1
$\begingroup$

enter image description here

I was doing some research on Wikipedia and I came across the article on non-innocent ligands. It talked about the chemical $$[\ce{Ni(S_2C_2Ph_2)_2}]^z$$ as an example. It mentioned that the transition metal complex was diamagnetic when it was neutral(z=0). I decided to figure out how many unpaired electrons the central nickel atom would have at various formal oxidation states. I found the following:

$$ \begin{array}{ccc} \ce{Ni(II)}&(z=-2)&=2~\text{unpaired}\\ \ce{Ni(III)}&(z=-1)&=3~\text{unpaired}\\ \ce{Ni(IV)}&(z=0)&=4~\text{unpaired}\\ \end{array}$$ I don't understand why the complex is diamagnetic when its charge is 0. The radical ligands would be coupled with each other anti-ferromagneticly but there would still be 4 unpaired electrons in the central nickel atom. Wouldn't they make the complex paramagnetic? Could someone please explain to me why it is diamagneic and tell me whether the other 2 oxidation states are para or dia-magnetic.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

$\ce{Ni^{2+}}$ is a $d^8$ metal. In a square planar orbital splitting, all $8$ electrons are paired, hence it is diamagnetic. Even when the complex is neutral, the electron loss is at the ligands (by definition, non-innocent), and they are antiferromagnetically coupled, which means that their spins "cancel" each other. Since there are two, the net moment is zero.

All complexes are $\ce{Ni(II)}$, so assuming all complexes are square planar, all $d$ electrons are paired up and the magnetic moment from these is 0. Both the $z=-2$ (no radicals) and $z=0$ (antiferromagnetic coupling) area diamagnetic. The $z=-1$ complex is paramagnetic. There is a single unpaired electron in one of the ligands that can't couple to the other one, where all of them are paired up.

$\endgroup$

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.