Pursuing the topic of halogen bonds, the system DABCO (a tertiary dibase) and iodine form an intriguing complex. Here I explore some unusual features of the structure HEKZOO[cite]10.5517/CCYJN03[/cite] as published in 2012[cite]10.1021/cg300669t[/cite] and ask whether the bonding between the donor (N) and the acceptor (I-I) really is best described as a “non-covalent-interaction” (NCI) or not.
AbstractDoes, or doesn’t C2 break the glass ceiling of triple bonding? This work provides an overview on the bonding conundrum in C2 and on the recent discussions regarding our proposal that it possesses a quadruple bond. As such, we focus herein on the main point of contention, the 4th bond of C2, and discuss the main views. We present new data and an overview of the nature of the 4th bond—its proposed antiferromagnetically coupled nature, its strength, and a derivation of its bond energy from experimentally based thermochemical data. We address the bond‐order conundrum of C2 arising from generalized VB (GVB) calculations by comparing it to HCCH, and showing that the two molecules behave very similarly, and C2 is in no way an exception. We analyse the root cause of the deviation of C2 from the Badger Rule, and demonstrate that the reason for the smaller force constant (FC) of C2 relative to HCCH has nothing to do with the bond energies, or with the number of bonds in the two molecules. The FC is determined primarily by the bond length, which is set by the balance between the bond length preferences of the σ‐ versus π‐bonds in the two molecules. This interplay in the case of C2 clearly shows the fingerprints of the 4th bond. Our discussion resolves the points of contention and shows that the arguments used to dismiss the quadruple bond nature of C2 are not well founded.
Related Article: A.Peuronen, A.Valkonen, M.Kortelainen, K.Rissanen, M.Lahtinen|2012|Cryst.Growth Des.|12|4157|doi:10.1021/cg300669t