Hubbry Logo
Bridging ligandBridging ligandMain
Open search
Bridging ligand
Community hub
Bridging ligand
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Bridging ligand
Bridging ligand
Bridging ligand
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
An example of a μ2 bridging ligand, represented with the red letter "L"

In coordination chemistry, a bridging ligand is a ligand that connects two or more atoms, usually metal ions.[1] The ligand may be atomic or polyatomic. Virtually all complex organic compounds can serve as bridging ligands, so the term is usually restricted to small ligands such as pseudohalides or to ligands that are specifically designed to link two metals.

In naming a complex wherein a single atom bridges two metals, the bridging ligand is preceded by the Greek letter mu, μ,[2] with a subscript number denoting the number of metals bound to the bridging ligand. μ2 is often denoted simply as μ. When describing coordination complexes care should be taken not to confuse μ with η ('eta'), which relates to hapticity. Ligands that are not bridging are called terminal ligands.

List of bridging ligands

[edit]

Virtually all ligands are known to bridge, with the exception of amines and ammonia.[3] Common bridging ligands include most of the common anions.

Bridging ligand Name Example
OH− hydroxide [Fe2(OH)2(H2O)8]4+, see olation
O2− oxide [Cr2O7]2−, see polyoxometalate
SH− hydrosulfido Cp2Mo2(SH)2S2
NH−2 amido HgNH2Cl
N3− nitride [Ir3N(SO4)6(H2O)3]4−, see metal nitrido complex
CO carbonyl Fe2(CO)9, see bridging carbonyl
Cl− chloride Nb2Cl10, see halide ligands
H− hydride B2H6
CN− cyanide approx. Fe7(CN)18 (prussian blue), see cyanometalate
PPh−2 diphenylphosphide see transition metal phosphido complexes

Many simple organic ligands form strong bridges between metal centers. Many common examples include organic derivatives of the above inorganic ligands (R = alkyl, aryl): OR−, SR−, NR−2, NR2− (imido), PR−2 (phosphido, note the ambiguity with the preceding entry), PR2− (phosphinidino), and many more.

Examples

[edit]
  • Compounds and complexes with bridging ligands
  • In this ruthenium complex ((benzene)ruthenium dichloride dimer), two chloride ligands are terminal and two are μ2 bridging.
    In this ruthenium complex ((benzene)ruthenium dichloride dimer), two chloride ligands are terminal and two are μ2 bridging.
  • Pyrazine is a bridging ligand in this diruthenium compound, called the Creutz–Taube complex.
    Pyrazine is a bridging ligand in this diruthenium compound, called the Creutz–Taube complex.
  • In the cobalt cluster Co3(CO)9(CtBu), the CtBu ligand is triply bridging, although this aspect is typically not indicated in the formula.
    In the cobalt cluster Co3(CO)9(CtBu), the CtBu ligand is triply bridging, although this aspect is typically not indicated in the formula.
  • In triiron dodecacarbonyl, two CO ligands are bridging and ten are terminal ligands. The terminal and bridging CO ligands interchange rapidly.
    In triiron dodecacarbonyl, two CO ligands are bridging and ten are terminal ligands. The terminal and bridging CO ligands interchange rapidly.
  • In NbCl5, there are two bridging and eight terminal chloride ligands.
    In NbCl5, there are two bridging and eight terminal chloride ligands.
  • The cluster [Au6C(PPh3)6]2+ features a μ6-carbide ligand, although again, the designator "μ" is not usually used.
    The cluster [Au6C(PPh3)6]2+ features a μ6-carbide ligand, although again, the designator "μ" is not usually used.
  • In rhenium trioxide, the oxide ligands are all μ2. These oxide ligands "glue" together the metal centres.
    In rhenium trioxide, the oxide ligands are all μ2. These oxide ligands "glue" together the metal centres.
  • In the case of ZrCl4, there are both terminal and doubly bridging chloride ligands.
    In the case of ZrCl4, there are both terminal and doubly bridging chloride ligands.
  • In rhodium(II) acetate, the four acetate groups are bridging ligands.
    In rhodium(II) acetate, the four acetate groups are bridging ligands.
  • In VO(HPO4)·0.5H2O, pairs of vanadium(IV) centers are bridged by water ligands.[4]
    In VO(HPO4)·0.5H2O, pairs of vanadium(IV) centers are bridged by water ligands.[4]

Bonding

[edit]

For doubly bridging (μ2-) ligands, two limiting representation are 4-electron and 2-electron bonding interactions. These cases are illustrated in main group chemistry by [Me2Al(μ2-Cl)]2 and [Me2Al(μ2-Me)]2. Complicating this analysis is the possibility of metal–metal bonding. Computational studies suggest that metal-metal bonding is absent in many compounds where the metals are separated by bridging ligands. For example, calculations suggest that Fe2(CO)9 lacks an iron–iron bond by virtue of a 3-center 2-electron bond involving one of three bridging CO ligands.[5]

Representations of two kinds of μ-bridging ligand interactions, 3-center, 4-electron bond (left) and 3-center, 2-electron bonding.[5]

Bridge-terminal exchange

[edit]

The interchange of bridging and terminal ligands is called bridge-terminal exchange. The process is invoked to explain the fluxional properties of metal carbonyl and metal isocyanide complexes.[6] Some complexes that exhibit this process are cobalt carbonyl and cyclopentadienyliron dicarbonyl dimer:

Co2(μ-CO)2(CO)6 ⇌ Co2(μ-CO)2(CO)4(CO)2
(C5H5)2Fe2(μ-CO)2(CO)2 ⇌ (C5H5)2Fe2(μ-CO)2(CO)2

These dynamic processes, which are degenerate, proceed via an intermediate where the CO ligands are all terminal, i.e., (CO)4Co−Co(CO)4 and (C5H5)(CO)2Fe−Fe(CO)2C5H5.

Bridge-terminal exchange is common for metal complexes of borohydride where the M-H-B and B-Hterminal sites interchange with low barriers.[7]

Polyfunctional ligands

[edit]

Polyfunctional ligands can attach to metals in many ways and thus can bridge metals in diverse ways, including sharing of one atom or using several atoms. Examples of such polyatomic ligands are the oxoanions CO2−3 and the related carboxylates, PO3−4, and the polyoxometalates. Several organophosphorus ligands have been developed that bridge pairs of metals, a well-known example being Ph2PCH2PPh2.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Bridging ligand

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In coordination chemistry, a bridging is a that binds to two or more central atoms, typically metal ions, thereby linking them within a coordination compound. This binding occurs through the donation of electron pairs from the to multiple metal centers, distinguishing bridging ligands from terminal ligands that coordinate to only one metal. Bridging ligands can be monoatomic ions or polyatomic and are denoted in nomenclature using the prefix "μ-" (Greek mu) to indicate their connective role, as per IUPAC recommendations. Common examples of bridging ligands include small anionic species such as the chlorido (Cl⁻), hydroxido (OH⁻), oxidanido (O²⁻), and cyanido (CN⁻) ions, which frequently form symmetric or asymmetric bridges in dinuclear and polynuclear metal complexes. For instance, the chlorido ligand serves as a μ-chlorido bridge in compounds like di-μ-chlorido-bis[dichloridoaluminium(III)], while the peroxido ligand (O₂²⁻) exemplifies a polyatomic bridge in μ-peroxido-1κO¹,2κO²-bis(trioxidosulfate)(2⁻). Other notable bridging ligands encompass alkoxido (OR⁻) groups and, in organometallic contexts, carbon monoxide (CO), which can adopt bridging modes in metal carbonyl clusters. These ligands often participate in three-center bonding interactions, such as 3-center-2-electron or 3-center-4-electron bonds, influencing the overall geometry and stability of the complex. Bridging ligands are essential for constructing polynuclear complexes, metal clusters, and extended frameworks, where they mediate metal-metal interactions, electron delocalization, and charge transfer between centers. In , they play vital roles in metalloproteins, such as stabilizing active sites in enzymes (e.g., iron-sulfur clusters) and facilitating , oxygen transport, and processes. Beyond , bridging ligands enable applications in for magnetic and luminescent materials, in for synthetic transformations, and in for designing metal-based drugs and imaging agents like MRI contrast compounds. Their versatility in tuning electronic properties and reactivity underscores their significance across inorganic and .

Fundamentals

Definition

In coordination chemistry, a is defined as an atom or polyatomic entity that binds simultaneously to two or more metal centers, thereby connecting them to form polynuclear complexes. This binding can occur via one or more donor atoms on the ligand, allowing it to connect metals and contribute to the overall architecture of the complex. In contrast, terminal ligands coordinate exclusively to a single metal center via one or more donor atoms, without linking to additional metals. Bridging ligands help form polynuclear systems, including those with metal-metal bonds or cluster frameworks. Formal , including the use of the prefix "μ-" to denote bridging, was codified by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in its 2005 recommendations on , with the online of Chemical Terminology (Gold Book) reflecting refinements. Bridging differs from (denoted η), which describes the number of contiguous atoms of a binding to a single metal center. Ligands are Lewis bases that donate pairs to metal centers through donor atoms such as , oxygen, or halides.

Notation and Terminology

In the notation of polynuclear coordination compounds, bridging ligands are designated using the Greek letter μ (mu) as a prefix to the ligand name, with a subscript indicating the number of central metal atoms bridged—for instance, μ₂ for a ligand connecting two metals or μ₃ for three. This convention applies to both the systematic names and structural formulas of such compounds, where bridging ligands are listed after terminal ligands of the same type and ordered alphabetically. The μ symbol specifically denotes intermetallic bridging and must be distinguished from the η (eta) notation, which describes the of a coordinating to a single metal center via multiple contiguous donor atoms, such as η⁵ for five atoms. Confusion between μ and η is avoided in to clarify whether coordination involves multiple metals or multiple sites on one metal. IUPAC recommendations, as outlined in the 2005 Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (Red Book) and the continuously updated online Compendium of Chemical Terminology (Gold Book), establish this μ-based system as the standard for describing bridging in coordination and organometallic compounds, including multiplicative prefixes like di-μ for multiple identical bridges. Bridging interactions may be described as symmetric if the metal-ligand distances are equivalent or asymmetric if unequal, due to electronic or . For example, a generic dinuclear complex featuring two bridging ligands and four terminal ligands is represented as [M₂(μ-X)₂L₄], where M denotes the metal centers, X the bridging ligand, and L the terminal ligands.

Types and Examples

Common Bridging Ligands

Bridging ligands encompass a diverse array of chemical species that connect two or more metal centers in coordination compounds, with common examples drawn from inorganic anions, pseudohalides, and organic derivatives. These ligands often adopt μ-bonding modes, as denoted by the Greek letter μ in structural nomenclature, facilitating the assembly of dinuclear or polynuclear complexes. Halide ions, such as (Cl⁻) and (Br⁻), are among the most frequently encountered inorganic bridging ligands, particularly in complexes of early s. For example, the dinuclear niobium(V) complex Nb₂Cl₁₀ features four bridging ligands that link the two Nb centers, stabilizing the structure through symmetric μ₂-Cl interactions. Similarly, (O²⁻) anions serve as robust bridges in oxo-metal clusters, commonly observed in high-oxidation-state systems where they support strong metal-oxygen-metal linkages. Hydroxo (OH⁻) ligands frequently bridge metal ions in aqueous environments, forming hydroxo-bridged dimers or oligomers. A representative case is the iron(III) aquo-hydroxo dimer [Fe₂(OH)₂(H₂O)₈]⁴⁺, where two μ-OH groups connect the Fe³⁺ centers with an Fe-O-Fe angle of approximately 106° and an Fe-Fe distance of 3.18 Å, contributing to the speciation of iron in mildly acidic solutions. Cyanide (CN⁻) acts as a versatile bridging ligand in polynuclear frameworks, exemplified by Prussian blue (Fe₄[Fe(CN)₆]₃), a mixed-valence iron(II,III) cyanide complex where CN⁻ ions link alternating Fe²⁺ and Fe³⁺ sites in a three-dimensional cubic lattice, enabling magnetic and electronic properties. Pseudohalide ions, including (SCN⁻) and (N₃⁻), exhibit flexible coordination behaviors and often bridge metals through end-on or end-to-end modes. , for instance, forms end-to-end μ₂-SCN bridges in polymeric (II) chains, such as in [Ni(NCS)₂(py)₂]ₙ, promoting antiferromagnetic coupling between Ni²⁺ centers. ligands similarly bridge in diverse motifs, as seen in (II) clusters where μ₁,₁-N₃ units connect metal ions, influencing magnetic exchange interactions. Carbonyl (CO) ligands can adopt bridging configurations in organometallic compounds, with [Fe₂(CO)₉] featuring three μ₂-CO groups that link the Fe centers alongside an Fe-Fe bond, as confirmed by and IR showing characteristic low-frequency CO stretches for the bridges. Hydride (H⁻) serves as a bridging ligand in main-group hydrides, notably in diborane (B₂H₆), where two symmetric B-H-B three-center two-electron bonds connect the boron atoms, resulting in a structure with D₂ₕ symmetry and B-H bridge lengths of 1.32 Å. Organic derivatives extend this repertoire, with alkoxide (OR⁻) groups bridging in metal alkoxides, such as in early transition metal clusters like [Ti(OR)₄]ₙ oligomers, where μ₂-OR units stabilize the framework through oxygen donation. Thiolate (SR⁻) ligands commonly bridge in late transition metal complexes, for example, in [Fe₂(SR)₂(CO)₆] where two μ₂-SR groups link the iron centers, mimicking sulfur-rich active sites in metalloproteins. Carboxylate (RCOO⁻) anions are ubiquitous bridges in paddlewheel dinuclear complexes, such as [M₂(O₂CR)₄] (M = Cu, Mo), featuring four syn-syn μ₂-carboxylate ligands that support metal-metal bonds. While a wide range of ligands can participate in bridging, hard σ-donors like (NH₃) and amines typically remain terminal due to their limited ability to form stable bridges, preferring monodentate coordination to a single metal center.
LigandDonor Atom(s)Typical Metals Bridged
Halides (Cl⁻, Br⁻)Cl, BrEarly transition metals (e.g., Nb, Ta)
Oxide (O²⁻)OTransition metals (e.g., Ti, Zr, early d-block)
Hydroxo (OH⁻)OFirst-row transition metals (e.g., Fe, Cr)
(CN⁻)C or NIron, , other mid-to-late d-block
(SCN⁻)S or N, , second-row transition metals
(N₃⁻)N, , lanthanides
Carbonyl (CO)C and OIron, , group 8 metals
(H⁻)H, early transition metals
(OR⁻)O, zirconium, main-group metals
Thiolate (SR⁻)SIron, , late transition metals
(RCOO⁻)O (bidentate), , paddlewheel motifs

Bridging Modes

Bridging modes in coordination chemistry describe the geometric and coordination arrangements by which a connects two or more metal centers, denoted using the Greek letter μ (mu) with a subscript indicating the number of metals bridged, as per standard IUPAC . The simplest and most prevalent mode is μ₂, where the ligand simultaneously coordinates to exactly two metal atoms, typically in an edge-bridging configuration that forms a diamond-shaped core with alternating metal and ligand positions (M-L-M-L ). This arrangement is characterized by the ligand adopting a bent at the bridge, with M-L-M angles often ranging from 60° to 90°, stabilizing dinuclear complexes through both σ-donation and potential . Higher-order bridging modes, such as μ₃, involve the coordinating to three metal centers, commonly in a (or capping) fashion over a triangular metal face in cluster compounds, where the sits above the plane of the metals to maximize orbital overlap. In μ₃ configurations, the often exhibits a pyramidal or symmetric disposition relative to the metal triangle, contributing to the stability of larger polynuclear assemblies. Modes beyond μ₃, like μ₄ or higher, appear in extended structures such as metal-organic frameworks or high-nuclearity clusters, where the spans multiple metals in a planar or tetrahedral arrangement to propagate networks. Within μ₂ bridges, symmetry varies: symmetric modes feature equivalent M-L bond lengths and angles, often when the metals are identical and the is small, while asymmetric modes show unequal M-L distances (differences up to 0.5 or more), influenced by factors such as disparities in metal ionic radii, oxidation states, or ligand basicity that alter distribution across the bridge. For certain pseudohalide ligands, bridging can be open (linear, with M-N-N angles near 180° for end-to-end coordination) or closed (bent, with angles around 120° for end-on coordination), affecting the overall complex geometry and potential for metal-metal bonding. In cases involving delocalized π-systems, bridging modes incorporate notation, such as η²-μ, where the binds sideways (η²) to one metal via two atoms and end-on (μ) to another, enabling π-delocalization across the bridge as seen in unsaturated organic fragments. Common ligands like halides frequently adopt μ₂ modes, while polyatomic species can access higher μ_n or mixed arrangements depending on the metal environment. The core M₂L₂ rhombus in μ₂ bridging can be visualized as:

M L / \ / \ L M-M L \ / \ / L M

M L / \ / \ L M-M L \ / \ / L M

This schematic highlights the four-membered ring with alternating vertices, where bond lengths and angles dictate the planarity and distortion.

Bonding and Structure

Bonding Mechanisms

Bridging ligands in dinuclear metal complexes often form bonds through multicenter interactions that differ from the typical two-center two-electron (2c-2e) bonds seen in terminal ligands. A prominent mechanism is the three-center two-electron (3c-2e) bond, particularly for ligands like and carbonyls (CO). In bridges, the bonding arises from the overlap of two metal-based orbitals (typically d or s/p hybrids) with the 1s orbital, forming a (MO) delocalized over the M–H–M unit. The bonding MO, occupied by two electrons, provides stabilization, while the higher-energy antibonding and nonbonding MOs remain unoccupied, leading to a bent bridge geometry that minimizes antibonding interactions. For bridging CO, the 3c-2e interaction involves donation from the carbon to both metals and pi back-donation from metal d orbitals into the CO π* orbital, but the multicenter nature reduces the effective backbonding per metal compared to terminal CO, where full 2c-2e donation and pi acceptance occur exclusively with one metal. In contrast, some bridging ligands, such as alkyl groups in main-group complexes like [Me₂Al(μ-Me)]₂, involve three-center four-electron (3c-4e) bonds. Here, the carbon sp³ hybrid orbital contributes three electrons, and each aluminum provides one, filling both the bonding and nonbonding MOs while populating the antibonding MO partially, resulting in weaker, more ionic character than 3c-2e bonds. This mechanism accommodates the higher from the , stabilizing the dimer without requiring a direct metal-metal bond. Sigma donation in bridging ligands generally occurs via symmetric or asymmetric overlap of ligand lone pairs or orbitals with both metal centers, often weaker per bond than in terminal modes due to geometric constraints. Pi backbonding, when present (e.g., in CO or phosphine bridges), involves metal d electrons delocalized into ligand π* orbitals, but the shared nature across metals diminishes the stabilization per site relative to terminal ligands, where backbonding strengthens the isolated M–L bond. In cases involving d¹⁰ metals, such as certain Cu(I) or Au(I) complexes, bridging ligands support close metal-metal contacts without a formal metal-metal bond, as the filled d shells preclude additional bonding overlap. Electron counting rules for bridging s in dinuclear complexes treat them as contributing 1 or 2 s per metal, depending on the bridge symmetry and type. For symmetric μ₂ bridges like halides or hydrides, each metal receives 1 from the pair, maintaining the without invoking a metal-metal bond. This is exemplified in the simplified MO diagram for a μ₂-Cl bridge in [M₂Cl₂], where the σ bonding orbital forms from in-phase combinations of two M–Cl σ orbitals and the Cl p orbital perpendicular to the M–Cl–M plane: ψbonding=c1(ϕM1+ϕM2)+c2ϕCl(occupied by 2e, σ symmetry)\begin{align*} & \psi_{\text{bonding}} = c_1 (\phi_{\text{M1}} + \phi_{\text{M2}}) + c_2 \phi_{\text{Cl}} \\ & \text{(occupied by 2e, σ symmetry)} \end{align*} A nonbonding combination on the metals and an antibonding MO complete the set, with the 4 electrons (two from each Cl lone pair) filling the bonding and nonbonding levels, supporting the 1e per metal assignment.

Structural Features

Bridging ligands in coordination complexes exhibit characteristic geometric parameters that distinguish them from terminal ligands. In μ₂-bridging modes, the metal-ligand-metal (M-L-M) angles typically range from 60° to 90° for small ligands such as halides or hydrides, reflecting the constrained geometry imposed by the shared ligand between two metal centers. These angles can extend to 90°–110° in cases involving larger ligands or polymeric structures, allowing for greater flexibility in the coordination framework. Additionally, M-L bond lengths in bridging configurations are generally longer than those in terminal modes—often by 0.1–0.3 Å—due to the partial bonding character distributed across two metals, as observed in carbonyl complexes where bridging M-C distances exceed 1.9 Å compared to ~1.8 Å for terminal CO. Metal-metal distances in complexes with bridging ligands vary depending on whether a direct M-M bond is present. In cases with strong M-M bonding, such as the quadruple bond in [Re₂Cl₈]²⁻, the Re-Re distance is notably short at 2.24 Å, well below 3 Å, supporting the stability of the dinuclear unit without reliance on the chloride bridges for primary connectivity. Conversely, non-bonded or weakly interacting pairs exhibit longer distances, often exceeding 3 Å, where the bridging ligand primarily maintains cluster integrity. Bridging ligands play a crucial role in stabilizing clusters even without direct M-M bonds; for instance, in [Fe₂(CO)₉], three μ₂-CO ligands support an Fe-Fe separation of approximately 2.52 Å, though the presence of a direct Fe-Fe bond remains controversial in the literature. Spectroscopic techniques provide key evidence for bridging ligand structures. Infrared (IR) spectroscopy reveals lower stretching frequencies for bridged carbonyls compared to terminal ones, typically in the 1720–1850 cm⁻¹ range versus 2000–2100 cm⁻¹, arising from weakened C-O bonds due to the ligand's interaction with two metals. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy further confirms symmetric bridges through equivalent chemical shifts for ligand nuclei, as seen in dinuclear complexes where rapid averaging or inherent symmetry leads to singlets for bridging protons or carbons. X-ray crystallography highlights variations in bridging symmetry, with asymmetric bridges more prevalent in early transition metal complexes (e.g., Ta or W systems with unequal M-L distances differing by >0.2 Å) compared to more symmetric arrangements in late transition metals like Rh or Ir, where electron density distribution favors balanced coordination. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations have validated these structural features, particularly in post-2012 studies that accurately reproduce experimental geometries and confirm the influence of bridging s on metal-ligand bond lengths and angles. For example, DFT analyses of dinuclear Ir and Rh complexes with amido or chloro bridges predict M-L-M angles within 5° of data and highlight how ligand type modulates metal-metal separations, providing computational support for observed asymmetries in early versus late metal systems.

Dynamics and Reactivity

Bridge-Terminal Exchange

Bridge-terminal exchange refers to a fluxional process in coordination compounds where a bridging (denoted as μ or η²) interconverts with a terminal (η¹) via specific transition states, often observed in polynuclear metal complexes with labile ligands like . This dynamic interconversion allows the ligand to migrate between bridging and terminal positions, contributing to the overall flexibility of the complex structure. The mechanism of bridge-terminal exchange typically proceeds via a pathway, involving the opening of the metal-ligand-metal bridge to form an all-terminal intermediate, followed by of the bridge with a different . Associative mechanisms, which might involve direct addition or concerted shifts without dissociation, are less common but possible in certain systems depending on the metal and ligand environment. A representative example is the exchange of CO ligands in the bridged isomer of , Co₂(μ-CO)₂(CO)₆, where terminal and bridging CO groups interconvert rapidly. The activation barrier for this process is relatively low, enabling observable dynamics at moderate temperatures. This exchange is highly temperature-dependent, with rates increasing significantly as temperature rises, and it is particularly prevalent in clusters due to the weak π-backbonding in bridging positions that facilitates migration. Variable-temperature (VT-NMR) provides key evidence for bridge-terminal exchange, revealing line broadening of CO signals at low temperatures and coalescence into averaged resonances at higher temperatures as the exchange rate approaches the NMR timescale. The kinetics of the exchange follow a simplified Arrhenius rate law: k=Ae−Ea/RTk = A e^{-E_a / RT} where kk is the rate constant, AA is the , EaE_a is the , RR is the , and TT is the absolute temperature. This equation quantifies the temperature dependence observed in spectroscopic studies.

Fluxional Processes

Fluxional processes in bridging ligand systems encompass dynamic rearrangements of the entire molecular framework, distinct from simple bridge-terminal exchanges, which primarily involve positional interchanges of ligands without altering the overall cluster geometry. These processes often proceed through concerted motions that maintain cluster integrity while allowing ligands to migrate or scramble across multiple coordination sites, typically without direct involvement of terminal ligands. Such behaviors are crucial for understanding the reactivity and stability of polynuclear metal complexes where bridging ligands play a central role in mediating structural flexibility. In phosphine-bridged metal clusters, Berry pseudorotation serves as a key mechanism for fluxionality, particularly in systems where five-coordinate metal centers are linked by phosphido (PR₂⁻) bridges. This pseudorotation involves a trigonal bipyramidal intermediate transitioning to a square pyramidal , enabling the interchange of axial and equatorial positions of bridging phosphines and associated ligands. For instance, in tricobalt clusters with phosphido bridges, steric and electronic factors influence the pseudorotation pathway, leading to rearrangements that balance cluster symmetry and interactions. Computational and experimental studies confirm that these motions occur with low barriers in such systems, facilitating adaptive coordination environments. Ligand migration in borohydride complexes exemplifies another fluxional process, where the [BH₄]⁻ shifts between η² (bidentate, bridging two metals or hydrogens) and η¹ (monodentate) modes. These shifts involve atoms moving across metal centers, often driven by changes in electronic density or coordination demands, as seen in tetrahydroborates like those of Zr or . Dynamic NMR studies reveal rapid interconversion at , with barriers typically below 10 kcal/mol, allowing the complex to access multiple isomeric forms without dissociation. The secondary coordination sphere, including other bridging ligands, modulates these migrations by stabilizing transition states. In higher-nuclearity clusters, such as Ru₃ systems, scrambling represents a broader fluxional behavior where bridging carbonyls or other ligands redistribute across the cluster face. In Ru₃(CO)₁₂, for example, low-energy motions scramble semi-bridging CO ligands via merry-go-round or rocking mechanisms, evidenced by variable-temperature NMR showing coalescence at temperatures around -60°C. These processes maintain the triangular core while permuting positions, with crystal structures of derivatives supporting the dynamic model. Barriers to scrambling, generally 5-15 kcal/mol, can be lowered by coordinating solvents like THF or additives that weakly bind to metal sites, reducing steric congestion and stabilizing fluxional intermediates.

Advanced Bridging Systems

Polyfunctional Ligands

Polyfunctional ligands, also referred to as polytopic or multidentate bridging ligands, are polyatomic species in coordination chemistry that employ multiple donor atoms to connect two or more metal centers, enabling diverse and complex bridging architectures. These ligands typically feature several coordination sites, such as oxygen or donors, which allow for simultaneous binding to multiple metals, often denoted in bridging modes like μ₂ (bidentate) or higher. This multifunctionality distinguishes them from monofunctional ligands and facilitates the formation of polynuclear clusters or extended frameworks. For instance, the anion (CO₃²⁻) acts as a polyfunctional bridge by coordinating through two or three of its oxygen atoms, as observed in carbonate complexes where it links metal ions in bidentate or tridentate fashions. Similarly, the anion (PO₄³⁻) utilizes up to four oxygen atoms for bridging, forming tripodal or tetrapodal connections in metal-phosphate assemblies, which enhance through multiple coordination bonds. Representative examples of polyfunctional ligands include carboxylates and diphosphines, which exemplify versatile bridging behaviors. Carboxylate ions (RCOO⁻) commonly adopt a bidentate μ₂-O,O bridging mode, where the two oxygen atoms symmetrically link adjacent metal centers, as seen in numerous zinc(II) carboxylate coordination polymers that propagate into chain or sheet structures. Diphosphines, such as 1,2-bis(diphenylphosphino)ethane (Ph₂PCH₂CH₂PPh₂), bridge metals via a μ₂-P,P mode, coordinating through both phosphorus atoms to form dimeric or polymeric complexes, particularly with silver(I) or transition metals where the flexible ethylene spacer allows adaptation to varying metal-metal distances. In more extended systems, polyoxometalates like the [Mo_{36}O_{112}(H_2O)_{16}]^{8-} cluster demonstrate polyfunctional bridging on a larger scale, where multiple oxo groups serve as bridges within the molybdenum-oxygen framework, creating high-nuclearity assemblies with internal connectivity that mimics molecular oxides. The design of polyfunctional ligands often incorporates spacer groups to tune bridging geometry and flexibility, a key principle in supramolecular coordination chemistry. By varying the length or rigidity of spacers—such as alkyl chains or aromatic linkers between donor sites—chemists can control the spatial arrangement of metals, promoting predictable into discrete oligomers or infinite lattices. For example, incorporating flexible methylene spacers in diphosphine ligands allows for adjustable bite angles, facilitating adaptation to different coordination environments in supramolecular constructs. Synthesis of complexes with these ligands typically proceeds from mononuclear metal precursors through ligand exchange reactions, where labile ligands on the metal center are displaced by the polyfunctional species under controlled conditions, such as in solution with added base or heat to promote bridging. This approach, exemplified in the substitution of bridging ligands in preformed metal-organic polyhedra, enables stepwise assembly while maintaining solubility and structural integrity. One primary advantage of polyfunctional ligands lies in their ability to propagate coordination networks into one-dimensional (1D) chains, two-dimensional (2D) layers, or three-dimensional (3D) frameworks, leveraging multiple donor sites for enhanced connectivity. In 1D polymers, such as those formed by carboxylate bridges between d¹⁰ metal ions, the ligands dictate linear extension with tunable topologies. Extending to 2D sheets, polytopic ligands like azolates or carboxylates link metals into planar motifs via edge-sharing coordination, while 3D networks arise from ligands with orthogonal donor orientations, filling space efficiently and yielding porous materials with applications in gas storage, though the focus here remains on structural design. This multidimensional capability stems from the ligands' inherent versatility, allowing for hierarchical assembly without the need for additional templating agents.

Applications in Catalysis and Materials

Bridging ligands play a crucial role in dinuclear palladium complexes for C-H activation catalysis, where metal-metal cooperation facilitates the activation of inert C-H bonds through bimetallic pathways that lower energy barriers compared to mononuclear systems. For instance, dinuclear Pd(I) complexes with bridging allyl ligands exhibit enhanced reactivity in stoichiometric C-H functionalization, enabling selective bond cleavage and subsequent transformations relevant to synthetic applications. Similarly, μ-oxo-bridged diiron complexes serve as precatalysts for alkane and alkene oxidation via C-H activation, mimicking enzymatic processes and demonstrating high efficiency in oxygen atom transfer. In , rhodium complexes featuring chloride bridges, such as Rh₂(μ-Cl)₂ cores supported by binucleating s, exhibit versatile activity for and arene reduction under mild conditions. These bridged systems promote selective of substrates like styrene, achieving high turnover numbers while maintaining catalyst integrity through the stabilizing effect of the μ-Cl . Bridging ligands are integral to the construction of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) for gas storage applications, where bridges link metal nodes to form porous structures with exceptional adsorption capacities. In , a copper-based MOF with benzene-1,3,5-tricarboxylate ligands forming paddlewheel units, the framework delivers high uptake of up to 0.183 g CH₄ per g of material at 35 bar and 298 K, attributed to the open metal sites created by the bridging s. This design enhances via coordinative interactions, making such materials promising for . In , polyfunctional bridging ligands enable the assembly of metal-organic nanoparticles for , where the ligands serve dual roles in structural integrity and therapeutic payload release. Nanoscale MOFs constructed from polydentate organic bridges and metal ions encapsulate drugs within their pores, providing controlled release triggered by or enzymatic conditions in tumor microenvironments. These systems, such as those based on iron or nodes with and bridges, improve and reduce systemic compared to free drugs. Recent advances highlight the use of in bimetallic molecular for CO₂ reduction, enhancing selectivity toward valuable products like CO or . These designs draw from enzymatic inspiration, promoting substrate binding and between metal sites. A key advantage of in these applications is their ability to foster between metal centers, enabling synergistic activation of substrates that accelerates reaction rates and improves selectivity in both catalytic cycles and material frameworks. However, challenges persist regarding the stability of bridged complexes under harsh reaction conditions, such as high temperatures or acidic media in CO₂ reduction, which can lead to dissociation and deactivation.

References

  1. https://people.wou.edu/~courtna/ch412/ligand.htm
  2. https://iupac.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Inorganic-Brief-Guide-V1-3.pdf
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010854515001216
  4. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.1c00725
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2761982/
  6. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-65687-6
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022328X21003995
  8. https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/B00741
  9. https://iupac.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Red_Book_2005.pdf
  10. https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Saint_Marys_College_Notre_Dame_IN/CHEM_431%253A_Inorganic_Chemistry_%28Haas%29/CHEM_431_Readings/10%253A_Coordination_Chemistry_I_-_Structure_and_Isomers/10.05%253A_Coordination_Frameworks
  11. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2011/cs/c0cs00266a
  12. https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/preview/1375316/26008.pdf
  13. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ar970315s
  14. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cphc.202400144
  15. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejic.201100407
  16. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ic010792d
  17. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dt/d5dt01389e
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022328X00831964
  19. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2015/sc/c5sc02586a
  20. https://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/947/chapter/756442/Chemistry-of-Transition-Metal-Complexes-with-Group
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010854517302382
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1093326317302590
  23. https://old.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract04/RB-prs310804/Chap10-3.04.pdf
  24. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/om900361w
  25. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2002/dt/b109327d
  26. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.6b04060
  27. https://www.cup.lmu.de/ac/kluefers/homepage/L/kc2/literature/3z2e_bonds_2012.pdf
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001085459900051X
  29. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2016/nj/c6nj01741j
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022328X00993616
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010854500803653
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010854502002825
  33. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1700890114
  34. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ic00139a038
  35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21123107/
  36. https://chem.beloit.edu/classes/structure/jsmol/MM/cif/10118963.pdf
  37. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ic700390v
  38. https://alpha.chem.umb.edu/chemistry/ch611/documents/Lec6-CarbonylandPhosphineLigands.pdf
  39. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2019/sc/c9sc02683e
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020169399000614
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020169318307965
  42. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja00313a050
  43. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1992/dt/dt9920002573
  44. http://bard.cm.utexas.edu/resources/Bard-Reprint/411.pdf
  45. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/430_2007_076
  46. https://d-nb.info/1358995583/34
  47. https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/28/3/1132
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229069830_Diphosphines_as_bridging_ligands_in_polymeric_and_dimeric_thione-S-ligated_AgI_nitrate_complexes
  49. https://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/6954/1/hjclaytonfinalthesis.pdf
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46403938_Bridging-ligand-substitution_strategy_for_the_preparation_of_metal-organic_polyhedra
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010854522003307
  52. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apr/article/6/4/041311/124244/2D-coordination-polymers-Design-guidelines-and
  53. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials/special_issues/Coordi_Polym_Struct_Appl
  54. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjoc.201900371
  55. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2016/cs/c5cs00537j
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013422000587
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022328X03002043
  58. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/om060172q
  59. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2014/sc/c3sc52633j
  60. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2a9c/b0e36be5740b7bef7f0d8d23e9bf9728068a.pdf
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1367593109002038
  62. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ar200028a
  63. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplu.202300222
  64. https://hal.science/hal-03281109/document
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.