Table 3.
NBO second-order perturbation stabilization energies for the dominant non-Lewis interactions, and the orbital interaction energies ΔEorb for the dominant bonding interactions shown in Fig. 2a
| aNBO ΔE(2) | bETS-NOCV | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stabilization interactions | ΔEorb | |||||||
| Compound | c1 | c2 | c3 | d4 | d5 | σ2 | π | σ1 |
| D∞h | 2.2 | 14.2 | 1.8 | 29.8 | 29.8 | −320.9 | −168.6 | −16.6 |
| C2v | 0.8 | 7.9 | 1.6 | 21.0 | 21.0 | −288.9 | −164.7 | −14.0 |
| OUVI−C | 2.1 | 11.7 | 2.4 | 79.7 | 42.9 | −473.0 | −317.2 | −24.6 |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 11.6 | 28.2 | −26.6 | −10.7 | 0.0 | |
| 1.0 | 7.1 | 1.1 | 82.4 | 13.8 | −186.1 | −101.8 | −34.6 | |
| 1.1 | 11.3 | 0.6 | 128.9 | 28.9 | −287.1 | −153.2 | −28.3 | |
| 0.4 | 8.0 | 0.4 | 112.1 | 19.6 | −237.0 | −120.2 | −30.0 | |
| 0.8 | 7.3 | 0.7 | 73.5 | 24.5 | −169.4 | −83.4 | −27.1 | |
| 0.0 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 79.8 | 22.6 | −144.7 | −70.2 | −19.6 | |
| 0.3 | 7.6 | 0.0 | 85.6 | 30.0 | −172.7 | −48.4 | −17.4 | |
| 0.8 | 10.3 | 0.6 | 62.9 | 61.3 | −179.3 | −87.6 | −19.6 | |
| 0.6 | 7.3 | 0.0 | 47.3 | 90.4 | −166.8 | −89.3 | −16.7 | |
| CUVI−Oe | 1.4 | 9.9 | 0.0 | 42.9 | 79.7 | −209.1 | −77.9 | −13.7 |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 61.3 | 62.9 | −82.6 | −9.1 | – | |
| 1.2 | 10.3 | 0.6 | 81.0 | 21.2 | −287.0 | −152.6 | −27.9 | |
DFT/B3LYP calculations.
a,bEnergies in kcal mol−1.
c,d Interactions illustrated in Fig. 2.
a NBO second-order perturbation theory donor–acceptor ΔE(2) stabilization energy.
b ETS-NOCV contributions to ΔEorb. The ΔEorb and ΔE(2) for the two π-bonding interactions are equivalent and only one is listed.
cΔE(2) donor–acceptor interactions involving 6s and 6p An semi-core shells.
dΔE(2) donor–interaction between the terminal and trans ligand lone pair and formally unoccupied An-centered NBOs. For the symmetric small compounds interactions nos. 4 and 5 are identical.
eData for the trans–An bond for a selected compounds.
fData for the full experimental structure for comparison.