Hubbry Logo
D electron countD electron countMain
Open search
D electron count
Community hub
D electron count
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
D electron count
D electron count
D electron count
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The d electron count or number of d electrons is a chemistry formalism used to describe the electron configuration of the valence electrons of a transition metal center in a coordination complex.[1][2] The d electron count is an effective way to understand the geometry and reactivity of transition metal complexes. The formalism has been incorporated into the two major models used to describe coordination complexes; crystal field theory and ligand field theory, which is a more advanced version based on molecular orbital theory.[3] However the d electron count of an atom in a complex is often different from the d electron count of a free atom or a free ion of the same element.

Electron configurations of transition metal atoms

[edit]

For free atoms, electron configurations have been determined by atomic spectroscopy. Lists of atomic energy levels and their electron configurations have been published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for both neutral and ionized atoms.[4]

For neutral atoms of all elements, the ground-state electron configurations are listed in general chemistry[5] and inorganic chemistry[3]: 38  textbooks. The ground-state configurations are often explained using two principles: the Aufbau principle that subshells are filled in order of increasing energy, and the Madelung rule that this order corresponds to the order of increasing values of (n + l) where n is the principal quantum number and l is the azimuthal quantum number. This rule predicts for example that the 4s orbital (n = 4, l = 0, n + l = 4) is filled before the 3d orbital (n = 3, l = 2, n + l = 5), as in titanium with configuration [Ar]4s23d2.

There are a few exceptions with only one electron (or zero for palladium) in the ns orbital in favor of completing a half or a whole d shell. The usual explanation in chemistry textbooks is that half-filled or completely filled subshells are particularly stable arrangements of electrons.[6] An example is chromium whose electron configuration is [Ar]4s13d5 with a d electron count of 5 for a half-filled d subshell, although Madelung's rule predicts [Ar]4s23d4. Similarly copper is [Ar]4s13d10 with a full d subshell, and not [Ar]4s23d9. The configuration of palladium is [Kr]4d10 with zero 5s electrons.[3]: 38  However this trend is not consistent: tungsten, a group VI element like Cr and Mo has a Madelung-following [Xe]6s24f145d4, and niobium has a [Kr]5s14d4 as opposed to the Madelung rule predicted [Kr]5s24d3 which creates two partially-filled subshells.[7]

When a transition metal atom loses one or more electrons to form a positive ion, overall electron repulsion is reduced and the n d orbital energy is lowered more than the (n+1) s orbital energy. The ion is formed by removal of the outer s electrons and tends to have a dn configuration,[3]: 40  even though the s subshell is added to neutral atoms before the d subshell. For example, the Ti2+ ion has the ground-state configuration [Ar]3d2 [8] with a d electron count of 2, even though the total number of electrons is the same as the neutral calcium atom which is [Ar]4s2.

In coordination complexes between an electropositive transition metal atom and an electronegative ligand, the transition metal is approximately in an ionic state as assumed in crystal field theory, so that the electron configuration and d electron count are those of the transition metal ion rather than the neutral atom.

Ligand field perspective

[edit]
Ligand field scheme summarizing σ-bonding in the octahedral complex [Ti(H2O)6]3+.

According to Ligand Field Theory, the ns orbital is involved in bonding to the ligands and forms a strongly bonding orbital which has predominantly ligand character and the correspondingly strong anti-bonding orbital which is unfilled and usually well above the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO). Since the orbitals resulting from the ns orbital are either buried in bonding or elevated well above the valence, the ns orbitals are not relevant to describing the valence. Depending on the geometry of the final complex, either all three of the np orbitals or portions of them are involved in bonding, similar to the ns orbitals. The np orbitals if any that remain non-bonding still exceed the valence of the complex. That leaves the (n − 1)d orbitals to be involved in some portion of the bonding and in the process also describes the metal complex's valence electrons. The final description of the valence is highly dependent on the complex's geometry, in turn highly dependent on the d electron count and character of the associated ligands.

For example, in the MO diagram provided for the [Ti(H2O)6]3+ the ns orbital – which is placed above (n − 1)d in the representation of atomic orbitals (AOs) – is used in a linear combination with the ligand orbitals, forming a very stable bonding orbital with significant ligand character as well as an unoccupied high energy antibonding orbital which is not shown. In this situation the complex geometry is octahedral, which means two of the d orbitals have the proper geometry to be involved in bonding. The other three d orbitals in the basic model do not have significant interactions with the ligands and remain as three degenerate non-bonding orbitals. The two orbitals that are involved in bonding form a linear combination with two ligand orbitals with the proper symmetry. This results in two filled bonding orbitals and two orbitals which are usually the lowest unoccupied molecular orbitals (LUMO) or the highest partially filled molecular orbitals – a variation on the highest occupied molecular orbitals (HOMO).

Crystal field theory is an alternative description of electronic configurations that is simplified relative to LFT. It rationalizes a number of phenomena, but does not describe bonding nor offer an explanation for why ns electrons are ionized before (n − 1)d electrons.

Tanabe–Sugano diagram

[edit]

Each of the ten possible d electron counts has an associated Tanabe–Sugano diagram describing gradations of possible ligand field environments a metal center could experience in an octahedral geometry. The Tanabe–Sugano diagram with a small amount of information accurately predicts absorptions in the UV and visible electromagnetic spectrum resulting from d to d orbital electron transitions. It is these d–d transitions, ligand to metal charge transfers (LMCT), or metal to ligand charge transfers (MLCT) that generally give metals complexes their vibrant colors.

Limitation

[edit]

Counting d electrons is a formalism. Often it is difficult or impossible to assign electrons and charge to the metal center or a ligand. For a high-oxidation-state metal center with a +4 charge or greater it is understood that the true charge separation is much smaller. But referring to the formal oxidation state and d electron count can still be useful when trying to understand the chemistry.

Possible d electron counts

[edit]

There are many examples of every possible d electron configuration. What follows is a short description of common geometries and characteristics of each possible d electron count and representative examples.

d0
Commonly tetrahedral; however it is possible for d0 complexes to accommodate many electron pairs (bonds/coordination number) since their d orbitals are empty and well away from the 18-electron ceiling. Often colorless due to the lack of d to d transitions.
Examples: titanium tetrachloride, titanocene dichloride, Schwartz's reagent.
d1
Examples: molybdenum(V) chloride, vanadyl acetylacetonate, vanadocene dichloride, vanadium tetrachloride.
d2
Examples: titanocene dicarbonyl.
d3
Examples: Reinecke's salt.
d4
Octahedral high-spin: 4 unpaired electrons, paramagnetic, substitutionally labile.
Octahedral low-spin: 2 unpaired electrons, paramagnetic, substitutionally inert.
d5
High-spin [Fe(NO2)6]3− crystal field diagram
Low-spin [Fe(NO2)6]3− crystal field diagram
Octahedral high-spin: 5 unpaired electrons, paramagnetic, substitutionally labile.
Octahedral low-spin: 1 unpaired electron, paramagnetic, substitutionally inert.
Examples: potassium ferrioxalate, vanadium carbonyl.
d6
Commonly octahedral complexes in both high spin and low spin.
Octahedral high-spin: 4 unpaired electrons, paramagnetic, substitutionally labile.
Octahedral low-spin: no unpaired electrons, diamagnetic, substitutionally inert.
Examples: hexamminecobalt(III) chloride, sodium cobaltinitrite, molybdenum hexacarbonyl, ferrocene, ferroin, chromium carbonyl.
d7
Octahedral high spin: 3 unpaired electrons, paramagnetic, substitutionally labile.
Octahedral low spin: 1 unpaired electron, paramagnetic, substitutionally labile.
Examples: cobaltocene.
d8
Complexes which are d8 high-spin are usually octahedral (or tetrahedral) while low-spin d8 complexes are generally 16-electron square planar complexes. For first row transition metal complexes such as Ni2+ and Cu+ also form five-coordinate 18-electron species which vary from square pyramidal to trigonal bipyramidal.
Octahedral high spin: 2 unpaired electrons, paramagnetic, substitutionally labile.
Square planar low spin: no unpaired electrons, diamagnetic, substitutionally inert.
Examples: cisplatin, nickelocene, dichlorobis(ethylenediamine)nickel(II), iron pentacarbonyl, Zeise's salt, Vaska's complex, Wilkinson's catalyst.
d9
Stable complexes with this electron count are more common for first row (period four) transition metals center than they are for complexes based around second or third row transition metals centers. These include both four-coordinate 17-electron species and five-coordinate 19-electron species.
Examples: Schweizer's reagent.
d10
Often tetrahedral complexes limited to form 4 additional bonds (8 additional electrons) by the 18-electron ceiling. Often colorless due to the lack of d to d transitions.
Examples: tetrakis(triphenylphosphine)palladium(0), nickel carbonyl.

References

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

D electron count

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The d electron count, also known as the number of d electrons, is a key formalism in inorganic and coordination chemistry used to quantify the electrons in the d orbitals of a ion within a or organometallic compound. It is determined by first establishing the metal's based on the charges of the ligands and counterions, then subtracting this value from the metal's group number in the periodic table (using the IUPAC numbering system from 1 to 18), which yields the effective number of d electrons since the ns electrons are typically not included in the count for such purposes. For example, in the ion [Fe(CN)₆]⁴⁻, iron is in the +2 (group 8), resulting in a d⁶ configuration. This count plays a pivotal role in elucidating the electronic structure and behavior of complexes, influencing factors such as , color, and through the splitting and occupancy of d orbitals under ligand field effects. In (CFT), the d electron count determines whether a complex is high-spin or low-spin, affecting the number of unpaired electrons and thus ; for instance, a d⁵ configuration in an octahedral field can lead to five unpaired electrons in high-spin cases. It is also integral to the , an empirical guideline for the stability of organometallic compounds, where the total valence electrons around the metal (combining d electrons with those donated by s) ideally reach 18, mimicking a configuration and promoting kinetic inertness. Complexes deviating from this count, such as 16-electron species, are often catalytically active due to coordinative unsaturation. Beyond stability predictions, the d electron count informs reactivity patterns in and bioinorganic systems; for example, in enzymes like (Fe²⁺, d⁶), it governs oxygen binding affinity via spin state changes. Variations in count across the d-block (from d⁰ in early metals like Ti⁴⁺ to d¹⁰ in late metals like Cu⁺) correlate with preferences. Experimental determination often involves spectroscopic techniques like UV-Vis or EPR, which probe d-d transitions and unpaired spins, respectively.

Fundamentals of d Electrons

Definition and Notation

The d electron count refers to the number of electrons occupying the five d orbitals of a atom or , ranging from d0^0 to d10^{10}. These orbitals, part of the valence shell in the second and subsequent transition series, play a central role in the electronic properties of these elements. The standard notation uses a superscript to indicate the number of d electrons, written as dn^n where nn is an integer from 0 to 10 (e.g., d6^6 for six d electrons). For configurations in coordination compounds, the notation often specifies high-spin (hs) or low-spin (ls) states to denote the electron pairing influenced by the surrounding field. To determine the d electron count, the total valence electrons are assessed based on the metal's position in the periodic table. Neutral transition metals in group mm are considered to have mm valence electrons, all assigned to the d subshell, with adjustments for anomalies like s-d promotion (e.g., chromium in group 6 has a [Ar] 4s1^1 3d5^5 configuration but is treated as d6^6 for valence counting due to energy preferences). For ions, the count is obtained by subtracting the from the group number, reflecting the removal of s electrons prior to d electrons. The origins of d electron counting trace to early 20th-century atomic theory. The concept of quantized electron shells was proposed by in 1913, with subshells including d orbitals developed subsequently. Wolfgang Pauli's 1925 exclusion principle further refined this by limiting each orbital to two electrons of opposite spin, enabling the precise filling of d orbitals in multi-electron atoms.

Role in Transition Metal Chemistry

The d electron count in ions profoundly influences their magnetic properties, primarily through the presence or absence of unpaired electrons in the d orbitals. Ions with partially filled d subshells, such as d⁴ to d⁷ configurations in octahedral fields, often exhibit due to unpaired electrons, as seen in high-spin Fe²⁺ (d⁶) with four unpaired electrons. Conversely, low-spin complexes or those with d¹⁰ configurations like Zn²⁺ are diamagnetic, lacking unpaired electrons. This magnetic behavior arises from the pairing dictated by ligand field strength and is quantified by the spin-only , μ = √[n(n+2)] BM, where n is the number of unpaired d electrons. The vivid colors of many complexes stem from d-d electronic transitions, where electrons absorb visible light to shift between split d orbitals. These transitions are possible only for d¹ to d⁹ counts, as d⁰ (e.g., Ti⁴⁺) or d¹⁰ (e.g., Cu⁺) ions lack available d electrons for such promotions, resulting in colorless compounds. For instance, [Cr(H₂O)₆]³⁺ (d³) appears violet due to transitions in the visible region, modulated by the crystal field splitting energy Δ_o. The specific color depends on the d and environment, with stronger field ligands shifting absorption to higher energies (shorter wavelengths), resulting in observed colors in the to region. Catalytic activity in transition metals is enhanced by accessible d electrons, which enable adsorption and activation of substrates via σ-donation and π-backbonding. Partially filled d orbitals, as in d⁸ Ni²⁺ complexes, facilitate reactions by coordinating alkenes and H₂, lowering activation barriers through pathways. Similarly, d electrons in Fe catalysts mediate N₂ dissociation in synthesis, while in Ti-based systems, low d counts (e.g., d⁰ Ti⁴⁺ reduced to active d¹ Ti³⁺) promote olefin . In organometallic reactivity, the d electron count underpins the 16/18 electron rule, where stable complexes achieve 18 valence electrons, such as in closed-shell d⁶ ml⁶ configurations for octahedral geometry, for thermodynamic stability, while 16-electron species are reactive intermediates. This rule derives from effective atomic number considerations, with the metal's d electrons plus ligand donations totaling 18; for example, d⁸ Rh(I) in Wilkinson's catalyst reaches 16 electrons for H₂ oxidative addition, enabling hydrogenation. Reductive elimination from 18-electron adducts restores the 16-electron count, driving catalytic cycles. Low d counts (e.g., d⁶ to d¹⁰) favor π-acceptor ligands like CO to satisfy the rule, influencing reactivity trends across the block. Variable oxidation states in transition metals arise from the comparable ionization energies of 4s and 3d electrons, allowing sequential removal to access multiple d configurations. For Mn, states from +2 (d⁵) to +7 (d⁰) reflect this accessibility, with higher states stabilized by oxidizing ligands. This versatility enables redox chemistry, as d electrons participate in electron transfer without prohibitive energy costs. A key biological example is Fe²⁺ (d⁶) in , where the high-spin deoxy form (four unpaired electrons) reversibly binds O₂ at the sixth coordination site, transitioning to low-spin oxyhemoglobin and inducing via conformational changes. The d⁶ configuration allows back-donation to O₂ π* orbitals, preventing irreversible oxidation while enabling O₂ transport. Industrially, d electrons are pivotal in the Ziegler-Natta process, where centers (active as d¹ Ti³⁺) coordinate via vacant d orbitals for stereospecific , producing . In the Haber-Bosch process, Fe catalysts (d⁶-d⁸ configurations) use surface d electrons to dissociate N₂ and facilitate H₂ addition, enabling synthesis at scale despite high pressures. These applications underscore how d electron counts dictate catalytic efficiency and selectivity.

Electron Configurations in Transition Metals

Atomic and Ionic Configurations

The electron configurations of transition metal atoms and ions are determined by the , which dictates that electrons occupy orbitals in order of increasing energy, with the 4s orbital filling before the 3d orbitals in the first transition series. However, this order leads to exceptions where stability is gained through half-filled or fully filled subshells, such as in and . In the first-row transition metals (scandium to zinc), neutral atomic configurations generally follow the pattern [Ar] 4s² 3dⁿ, where n ranges from 1 to 10, reflecting the progressive filling of the 3d subshell across groups 3 to 12. adopts [Ar] 4s² 3d¹, [Ar] 4s² 3d², [Ar] 4s² 3d³, [Ar] 4s² 3d⁵, iron [Ar] 4s² 3d⁶, [Ar] 4s² 3d⁷, [Ar] 4s² 3d⁸, and [Ar] 4s² 3d¹⁰. Exceptions occur in ([Ar] 4s¹ 3d⁵) and ([Ar] 4s¹ 3d¹⁰), where one 4s electron is promoted to the 3d subshell to achieve a half-filled (d⁵) or fully filled (d¹⁰) 3d set, enhancing stability due to exchange energy and . For ions, electrons are removed first from the 4s orbital and then from the 3d orbitals, resulting in configurations of the form [Ar] 3dⁿ for common oxidation states. For example, titanium(IV) (Ti⁴⁺) loses both 4s electrons and two 3d electrons, yielding a d⁰ configuration. This pattern holds across the series, with +2 ions typically retaining the full neutral d electron count after 4s removal, adjusted for exceptions. Similar exceptions to the appear in heavier transition metals due to relativistic effects, which contract s orbitals and expand d orbitals, influencing configurations. , for instance, exhibits [Xe] 4f¹⁴ 5d¹⁰ 6s¹ rather than the expected 6s² 5d⁹, as the relativistic stabilization of the 6s orbital promotes an to achieve a filled 5d¹⁰ subshell. The following table summarizes the d electron counts for first-row transition metals in their neutral, +2, and +3 states (where applicable; higher states like Ni³⁺ and Cu³⁺ are less common and unstable).
ElementNeutral (d count)+2 Ion (d count)+3 Ion (d count)
Scd¹d¹d⁰
Tid²d²d¹
d³d³d²
Crd⁵d⁴d³
Mnd⁵d⁵d⁴
Fed⁶d⁶d⁵
Cod⁷d⁷d⁶
Nid⁸d⁸d⁷
Cud¹⁰d⁹d⁸
Znd¹⁰d¹⁰—

Factors Influencing Configurations

In atoms and ions, electron configurations are influenced by Hund's rule, which dictates that electrons occupy degenerate orbitals singly with parallel spins before pairing, thereby maximizing the total spin multiplicity and minimizing energy through favorable exchange interactions. This preference arises from the exchange energy, a quantum mechanical effect that lowers the energy of electrons with parallel spins by allowing symmetric spatial wavefunctions, as opposed to the antisymmetric spin parts required by the Pauli principle. For instance, in the of ([Ar] 4s¹ 3d⁵), the high-spin arrangement with five unpaired d electrons exemplifies this stabilization, contributing to the observed half-filled subshell preference over a lower-spin alternative. Upon ionization, the 4s electrons are removed before those in the 3d subshell due to differences in radial penetration and ; the 4s orbital extends farther from the nucleus and experiences greater shielding, resulting in lower compared to the more contracted 3d orbitals, which are closer to the nucleus and thus more tightly bound. This reversal occurs because the 3d orbitals have poorer shielding , leading to a higher felt by 3d electrons in the ion, stabilizing the d electrons relative to s. For example, in the first-row transition metals, common ions like Ti²⁺ adopt a [Ar] 3d² configuration, with all 4s electrons lost first. Across the d-block in a given period, the count increases progressively from 1 to 10 in the 3d subshell, but deviations occur due to such as increasing and d-orbital contraction, where the poor shielding by intervening d s causes the orbitals to shrink in size and , enhancing stability for filled or half-filled subshells. This contraction is particularly pronounced toward the end of the row, influencing configurations like that of , which adopts [Ar] 4s¹ 3d¹⁰ rather than [Ar] 4s² 3d⁹, as the fully filled d¹⁰ subshell provides additional stability from maximized exchange and spherical , outweighing the cost of promoting a 4s . Similar trends manifest in the second and third rows, where relativistic effects further amplify contraction in heavier elements. Fundamentally, the limits the d count to a maximum of 10, as each of the five d orbitals can hold two electrons with opposite spins, enforcing the fermionic nature of electrons and preventing identical quantum states within an atom. Accurate prediction of these configurations, especially in cases with near-degeneracies or strong correlation, requires advanced quantum methods beyond single-reference approaches, such as multi-reference configuration interaction techniques that account for multiple electronic states and electron correlation in transition metals.

Ligand Field Theory Perspective

Crystal Field Splitting

In , which extends by incorporating covalent bonding effects, the interaction between transition metal d orbitals and surrounding ligands leads to the splitting of the degenerate d orbitals into distinct energy levels. This splitting is crucial for understanding d electron configurations in coordination complexes, as it dictates how electrons are distributed among the orbitals. For an octahedral geometry, the most common coordination environment, the five d orbitals split into a lower-energy triplet set, denoted t_{2g} (comprising the d_{xy}, d_{xz}, and d_{yz} orbitals), and a higher-energy doublet set, e_g (d_{x^2-y^2} and d_{z^2}). The t_{2g} orbitals experience less electrostatic repulsion from the ligands, which approach along the coordinate axes, while the e_g orbitals point directly toward the ligands, resulting in higher energy. The separation between the e_g and t_{2g} sets is defined as the octahedral field splitting , \Delta_o, where \Delta_o = E(e_g) - E(t_{2g}). This quantifies the ligand-induced perturbation and determines the : if \Delta_o exceeds the pairing energy P (the energy to pair electrons in the same orbital), a low-spin configuration results with paired electrons in the t_{2g} set; conversely, if \Delta_o < P, a high-spin configuration prevails with singly occupied orbitals to maximize unpaired electrons. The value of \Delta_o varies significantly based on the ligand strength, as captured by the spectrochemical series, which orders ligands by their ability to split the d orbitals: for example, weak-field halides like I^- and Br^- produce small \Delta_o, while strong-field ligands such as NH_3 and CN^- generate larger splittings. The splitting pattern and magnitude depend on the coordination geometry. In tetrahedral complexes, the d orbitals split in an inverted manner, with the e_g set lower in energy and the t_{2g} set higher, and the tetrahedral splitting parameter \Delta_t is smaller, related to the octahedral value by \Delta_t = \frac{4}{9} \Delta_o due to the ligands' positions farther from the d orbital lobes and the reduced repulsion. Tetrahedral geometries typically favor high-spin configurations because of this smaller splitting. For square planar geometry, prevalent in d^8 systems like Ni^{2+} or Pd^{2+} complexes, the splitting is larger than in octahedral fields, with the d_{x^2-y^2} orbital highest in energy and the others stabilizing downward; this large splitting (\Delta_{sp} > \Delta_o) promotes low-spin, diamagnetic configurations by forcing .

Orbital Energy Diagrams

In octahedral ligand fields, the five d orbitals of a transition metal ion split into a lower-energy triplet (t_{2g}, consisting of d_{xy}, d_{xz}, and d_{yz}) and a higher-energy doublet (e_g, consisting of d_{x^2-y^2} and d_{z^2}), separated by the crystal field splitting energy Δ_o. Orbital energy diagrams qualitatively depict this splitting as a energy level scheme, with horizontal lines representing the degenerate orbitals and arrows indicating electron occupancy, following the , , and Hund's rule to maximize spin multiplicity in high-spin cases or prioritize pairing in low-spin cases when Δ_o exceeds the pairing energy P. For d^1 to d^3 configurations, electrons singly occupy the t_{2g} orbitals with parallel spins, as shown in diagrams where arrows point upward in each of the three t_{2g} levels progressively (e.g., d^1: one arrow in one t_{2g} orbital; d^3: one arrow in each t_{2g} orbital). These fillings yield one, two, and three s, respectively, with no occupancy in the e_g set. For d^8, the t_{2g} set is fully occupied (six electrons, all paired), and the e_g set has two s, one in each orbital with parallel spins. For d^9, the diagram shows the t_{2g}^6 (paired) and e_g^3 configuration, with both electrons paired in one e_g orbital and a single in the other, leading to electronic degeneracy. For d^{10}, all orbitals are fully paired (t_{2g}^6 e_g^4), resulting in a diamagnetic . The d^4 to d^7 counts exhibit both high-spin and low-spin possibilities, as illustrated in energy diagrams where high-spin fillings distribute electrons to minimize (e.g., d^4 high-spin: t_{2g}^3 e_g^1 with four unpaired electrons; d^5 high-spin: t_{2g}^3 e_g^2 with five unpaired electrons; d^6 high-spin: t_{2g}^4 e_g^2 with four unpaired electrons; d^7 high-spin: t_{2g}^5 e_g^2 with three unpaired electrons), while low-spin fillings pair electrons in t_{2g} first (e.g., d^4 low-spin: t_{2g}^4 with two unpaired; d^5 low-spin: t_{2g}^5 with one unpaired; d^6 low-spin: t_{2g}^6 diamagnetic; d^7 low-spin: t_{2g}^6 e_g^1 with one unpaired). The choice depends on ligand strength: weak-field s favor high-spin by having small Δ_o < P, promoting e_g occupancy, whereas strong-field ligands induce low-spin via large Δ_o > P. A representative example is the Mn^{2+} ion (d^5) in high-spin octahedral complexes like [Mn(H_2O)6]^{2+}, where the diagram shows three unpaired arrows in t{2g} and two in e_g, yielding five unpaired electrons and high due to weak-field ligands. In contrast, the Co^{3+} ion (d^6) in low-spin [Co(NH_3)6]^{3+} features a t{2g}^6 configuration with all electrons paired (diamagnetic), as strong-field ligands enforce pairing despite the energy cost. For electronically degenerate configurations like d^9 (e.g., Cu^{2+} in [Cu(H_2O)6]^{2+}), the uneven e_g filling (one orbital doubly occupied, the other singly) violates the Jahn-Teller theorem, which states that degenerate ground states are unstable and distort to lower symmetry and energy. This results in elongated octahedral geometry, where axial bonds lengthen (e.g., Cu-O axial ~2.4 Å vs. equatorial ~1.9 Å), splitting the e_g levels further and stabilizing the system, as depicted in distorted energy diagrams showing separated e_g components. High-spin d^4 and low-spin d^7 can also exhibit similar distortions due to t{2g} degeneracy, but d^9 cases are most pronounced.
d^nHigh-spin Configuration (unpaired electrons)Low-spin Configuration (unpaired electrons)
d^1t_{2g}^1 (1)N/A
d^2t_{2g}^2 (2)N/A
d^3t_{2g}^3 (3)N/A
d^4t_{2g}^3 e_g^1 (4)t_{2g}^4 (2)
d^5t_{2g}^3 e_g^2 (5)t_{2g}^5 (1)
d^6t_{2g}^4 e_g^2 (4)t_{2g}^6 (0)
d^7t_{2g}^5 e_g^2 (3)t_{2g}^6 e_g^1 (1)
d^8t_{2g}^6 e_g^2 (2)N/A
d^9t_{2g}^6 e_g^3 (1)N/A
d^{10}t_{2g}^6 e_g^4 (0)N/A
This table summarizes the qualitative electron distributions in octahedral diagrams, where arrows represent spin-up or spin-down s filling orbitals from lower to higher .

Spectroscopic

Tanabe-Sugano Diagrams

Tanabe-Sugano diagrams provide a quantitative framework for understanding the electronic energy levels of ions with d^n configurations under the influence of a ligand field, plotting these levels against the ratio of field splitting to electron repulsion strength. Developed to interpret the absorption spectra of complex ions, they extend by incorporating interelectronic repulsions via Racah parameters, enabling predictions of term splittings across weak to strong field regimes. The construction involves diagonalizing the full for the d^n basis states, which combines the free-ion Hamiltonian—accounting for electron-electron interactions through Racah parameters B (pairing repulsion) and C (triplet repulsion)—with the perturbation from the octahedral (or tetrahedral) , parameterized by the splitting energy Δ\Delta (or 10Dq). Free-ion Russell-Saunders terms are first identified, then their matrix elements in the basis are computed using secular determinants, with energies normalized relative to the and plotted versus Δ/B\Delta / B, while holding C/B constant (typically at 4–5). This multi-electron approach captures state mixing and avoids single-electron approximations, yielding diagrams for each d^n from 1 to 9. Key features include the labeling of states with symmetry-adapted term symbols (e.g., 3T1^3T_1, 1T2^1T_2) that reflect both spin multiplicity and orbital degeneracy under the field, as well as the depiction of crossings where states of different spin change relative order with increasing —for instance, in d^6 systems, the crossing between the high-spin 5T2g^5T_{2g} and low-spin 1A1g^1A_{1g} (via intermediate 3T1g^3T_{1g}) states highlights regions of spin equilibrium. These diagrams emphasize how repulsion parameters reduce effective splitting compared to pure field models, with the energy set to zero for all field strengths to facilitate comparison with experimental spectra. A representative example is the d^3 diagram for Cr^{3+} in octahedral coordination, where the free-ion ground term 4F^4F splits into 4A2g^4A_{2g} (), 4T2g^4T_{2g}, and 4T1g(F)^4T_{1g}(F), with an additional 4T1g(P)^4T_{1g}(P) from the 4P^4P term; no crossings occur among states, and the energies scale linearly at high Δ/B\Delta / B, allowing direct correlation to observed transitions like 4A2g→4T2g^4A_{2g} \to ^4T_{2g}.

Electronic Transitions and Spectra

In transition metal complexes with partial d electron occupancy (d¹ to d⁹), ultraviolet-visible (UV-Vis) spectra arise predominantly from d-d electronic transitions, where an electron is excited from the lower-energy t₂g orbitals to the higher-energy e_g orbitals in an octahedral ligand field. The energy of these transitions is primarily governed by the crystal field splitting parameter Δ_o, which reflects the strength of the ligand field, while electron-electron repulsion effects, parameterized by the Racah constant B, influence band positions and splittings. These transitions produce the characteristic colors of many coordination compounds, as absorption in the visible region transmits complementary wavelengths. d-d transitions are inherently Laporte-forbidden in centrosymmetric geometries like octahedral complexes, as they involve promotions between d orbitals of the same parity (g ↔ g), leading to low molar absorptivities (ε ≈ 10–100 M⁻¹ cm⁻¹). However, vibronic coupling—temporary symmetry distortions induced by molecular vibrations—relaxes this selection rule, enabling weak but observable bands. For example, in the d¹ complex [Ti(H₂O)₆]³⁺, a single broad absorption band at ~20,300 cm⁻¹ corresponds to the spin-allowed ²T₂g → ²E_g transition, with the peak position directly equaling Δ_o. In contrast, the d⁸ complex [Ni(H₂O)₆]²⁺ exhibits three spin-allowed bands at approximately 8,500 cm⁻¹ (³A₂g → ³T₂g, ≈ Δ_o), 14,500 cm⁻¹ (³A₂g → ³T₁g(F)), and 25,300 cm⁻¹ (³A₂g → ³T₁g(P)), where the lowest-energy band provides an estimate of Δ_o and higher bands allow fitting of B via electron repulsion considerations. In complexes with d⁰ (e.g., Ti⁴⁺, V⁵⁺) or d¹⁰ (e.g., Zn²⁺, Cu⁺) configurations, d-d transitions are absent due to fully occupied or empty d shells, shifting spectral features to intense charge transfer (CT) bands. Ligand-to-metal charge transfer (LMCT), involving promotion from ligand-based orbitals to empty metal d orbitals (effectively reducing the metal center), dominates in d⁰ systems with high-oxidation-state metals and electron-rich s, often appearing as strong UV absorptions (ε > 1,000 M⁻¹ cm⁻¹). Conversely, metal-to-ligand charge transfer (MLCT), where electrons move from filled metal d orbitals to ligand π* orbitals (oxidizing the metal), prevails in d¹⁰ cases, typically in lower-oxidation-state metals with π-acceptor s. These CT bands lack the parity restrictions of d-d transitions, resulting in higher intensities. The distinct spectral patterns from d-d and CT transitions enable identification of d electron counts, oxidation states, and geometries in unknown complexes, serving as diagnostic "fingerprints" in coordination chemistry. Observed band positions and intensities can be correlated with Tanabe-Sugano diagrams for quantitative analysis of ligand field parameters.

Possible d Electron Counts

Allowed Counts in Common Systems

In coordination compounds of transition metals, the d electron count spans from d⁰, exemplified by Ti⁴⁺ ions in species like [Ti(ox)₃]²⁻, to d¹⁰, as seen in Zn²⁺ complexes such as [Zn(H₂O)₆]²⁺. This full range reflects the variable oxidation states accessible to d-block elements, with d⁰ and d¹⁰ configurations often adopting high-symmetry geometries due to the absence of ligand field stabilization energy. Configurations from d¹ to d⁹ introduce electronic unsaturation that influences reactivity and structure. The most prevalent d electron counts in typical coordination compounds, particularly in bioinorganic and catalytic contexts, fall within d³ to d⁸. In bioinorganic systems, d⁵ (e.g., Mn²⁺ in , Fe³⁺ in ) and d⁶ (e.g., Fe²⁺ in , Co³⁺ in vitamin B₁₂) are especially common, enabling roles in , oxygen binding, and . Similarly, in synthetic catalytic systems, d⁸ configurations like Ni²⁺ or Pd²⁺ support cross-coupling reactions, while d⁶ low-spin states in Ru²⁺ or Ir³⁺ complexes facilitate . Geometry plays a key role in preferred d counts. Octahedral coordination favors low-spin d⁶ arrangements, as in [Co(NH₃)₆]³⁺, where strong-field ligands pair electrons in the t₂g orbitals, enhancing stability. Tetrahedral geometries are typical for d¹⁰ species, such as [ZnCl₄]²⁻, owing to the small crystal field splitting that avoids Jahn-Teller distortion.
d CountCommon GeometryRepresentative ExamplesNotes on Prevalence
d⁰Octahedral/TetrahedralTi⁴⁺ in [TiF₆]²⁻; VO₄³⁻Rare in bioinorganic; common in early transition metal catalysts
d³OctahedralCr³⁺ in [Cr(H₂O)₆]³⁺; Mn⁴⁺ in Frequent in first-row metals per CSD analysis
d⁵Octahedral (high-spin)Mn²⁺ in arginase; Fe³⁺ in Highly prevalent in bioinorganic enzymes
d⁶Octahedral (low-spin)Fe²⁺ in ; Co³⁺ in [Co(en)₃]³⁺Dominant in catalytic and biological systems; favored by strong fields
d⁸Square planarNi²⁺ in ; Pd²⁺ in [PdCl₄]²⁻Common in late metals for
d¹⁰TetrahedralZn²⁺ in ; Cu⁺ in Ubiquitous in structural and Lewis acid roles
Analysis of the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD) confirms that d³ to d⁸ configurations predominate among first-row metals (Cr to Ni) in mononuclear species, with d⁵ and d⁶ appearing most frequently due to their stability across oxidation states II and III. In organometallic compounds, neutral electron counts often adhere to the for saturated, stable species, analogous to the . This total valence electron tally includes d electrons plus donations, yielding configurations like d⁶ ML₆ (e.g., Cr(CO)₆) or d⁸ ML₄ (e.g., Fe(CO)₄ in tetrahedral form, though square planar d⁸ variants like Ni(CN)₄²⁻ achieve 16 electrons and are exceptions noted for reactivity.

Stability and Exceptions

Certain d electron configurations exhibit enhanced stability in transition metal complexes due to favorable electronic arrangements that maximize exchange energy or minimize unpaired electrons. Half-filled d^5 configurations, such as in Mn^{2+}, provide high stability through the maximization of interelectronic repulsions in accordance with Hund's rule, leading to a spherically symmetric distribution that resists . Similarly, fully filled d^{10} configurations, as in Zn^{2+} or Cu^{+}, achieve stability by completing the d subshell, resulting in closed-shell electronic structures with no unpaired electrons and thus low reactivity toward ligand substitution or processes. In octahedral complexes, d^3 (e.g., Cr^{3+}) and low-spin d^6 (e.g., Co^{3+}) configurations demonstrate kinetic inertness, attributed to their high crystal field stabilization energies (CFSE) that impose a significant barrier to ligand exchange. These configurations correspond to t_{2g}^3 and t_{2g}^6 fillings, respectively, which are half- or fully filled non-bonding orbitals, making associative or dissociative mechanisms unfavorable without substantial CFSE loss. This inertness aligns with the in organometallic contexts but is primarily driven by CFSE in coordination chemistry, as classified by Taube based on substitution rates. Despite these preferences, exceptions arise when electronic degeneracy or ligand effects override standard stability. Low-spin d^4 configurations, such as in Mn^{3+}, undergo Jahn-Teller distortion to alleviate the instability of a singly occupied e_g orbital, elongating axial bonds and stabilizing the complex through vibronic coupling, as observed in octahedral Mn(III) environments. For d^8 metals, geometry preferences deviate based on row and ligand strength: second- and third-row elements like Pd^{2+} and Pt^{2+} favor square planar arrangements due to larger crystal field splitting (Δ_{sp} > pairing energy), filling the lower four d orbitals completely, whereas first-row Ni^{2+} often adopts tetrahedral geometry with weak-field ligands like to avoid pairing penalties. Ligand field strength can invert expected spin states by overcoming pairing energy, leading to exceptions in d^4–d^7 systems. For instance, Co^{2+} (d^7) forms high-spin octahedral complexes with weak-field aqua ligands ([Co(H_2O)6]^{2+}), where Δ{oct} < pairing energy, resulting in four unpaired electrons, but switches to low-spin with strong-field cyanide ligands in [Co(CN)6]^{4-}, pairing electrons in t{2g} orbitals for greater stability. This crossover highlights how spectrochemical series position influences electron configuration over inherent d count preferences. In biological systems, exceptions to d^9 stability for Cu^{2+} are evident in blue copper proteins like plastocyanin, where the reduced Cu^{+} (d^{10}) state is stabilized despite the typical preference for d^9 Cu^{2+}. The protein enforces an entatic state—a constrained, intermediate geometry between tetrahedral (preferred for d^{10}) and trigonal bipyramidal (for d^9)—via a rigid Cys-His-Cys-Met ligand set, minimizing reorganization energy for rapid electron transfer while maintaining the d^{10} configuration in the reduced form.

Limitations and Extensions

Applicability Constraints

The point-charge model underlying basic d electron count approaches in crystal field theory treats metal-ligand interactions as purely electrostatic, thereby neglecting the covalent contributions that arise from orbital overlap between the metal d orbitals and ligand orbitals. This assumption holds reasonably well only for weak-field ligands in high-symmetry environments, such as octahedral complexes with hard donors like fluoride, where ionic character dominates and distortions are minimal./Crystal_Field_Theory/Crystal_Field_Theory) In contrast, the model breaks down for systems involving softer ligands or lower symmetries, leading to inaccurate predictions of orbital energies and electron configurations. One key error in these simplistic models is the overestimation of the crystal field splitting parameter (Δ) for soft ligands, such as iodide or phosphines, where increased covalency reduces the effective splitting compared to the electrostatic prediction. Similarly, direct analogies to f-block elements often fail, as the more contracted 4f orbitals in lanthanides and actinides exhibit minimal ligand interaction, rendering d-block splitting patterns inapplicable without significant adjustments for radial distribution differences. Experimental applications reveal further caveats, including the temperature dependence of spin states in d⁴–d⁷ octahedral complexes, where thermal energy can induce spin crossover (SCO) between high-spin and low-spin configurations if Δ is comparable to the pairing energy, altering the effective d electron count. Solvent effects also complicate predictions, as polar solvents can modulate Δ through differential solvation of the metal center or ligands, shifting electronic transitions and spin equilibria in ways not captured by vacuum-based point-charge calculations. Historically, early crystal field models developed before the 1960s overlooked the nephelauxetic effect, which describes the reduction in interelectronic repulsion parameter B due to covalency-induced expansion of the effective electron cloud, leading to systematic underestimation of bonding character in transition metal complexes. This limitation was addressed by C. K. Jørgensen's introduction of the nephelauxetic series in the mid-20th century, quantifying β = B(complex)/B(free ion) to account for such covalent influences.

Advanced Theoretical Considerations

The Angular Overlap Model (AOM) provides a semi-quantitative extension to ligand field theory by parameterizing the d-orbital splitting energies in terms of direct overlaps between metal d orbitals and ligand σ, π, and δ symmetry-adapted orbitals, rather than relying solely on electrostatic interactions. In this model, the antibonding contributions from ligands dominate the splitting, with the σ-interaction parameter eσe_\sigma typically exceeding the π-interaction parameter eπe_\pi by a factor of 2–10, reflecting the relative strengths of σ- versus π-bonding in most coordination compounds. For octahedral geometries, the splitting Δo=3eσ−2eπ\Delta_o = 3e_\sigma - 2e_\pi, but AOM's strength lies in its adaptability to lower-symmetry environments, such as tetrahedral or square planar, where parameters like eσe_\sigma and eπe_\pi are scaled by angular overlap factors dependent on the metal-ligand-ligand angle (e.g., reduced overlap for angles deviating from 90°). This approach has been validated through fitting to experimental spectra and structural data, enabling predictions of d-electron energy levels in complexes with mixed donor ligands. Relativistic effects are essential for accurate descriptions of d-electron counts in heavy transition metals (4d and 5d series), where the high nuclear charge amplifies corrections from Dirac's equation. Spin-orbit coupling, a key relativistic interaction, splits degenerate d states and mixes singlet and triplet configurations, particularly pronounced in d⁸ systems like Pt(II) square planar complexes, where it lowers the energy of the spectroscopically active ¹A_{1g} → ¹E_u transition and influences luminescence lifetimes. For instance, in [PtCl₄]²⁻, spin-orbit coupling shifts absorption bands by up to 5000 cm⁻¹ compared to scalar approximations. Scalar relativistic effects, such as those from the Douglas-Kroll-Hess or zeroth-order regular approximation Hamiltonians, cause contraction of the (n+1)s and (n+1)p orbitals while slightly expanding the nd orbitals, leading to shorter metal-ligand bonds (e.g., ~0.05 Å in 5d vs. 3d congeners) and enhanced d-orbital involvement in bonding. These effects are critical for modeling reactivity trends, like the inertness of 5d metals relative to 3d analogs. Modern computational methods have revolutionized the quantitative treatment of d-electron configurations by incorporating these advanced considerations. Density Functional Theory (DFT), particularly with hybrid functionals like B3LYP or range-separated ones like CAM-B3LYP, excels at computing d-electron densities and orbital populations in transition metal complexes, revealing partial delocalization onto ligands and enabling prediction of ground-state geometries with errors below 0.05 Å for bond lengths. However, DFT often underestimates strong correlation in open-shell d systems, necessitating multireference approaches. Complete Active Space Self-Consistent Field (CASSCF) methods address this for multi-configurational states, such as the near-degeneracy of low-spin and high-spin configurations in d² early metals (e.g., V³⁺) or d⁸ late metals (e.g., Ni²⁺), by optimizing a wavefunction over an active space of 5–10 d orbitals and 2–8 electrons, followed by perturbation theory (CASPT2) for dynamic correlation. In [V(H₂O)₆]³⁺ (d²), CASSCF captures triplet state admixtures with energies accurate to 1000 cm⁻¹ against experiment. These tools bridge theory and spectroscopy, often combined with AOM parameters fitted from DFT outputs. The nephelauxetic series quantifies the covalency-induced reduction in interelectronic repulsion within d shells, manifesting as a decrease in the Racah parameter B relative to the free ion value. This effect arises from electron delocalization onto ligands, "expanding the cloud" of effective d-electron density and lowering repulsion energies, with the nephelauxetic ratio defined as β=BcomplexBfree ion\beta = \frac{B_{\text{complex}}}{B_{\text{free ion}}}, typically ranging from 0.6–1.0 and decreasing with increasing covalent character. Ligands follow a series F⁻ > H₂O > NH₃ > Cl⁻ ≈ CN⁻ > Br⁻ > , as softer donors like promote greater d-orbital mixing; for Ni²⁺ complexes, β drops from ~0.85 for [Ni(H₂O)₆]²⁺ to ~0.65 for [NiI₄]²⁻. First proposed by Jørgensen, this parameter refines Tanabe-Sugano analyses by adjusting B for type, essential for interpreting red-shifted spectra in covalent systems.

References

  1. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/Introduction_to_Inorganic_Chemistry_(Wikibook)/05:_Coordination_Chemistry_and_Crystal_Field_Theory/5.02:_Counting_Electrons_in_Transition_Metal_Complexes
  2. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/5-111sc-principles-of-chemical-science-fall-2014/a2f070d4000a6fc342c6a941aa9e254c_MIT5_111F14_Lecture27.pdf
  3. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/Map%3A_Inorganic_Chemistry_(Housecroft)/24%3A_Organometallic_chemistry-_d-block_elements/24.03%3A_The_18-electron_Rule
  4. https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/East_Tennessee_State_University/CHEM_3110%3A_Descriptive_Inorganic_Chemistry/12%3A_Bioinorganic_Chemistry/12.03%3A_Biological_Dioxygen_Transport_and_Storage
  5. https://alpha.chem.umb.edu/chemistry/ch611/documents/CH611lec1.pdf
  6. https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8549/5/4/170
  7. https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bohr/Constitution_of_atoms_I.pdf
  8. https://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/sites/default/files/323%20CHEM-%20Part11_0.pdf
  9. https://www.chemguide.co.uk/inorganic/complexions/colour.html
  10. https://chemistry.illinois.edu/system/files/inline-files/Lane.pdf
  11. https://web.iitd.ac.in/~sdeep/Elias_Inorg_lec_5.pdf
  12. https://2012books.lardbucket.org/pdfs/principles-of-general-chemistry-v1.0m/s27-the-d-block-elements.pdf
  13. https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/85319/3/Unit-7.pdf
  14. https://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch12/trans.php
  15. https://www1.udel.edu/chem/sametz/101Fall09/Ch7temp.pdf
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6644448/
  17. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_%28Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry%29/Electronic_Structure_of_Atoms_and_Molecules/Electronic_Configurations/Hund%27s_Rules
  18. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_%28Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry%29/Electronic_Structure_of_Atoms_and_Molecules/Electronic_Configurations/The_Order_of_Filling_3d_and_4s_Orbitals
  19. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_%28Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry%29/Electronic_Structure_of_Atoms_and_Molecules/Electronic_Configurations/Pauli_Exclusion_Principle
  20. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/cp/d1cp02640b
  21. https://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch12/crystal.php
  22. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/5-111sc-principles-of-chemical-science-fall-2014/resources/lecture-29-transition-metals-crystal-field-theory-part-ii/
  23. https://users.highland.edu/~jsullivan/principles-of-general-chemistry-v1.0/s27-05-crystal-field-theory.html
  24. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/56575/5-04Fall-2004/NR/rdonlyres/Chemistry/5-04Fall-2004/FBACC870-E63C-4C3C-BA9C-790881CEAE0E/0/lecture18.pdf
  25. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/5-111sc-principles-of-chemical-science-fall-2014/edcb3023781858a50d4b9f932d682b19_MIT5_111F14_Lec28Soln.pdf
  26. https://employees.csbsju.edu/cschaller/reactivity/coordchem/coordchemjahnteller.htm
  27. https://people.chem.umass.edu/cjoseph/chem241/lecture11.pdf
  28. https://journals.jps.jp/doi/10.1143/JPSJ.9.766
  29. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ed045p711
  30. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ed040p135
  31. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/Inorganic_Chemistry_(LibreTexts)/11:_Coordination_Chemistry_III_-_Electronic_Spectra/11.03:_Electronic_Spectra_of_Coordination_Compounds/11.3.01:_Selection_Rules
  32. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr980409v
  33. https://ir-api.ua.edu/api/core/bitstreams/f5567f18-8c8d-4469-b738-f128c747bdd2/content
  34. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10324808
  35. https://cbpbu.ac.in/userfiles/file/2020/STUDY_MAT/CHEM/Sem-II.pdf
  36. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/222574043.pdf
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10544051/
  38. https://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/caeruloplasmin/copper_proteins/t1.htm
  39. https://www.dalalinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/Books/A-Textbook-of-Inorganic-Chemistry-Volume-1/ATOICV1-7-1-Limitation-of-Crystal-Field-Theory.pdf
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9303604/
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010854521002551
  42. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2015/cs/c4cs00376d
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277538700809857
  44. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470166055.ch2
  45. http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Jorgensen1.htm
  46. https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/chem_biochem/30/
  47. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.5b00063
  48. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.076802
  49. https://comp.chem.umn.edu/Truhlar/docs/869.pdf
  50. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jp811503v
  51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244410435_Triplet_electronic_states_in_d2_and_d8_complexes_probed_by_absorption_spectroscopy_A_CASSCFCASPT2_analysis_of_VH2O63_and_NiH2O62
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.