3
$\begingroup$

In the above mentioned complex, there is a chiral centre at the metal, and hence it seems the compound must be optically active.

But my course notes say that the ligands keep on changing their their positions at a very fast rate and as a result such complexes get converted into their mirror images and are hence optically inactive.

I am unable to reconcile my understanding of the stereochemistry with this statement in the notes. How can such complexes be optically inactive?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What's unclear about it? Yes, technically the molecule is optically active, and would have (R) and (S) isomers. But you can't separate them, because (R) changes to (S) and back pretty quickly (or not so quickly, depends on the metal, but whatever). $\endgroup$ – Ivan Neretin Apr 14 '16 at 10:22
  • $\begingroup$ Please see my edits & change anything if I've misrepresented the situation or your confusion. $\endgroup$ – hBy2Py Apr 14 '16 at 11:07
5
$\begingroup$

In a labile complex, ligands are detaching and attaching to the metal centre at extremely high rates. This means the solution will racemise quickly. Therefore, even if the complex is truly optically active, you have equal proportions of each enantiomer and thus equal rotations of the polarised light plane - in opposite directions.
The end result is that rotation cancels and so none is observed.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.