−H),\psi = c_1 \sigma(\ce{C-H}) + c_2 d(\ce{M}) + c_3 \sigma^*(\ce{C-H}), where the coefficients c1c_1, c2c_2, and c3c_3 indicate the relative contributions from each fragment, leading to partial occupation and delocalization. The extent of this delocalization can be quantified using metrics such as the electron delocalization index derived from quantum theory of atoms in molecules (QTAIM). Key factors influencing agostic bonding include the metal's electron count, with 14-16 electron configurations where the agostic interaction donates electron density to achieve effective 16-18 electron saturation without full hydride formation; the ligand field, which modulates d-orbital energies to facilitate donation and back-donation; and steric effects from surrounding ligands, which can position the C-H bond favorably or impose barriers to interaction.

Computational Characterization

Density Functional Theory (DFT) serves as a primary tool for optimizing the geometries of transition metal complexes featuring agostic interactions, enabling accurate prediction of bond lengths and angles that align closely with experimental data. These calculations often employ hybrid functionals like B3LYP or M06 to capture the electronic structure, with basis sets such as def2-TZVP for reliable results in organometallic systems. The Quantum Theory of Atoms in Molecules (QTAIM), based on the topology of , provides a robust framework for characterizing agostic bonds through the identification of (3,-1) bond critical points (BCPs) along the metal-hydrogen path. In agostic interactions, these BCPs exhibit low values typically ranging from 0.04 to 0.05 , indicative of weak, shared interactions, alongside a positive Laplacian of the electron density that distinguishes them from stronger covalent bonds. (NBO) and Natural Resonance Theory (NRT) analyses further quantify the three-center two-electron nature by estimating the σ(C-H) → metal donation and metal d → σ*(C-H) back-donation components, with second-order perturbation energies often in the range of 5-10 kcal/mol for the dominant donation term. Recent advancements from 2020 to 2025 have incorporated dispersion corrections, such as the Grimme D3 method, revealing that dispersion forces contribute significantly to agostic stability in certain alkyl metal complexes by stabilizing the close approach of groups. More recent analyses (as of 2024) indicate that in some cases, dispersion can account for around 50% of the attractive interaction energy. Additionally, the Localization Function (ELF) and Localizability Indicator (ELI) offer visual insights into multicenter bonding, depicting disynaptic basins shared among the metal, carbon, and hydrogen atoms in agostic motifs, as demonstrated in studies of titanium methyl complexes.

History

Early Observations

In the decades following the 1950s discovery of Ziegler-Natta catalysis, which spurred intensive research into alkyl complexes for processes, early experimental data from the and began to reveal anomalous features suggestive of agostic interactions, though these were not recognized as such at the time. Pioneering crystallographic studies provided the first structural hints, notably in 1965 when La Placa and Ibers reported a short Ru···H–C contact of 2.66 Å in dichlorotris()ruthenium(II), where a phenyl C-H bond approached the metal center more closely than expected for van der Waals interactions. This was initially dismissed as a crystal packing artifact rather than of intramolecular bonding. NMR spectroscopy offered complementary evidence through unusual upfield shifts of alkyl proton signals, often in the hydridic region (δ -5 to +5 ppm), far from typical resonances around 1 ppm. A key 1968 NMR study by S. Trofimenko on (II) complexes, such as trans-[Ni(Et₂B(pz)₂)(PEtPh₂)₂], showed unusually high-field signals for the methylene protons (δ ≈ 0.5 ppm), interpreted as "hydridic" due to possible environmental or rotational effects, but not linked to metal-hydrogen coordination. Similar anomalies appeared in other early alkyls, where low ¹J_CH coupling constants (below 120 Hz) hinted at weakened C-H bonds, yet were attributed to frozen rotation or solvent influences rather than three-center interactions. Structural investigations in the 1970s further highlighted short M···H distances and elongated C-H bonds in Ti(III) alkyl complexes, such as those with ethyl ligands, where M···H separations approached 2.2 Å—shorter than sum of van der Waals radii—accompanied by C-H lengths of ~1.10 Å versus the standard 0.98 Å. These features, observed in compounds like (dppe)TiCl₂Et (dppe = 1,2-bis(diphenylphosphino)ethane), were explained as lattice-induced distortions or conformational freezing, without invoking bonding models. A 1975 NMR study of Mo(CH₃)₄(PMe₃)₄ revealed low ¹J_CH coupling constants (~102 Hz) and upfield shifts for methyl protons, indicative of weakened C-H bonds, but ascribed to dynamic effects or solvent influences rather than three-center interactions. These pre-1980s findings, emerging from efforts to characterize reactive alkyls in low oxidation states, provided critical but misinterpreted clues to the nature of agostic phenomena.

Coining of the Term

The term "agostic interaction" was coined in 1983 by Maurice Brookhart and Malcolm L. H. Green in a seminal published in the Journal of , where they defined it specifically for intramolecular three-center, two-electron interactions involving a center and a C–H σ-bond, denoted as M···H–C. This , derived from word agōgē meaning "to lead towards," emphasized the directional attraction of the C–H bond toward the metal. Brookhart and Green proposed the term to differentiate these interactions from the reversible β-hydride elimination processes commonly observed in , instead portraying agostic bonding as a stabilizing feature that enables the persistence of low-coordinate (often 14- or 16-electron) alkyl complexes. They argued that such interactions provide an alternative pathway for electron donation from the to the metal, preventing and facilitating reactivity in coordinatively unsaturated . This perspective built briefly on earlier unexplained NMR anomalies, such as unusually low-field chemical shifts for alkyl protons in metal hydrides, which had hinted at metal–hydrogen contacts without clear structural interpretation. The 1983 review compiled key evidence from preexisting studies, including variable-temperature NMR spectroscopy showing temperature-dependent coupling constants indicative of dynamic M–H–C bridging, revealing low-frequency C–H stretching modes (around 2000–2200 cm⁻¹) shifted from typical values, and crystallographic data from and alkyl complexes exhibiting elongated C–H bonds and acute M–C–H angles (often <90°). These observations, drawn from over a dozen prior reports on early and late transition metal systems, solidified agostic interactions as a distinct bonding motif rather than mere steric effects. The introduction of the term had immediate impact, with rapid adoption across organometallic literature to describe similar phenomena in diverse complexes. A 1988 follow-up review by Brookhart, Green, and Luet-Lok Wong expanded on the theoretical underpinnings, employing qualitative molecular orbital models to describe the σ-donation from C–H to empty metal d-orbitals and π-backdonation into the σ* orbital, further establishing agostic bonds as weak but influential interactions (bond energies typically 5–20 kcal/mol). By the late 1980s, agostic interactions were recognized in approximately 100 structurally or spectroscopically characterized complexes, highlighting their relevance to stabilizing reactive intermediates in catalytic cycles.

Structural and Spectroscopic Characteristics

Bond Geometry

Agostic interactions are characterized by distinct geometric parameters observable in X-ray crystallographic structures of transition metal complexes, distinguishing them from non-interacting ligands. The metal-to-hydrogen (M···H) distance typically ranges from 1.8 to 2.3 Å, significantly shorter than the sum of van der Waals radii (approximately 3.0 Å or greater for non-agostic contacts), reflecting the three-center two-electron bonding nature of the interaction. The C–H bond involved in the agostic interaction is elongated relative to a standard sp³ C–H bond length of about 0.95 Å, often extending to 1.1–1.3 Å due to partial depopulation of the σ C–H orbital. These metrics are influenced by the type of agostic interaction (α, β, or γ), with β-agostic examples showing more pronounced distortions in alkyl ligands. The M···H–C angle provides further evidence of the σ-to-d orbital overlap central to agostic bonding, typically spanning 90° to 140°, in contrast to the near-linear 180° expected for free C–H bonds. A representative example is found in β-agostic early transition metal alkyl complexes, such as those of , where the M–C–C angle distorts to approximately 80° to facilitate the interaction and relieve steric strain around the metal center. In (C₅H₄Me)₂ZrCl(CH=CHCMe₃), X-ray diffraction reveals a β-CH agostic interaction with a Zr···H distance of about 2.1 Å and a corresponding acute Zr–C–C angle near 85°, highlighting the geometric accommodation. Steric bulk from supporting ligands promotes agostic geometries by positioning C–H bonds closer to the electron-deficient metal, while low electron counts (≤16 electrons) enhance the interaction to satisfy coordinative unsaturation. Recent crystallographic studies of nickel agostic dimers, such as a 2024 dinickel(II) complex with a bridging methyl group, demonstrate cooperative effects where one Ni–C bond (2.05 Å) pairs with an agostic Ni···H interaction (1.96 Å), resulting in a Ni–C–Ni angle of 116.5° and dynamic methyl hopping between metals. These structures underscore how agostic geometries stabilize low-coordinate late transition metal centers in dimeric assemblies.

Detection Methods

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy serves as one of the primary experimental techniques for detecting agostic interactions, particularly through characteristic shifts and coupling patterns in proton and carbon spectra. In ¹H NMR, the agostic hydrogen atom typically exhibits an upfield chemical shift relative to a normal alkyl group (which appears around δ 1–2 ppm), often in the range of δ −5 to +1 ppm, approaching the hydride region due to the partial metal-hydrogen bonding character. This shift arises from the increased electron density around the hydrogen in the three-center interaction. Additionally, the one-bond coupling constant ¹JCH is significantly reduced, typically to 50–100 Hz compared to 120–140 Hz for a free C–H bond, reflecting weakened C–H bonding. In ¹³C NMR, the agostic carbon experiences deshielding due to the metal-carbon donation component of the interaction. Infrared (IR) and Raman spectroscopies provide complementary evidence by probing the vibrational modes of the weakened C–H bond. The C–H stretching frequency ν(CH) for an agostic hydrogen is lowered by 100–300 cm⁻¹ compared to typical alkyl values (2850–2960 cm⁻¹), appearing in the range of 2500–2800 cm⁻¹, indicative of bond elongation and reduced force constant in the agostic bridge. This redshift is more pronounced in α-agostic interactions and can be observed directly in solid-state or matrix-isolated samples, though it may broaden or average in solution due to dynamics. Raman spectroscopy similarly detects these low-frequency modes, offering advantages for non-polar samples where IR may be less sensitive. Neutron diffraction offers precise structural confirmation of agostic interactions by accurately locating hydrogen positions, which are often imprecise in X-ray data. This technique reveals shortened M···H distances (typically 1.8–2.2 Å) and elongated C–H bonds (1.1–1.3 Å), as seen in early studies of methyltitanium compounds where α-hydrogen distortion was unambiguously observed. Variable-temperature (VT) NMR studies elucidate the dynamic nature of agostic interactions, revealing fluxional processes such as rapid exchange between agostic and non-agostic hydrogens. Coalescence of NMR signals at low temperatures indicates barriers of 10–15 kcal/mol for α-agostic exchange, confirming the transient bridging role in solution. Isotopic labeling with provides confirmatory evidence by perturbing spectroscopic signals. Deuteration of the agostic C–H site shifts the ¹H NMR signal or eliminates it in ²H NMR, while IR/Raman shows a frequency shift due to the (ν(CD) ≈ 0.74 ν(CH)), distinguishing agostic from other interactions; for instance, selective deuterium incorporation in alkyl ligands leads to observable exchange patterns consistent with agostic-mediated H/D scrambling.

Anagostic Interactions

Anagostic interactions represent a class of weak, non-covalent intramolecular contacts between a metal center and a C-H bond, typically characterized by metal···H distances in the range of 2.3–2.9 and M-H-C angles of 110–170°. Unlike agostic interactions, which involve significant orbital overlap and covalent character, anagostic interactions lack substantial donation from the C-H σ-bond to the metal, providing stabilization energies of approximately 1–5 kcal/mol primarily through dispersion forces and electrostatic contributions. These interactions are prevalent in closed-shell d¹⁰ metal complexes, such as those of Au(I) and Ag(I), where the filled d-shells preclude strong back-donation. A key structural feature of anagostic interactions is the absence of significant C-H bond elongation, distinguishing them from the weakened C-H bonds observed in true agostic systems; the C-H distance remains close to that of a free (≈1.09 ). This non-covalent arises from van der Waals-like attractions rather than hyperconjugative delocalization, often manifesting in square-planar or linear geometries common to d¹⁰ metals. In (I) N-heterocyclic complexes, for instance, anagostic C-H···Au contacts from ortho-hydrogens on aryl substituents help stabilize the precatalyst by preventing ligand dissociation and enhancing thermal robustness during activation. Distinction from agostic interactions relies on several criteria, including longer M···H distances (>2.3 ) and the lack of pronounced NMR spectroscopic signatures; anagostic hydrogens exhibit chemical shifts similar to or slightly downfield from uncoordinated C-H protons, without the characteristic upfield shift exceeding 1 ppm typical of agostic protons due to shielding from metal d-orbitals. Recent studies from 2020–2025 have highlighted the functional implications of anagostic interactions, particularly their role in modulating reactivity; in square-planar (II) complexes supported by pyridinophane ligands, axial C-H···Ni anagostic contacts (~2.7 ) sterically hinder substrate approach, inhibiting C(sp³)–C(sp³) Kumada cross-coupling relative to non-anagostic analogs by impeding intermediates. These findings underscore anagostic interactions as subtle but impactful in fine-tuning organometallic reactivity.

Other σ-Bond Interactions

Agostic interactions extend beyond C-H σ-bonds to include analogous three-center-two-electron interactions involving other σ-bonds, such as those in group 13 and 14 elements, providing comparative insights into mechanisms in . In σ-alane complexes, metal···H-Al interactions mimic C-H agostic bonding, where the Al-H σ-bond donates to an electron-deficient metal center, often observed in early systems with aluminum hydrides. For instance, reversible coordination of Al-H bonds to fragments demonstrates this weak, intramolecular stabilization, characterized by elongated Al-H distances and low-energy vibrational shifts in IR spectra. These interactions are typically stronger than C-H agostic due to the higher polarity and lower bond dissociation energy of Al-H bonds compared to C-H. Dative bonds represent a related class of σ-interactions, involving σ-donation from a orbital to the metal with varying degrees of π-backbonding, as seen in metal- adducts. In Fischer-type carbene complexes, the carbene carbon acts as a σ-donor to the metal, with π-backbonding from metal d-orbitals to the empty p-orbital on carbon, resulting in partial character (M=C), though with less back-donation than in Schrock-type carbenes due to substituents stabilizing the electrophilic carbene center. This contrasts with typical agostic bonding by lacking the three-center character, instead resembling a classical with a mix of covalent and electrostatic contributions. Hemilabile interactions often incorporate transient agostic-like σ-bonding within chelating s, where one donor arm dissociates temporarily to expose the metal site while the other maintains coordination. In phosphine-based chelates like POP-type ligands, dynamic σ-donation from pendant C-H or other bonds can form fleeting agostic interactions, facilitating ligand exchange and enhancing reactivity without full decoordination. Such behavior is exemplified in derivatives where η³-coordination via C-C bonds competes with or replaces C-H agostic modes, leading to reversible binding and displacement by small molecules like or methyl iodide. Specific examples highlight the diversity of these non-C-H σ-interactions. In borane complexes, B-H agostic bonding stabilizes the metal center through three-center interactions, as observed in N,O-chelated Rh(I) systems that reversibly capture H-BCy₂, resulting in six-membered metallaheterocycles with upfield-shifted B-H NMR signals indicative of partial character. Similarly, C-C agostic interactions in ruthenacyclobutanes feature α,β-C-C-C bonding, where dual σ-donation from adjacent C-C bonds to the center stabilizes the metallacycle intermediate in , as detailed in recent studies showing lower energy barriers compared to π-complex alternatives. These σ-bond interactions are generally less common than C-H agostic due to stricter geometric requirements and ligand constraints, but p-block variants like B-H or Al-H often exhibit greater strength owing to more polar σ-bonds and enhanced orbital overlap with metal acceptors. Anagostic interactions, as H-specific weak variants, share similarities but are distinguished by their minimal bonding contribution compared to these broader σ-analogs.

Role in Reactivity and Catalysis

Mechanistic Functions

Agostic interactions play a crucial role in stabilizing electron-deficient organometallic intermediates, particularly those with 14- to 16-electron counts. By forming a between the metal, carbon, and hydrogen atoms, these interactions donate electron density from the σ C-H orbital to the metal center, effectively increasing the electron count to 18 s without requiring additional s. This stabilization prevents ligand dissociation or β-hydride elimination, allowing reactive to persist under catalytic conditions. For instance, in coordinatively unsaturated alkyl complexes, β-agostic interactions maintain structural integrity during key reaction steps. In mechanistic pathways, agostic interactions facilitate C-H bond activation by weakening the C-H bond through partial donation to the metal, lowering the barrier for . This electron donation polarizes the bond, making hydrogen more accessible for transfer or insertion processes, such as in migratory insertion reactions where the agostic hydrogen bridges the between the metal-alkyl and incoming . Similarly, in , agostic coordination of a β-hydrogen assists product release by opening a coordination site and stabilizing the departing σ-bond, as seen in platinum alkyl systems where an agostic interaction precedes the elimination step. Agostic interactions also promote fluxionality in organometallic species, enabling β-hydride shifts that rearrange ligands without full dissociation or elimination. These shifts occur via low-barrier transitions where the agostic hydrogen migrates between positions, facilitating dynamic equilibria observed in spectroscopic studies of ethyl complexes. (DFT) models indicate that such interactions lower free energies (ΔG‡) compared to non-agostic pathways, enhancing reaction rates in C-H and insertion processes. Detection of these intermediates via low-temperature NMR further confirms their role in bridging ground and transition states.

Applications in Polymerization

In Ziegler-Natta catalysts employing or centers, β-agostic interactions stabilize the growing alkyl following olefin insertion, which occurs after formation of a π-complex with the , thereby promoting efficient and high yields. These interactions involve the coordination of a β-C-H bond to the metal, reducing the energy barrier for subsequent coordination and insertion while minimizing premature termination pathways. Computational and spectroscopic studies confirm that such β-agostic bonding is prevalent in heterogeneous Ti/MgCl₂ systems activated by alkylaluminum cocatalysts, enabling the industrial-scale production of linear and . Metallocene catalysts, such as zirconocene or titanocene derivatives, rely on α-agostic interactions to dictate tacticity through selective facial approach of the . In these systems, the α-agostic coordination of the growing chain's terminal C-H bond orients the polymeryl group in the , favoring enantiotopic face selection (e.g., re-face for isotactic production using C₂-symmetric metallocenes like rac-Et(Ind)₂ZrCl₂). This mechanism enhances stereoregularity, as evidenced by labeling experiments and DFT calculations showing preferential stabilization of the agostic-assisted insertion pathway over non-agostic alternatives. In late α-diimine catalysts developed by Brookhart, such as those based on Ni(II) or Pd(II), β-agostic interactions drive chain walking, enabling the formation of branched from alone. The β-agostic alkyl cation intermediate facilitates β-hydride elimination followed by reinsertion of the olefin, allowing migration of the metal along the chain and incorporation of short-chain branches (e.g., methyl or ethyl). Spectroscopic of these agostic , combined with kinetic studies, reveals barriers to of 10-15 kcal/mol, resulting in polymers with tunable branching densities up to 100 branches per 1000 carbons. Recent developments from 2020 to 2025 have elucidated the role of agostic interactions in bis(imino)pyridyl iron catalysts for ethylene polymerization, where α- and β-agostic effects enhance stereoselectivity and catalytic efficiency. DFT studies on these low-cost, high-activity systems demonstrate that agostic stabilization in insertion transition states lowers energy barriers by approximately 1-2 kcal/mol. These insights have led to optimized Fe catalysts producing ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene with improved branch control. Agostic interactions across these catalytic platforms are vital for attaining high molecular weight polymers with narrow polydispersity indices (typically PDI < 2), as they suppress β-hydride elimination and , preventing formation and enabling living-like behaviors under industrial conditions.

References

  1. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0610747104
  2. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-328X(83)85065-7
  3. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00346a022
  4. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/om00060a019
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022328X9606216X
  6. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja962640+
  7. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja901460y
  8. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2016/dt/c5dt04548g
  9. https://doi.org/10.1021/om99278-2
  10. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201801531
  11. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscatal.7b03396
  12. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1751
  13. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2015/cp/c4cp05728g
  14. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/anie.202316364
  15. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.4c04255
  16. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja01022a052
  17. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja00850a025
  18. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470166376.ch1
  19. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1986/c3/c39860000372
  20. https://ccl.net/chemistry/resources/messages/1995/07/13.007-dir/index.html
  21. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c00771
  22. https://girolami-group.chemistry.illinois.edu/publications/publications/Organometallics%201994,%2013,%201646.pdf
  23. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2015/cc/c4cc09699a
  24. https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/68542b43c1cb1ecda0d9ca89
  25. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.202100263
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001085450800132X
  27. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cctc.202301677
  28. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b00182
  29. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr980401l
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6558042/
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010854517303363
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241960516_Four-Electron-Donor_Hemilabile_e3-PPh3_Ligand_that_Binds_through_a_CC_Bond_Rather_than_an_Agostic_C-H_Interaction_and_Displacement_of_the_CC_by_Methyl_Iodide_or_Water
  33. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26847809/
  34. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qua.27493
  35. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/sc/d1sc01430g
  36. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610747104
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1381116916303995
  38. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja972618n
  39. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4344/10/12/1396
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468823120303813
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.