Open Access

Solution reaction design: electroaccepting and electrodonating powers of ions in solution

Nanoscale Research Letters20127:6

DOI: 10.1186/1556-276X-7-6

Received: 6 September 2011

Accepted: 5 January 2012

Published: 5 January 2012

Abstract

By considering a first-order variation in electroaccepting and electrodonating powers, ω±, induced by a change from gas to aqueous solution phase, the solvent effect on ω± for charged ions is examined. The expression of electroaccepting and electrodonating powers in the solution phase, ω±s, is obtained through establishing the quantitative relationship between the change of the ω± due to the solvation and the hydration free energy. It is shown that cations are poorer electron acceptors and anions are poorer electron donors in solution compared to those in gas phase. We have proven that the scaled aqueous electroaccepting power, ω+s, of cations can act as a good descriptor of the reduction reaction, which is expected to be applied in the design of solution reactions.

Keywords

electroaccepting electrodonating solution phase solvent effect

Introduction

With the rapid development of functional materials, novel micro/nanostructures of the materials are highly demanded to obtain advanced properties, which can be achieved by the rational design of solution-phase chemical reactions [16]. Therefore, it is of significance to thoroughly understand the reactivity of chemical species and the mechanism of chemical reactions to further realize the solution reaction design. Among many chemical reactivity indices, one quantity of importance is the electrophilicity, ω, introduced by Parr and co-workers [7]. They defined ω as
ω = μ 2 2 η
(1)
where μ is the chemical potential and η is the chemical hardness of an N-electron system with total energy, E, defined as μ = (∂2E/∂2N)v(r)and η = (∂2E/∂2N)v(r). This index has been found to be helpful in analyzing the reactivity behaviors of a variety of compounds as well as the reaction mechanisms of diverse chemical processes [8, 9]. As an important contribution to the ω, Gazauez et al. [10] argued that from a chemical perspective, it would make sense to differentiate the response of a system to the electron acceptance from the electron donation grounded on that the left and right derivatives of the total energy, EDFT(N), of an N-electron system with respect to the integer electron number, N, are different. By introducing an electron bath of nonzero chemical potential, μbath, with which the chemical species can exchange electrons, they proposed electroaccepting [ω+] and electrodonating [ω-] powers as the following equation:
ω ± = μ ± 2 - μ bath 2 2 η ±
(2)
where the chemical potential, μ±, and the chemical hardness, η±, were defined as
μ + = - I + 3 A 4 η + = η = I - A 2
(3a)
μ - = - 3 I + A 4 η - = η = I - A 2
(3b)

where I and A are the ionization potential and the electron affinity, respectively. A larger value of ω+ corresponds to a larger capability of accepting charges, whereas a smaller value of ω- implies a larger capability of donating charges.

Although some chemical phenomena have been rationalized by establishing the quantitative structure-reactivity relationships using these reactivity indices in the gas phase [11], the presence of solvent is bound to affect the reactivity behaviors of chemical substances. Therefore, studies on the reactivity indices such as ω and ω± in solution are quite necessary to reveal the accurate reactivity of chemical species in solution and further predict and design the solution phase reactions [12]. While several theoretical calculations about the solvent effect on the ω for various chemical species have been performed [1214], the solvent effect on the ω± which are regarded as better descriptors of the donor-acceptor type interactions [10] has not received much attention to date. In this work, the solvent effect on the ω± is estimated by establishing a linear relationship between the change of the ω± due to the solvation and the hydration free energy, ΔGhyd. The values of aqueous electroaccepting power, ω+s, of 39 metal cations are quantitatively calculated, which are proven to be appropriate descriptors for the reduction reactions.

Method

In a previous study, Perez et al. [14] examined the solvent effect on the electrophilicity index, ω, by introducing a first-order finite variation in the ω due to the solvation
Δ ω g s = μ g η g Δ μ g s - 1 2 μ g η g 2 Δ η g s = Δ ω 1 , g s + Δ ω 2 , g s
(4)

where Δμg→s and Δηg→s are the variations in μ and η from the gas to solution phase, respectively.

They rearranged the first contribution as
Δ ω 1 , g s = μ g η g Δ μ g s = Δ E g Δ N g υ r Δ N g Δ μ g Δ μ g s Δ E ins = 2 Δ G solv
(5)

where ΔEins is the insertion energy of the solute going into the solvent which is suggested as twice the solvation energy.

The second contribution in Equation 4 is rewritten as
Δ ω 2 , g s = - 1 2 μ g η g 2 Δ η g s = - 1 2 μ g η g μ g η g Δ μ Δ N = - 1 2 μ g η g Δ N μ g η g Δ μ . = - 1 2 μ g η g Δ N Δ E ins = Δ N g , max Δ N Δ G solv
(6)
Finally, they deduced the expression of Δωg→s
Δ ω g s = Δ ω 1 , g s + Δ ω 2 , g s = 2 + Δ N g , max Δ N Δ G solv = γ Δ G solv
(7)

where Δωg→s showed a linear dependence on the solvation energy, ΔGsolv, with a regression slope, γ. They used 18 well-known electrophilic ligands including hard electrophiles such as Li+ and Na+ to test this linear correlation and obtained good results (R = 0.9925, γ = 1.00765 at B3LYP/6-311G**and R = 0.9918, γ = 0.96843 at HF/6-311G**levels of theory).

Herein, we reconstruct the second contribution in Equation 4 which will directly lead to a quantitative expression for Δωg→s with a definite slope value, γ.
Δ ω 2 , g s = - 1 2 μ g η g 2 Δ η g s = - 1 2 Δ N g , max 2 Δ η g s = - 1 2 Δ N g , max 2 Δ μ s Δ N s , max - Δ μ g Δ N g , max - 1 2 Δ N g , max 2 Δ μ s - Δ μ g Δ N g , max = - 1 2 Δ N g , max 2 0 - μ s - 0 - μ g Δ N g , max = - 1 2 Δ N g , max 2 μ g - μ s Δ N g , max = - 1 2 Δ N g , max - Δ μ g s = - 1 2 - μ g η g - Δ μ g s = - 1 2 Δ ω 1 , g s = - Δ G solv
(8)
Substitution of Equations 5 and 8 into Equation 4 leads to the expression of Δωg→s.
Δ ω g s = Δ ω 1 , g s + Δ ω 2 , g s = 2 Δ G solv - Δ G solv = Δ G solv
(9)
Therefore, the global electrophilicity, ωs, in solution can be calculated by
ω s = ω g + Δ ω g s = ω g + Δ G solv .
(10)
It should be noted that one key assumption in our approach is ΔNs, max ≈ ΔNg, max which could be justified by the data of Table 1 in Perez's work [14]. Our result, γ = 1, has turned out to be fairly consistent with Perez's regression value, i.e., γ = 1.00765 and γ = 0.96843, which thus approve the reasonableness of our approach to dealing with Δω2, g→s.
Table 1

Calculated electroaccepting power, ω+s, in aqueous solution and the absolute reduction potential, E°abs

M z+

μ bath a

μ + b

η + b

ΔN+g, max

ΔGhyd

Δω+

ω + s

zE°absc

Li+

-4.044

-22.954

35.124

0.538

-481

-2.053

5.214

1.223

Na+

-3.854

-15.677

21.075

0.561

-375

-1.466

4.013

1.550

K+

-3.255

-11.163

13.645

0.580

-304

-1.116

3.062

1.339

Rb+

-3.133

-9.953

11.551

0.590

-281

-0.998

2.865

1.339

Cs+

-2.920

-9.195

10.603

0.592

-258

-0.912

2.673

1.340

Ag+

-5.682

-11.055

6.957

0.772

-440

-1.108

5.354

5.062

Cu+

-5.795

-10.867

6.282

0.807

-535

-1.294

5.433

4.783

Tl+

-4.581

-9.688

7.160

0.713

-310

-0.847

4.242

3.923

In+

-4.340

-9.057

6.542

0.721

-296

-0.799

4.032

4.123

Be2+

-6.992

-52.133

67.843

0.665

-2404

-10.787

8.883

4.546

Mg2+

-5.735

-31.313

32.554

0.786

-1838

-7.780

6.774

3.814

Ca2+

-4.585

-21.632

19.521

0.873

-1515

-6.187

5.260

2.846

Sr2+

-4.271

-18.995

15.930

0.924

-1386

-5.567

5.185

2.746

Ba2+

-3.909

-16.378

12.748

0.978

-1258

-4.963

4.958

2.686

V2+

-5.060

-18.291

7.347

1.801

-1825

-6.841

14.187

6.266

Cr2+

-5.075

-20.105

7.237

2.077

-1860

-7.206

18.940

6.726

Mn2+

-5.576

-20.147

9.014

1.617

-1770

-6.634

14.157

6.186

Fe2+

-5.927

-19.804

7.232

1.919

-1848

-6.711

17.976

7.646

Co2+

-5.911

-21.188

8.208

1.861

-1922

-7.181

18.037

7.972

Ni2+

-5.730

-22.424

8.511

1.962

-1998

-7.708

19.906

8.012

Cu2+

-5.795

-24.429

8.275

2.252

-2016

-7.969

26.064

9.206

Zn2+

-7.046

-23.405

10.879

1.504

-1963

-7.110

15.784

7.001

Cd2+

-6.745

-22.051

10.286

1.488

-1736

-6.244

15.180

7.720

Hg2+

-7.828

-22.618

7.722

1.915

-1766

-5.984

23.174

10.234

Sn2+

-5.508

-18.600

7.936

1.650

-1496

-5.457

14.429

8.251

Pb2+

-5.562

-19.258

8.453

1.620

-1434

-5.285

14.824

8.274

Pd2+

-6.253

-22.805

6.750

2.452

-1920

-7.222

28.406

10.356

Sm2+

-4.233

-14.153

6.165

1.609

-1375

-4.994

9.797

3.186

Eu2+

-4.253

-14.668

6.835

1.524

-1391

-5.118

9.296

2.926

Yb2+

-4.691

-15.395

6.437

1.663

-1510

-5.441

11.259

2.926

Al3+

-4.489

-51.334

45.772

1.023

-4531

-21.427

7.139

7.761

Ga3+

-4.499

-39.033

16.645

2.075

-4521

-20.728

24.430

11.202

In3+

-4.340

-34.523

12.985

2.324

-3989

-18.073

27.093

11.775

Sc3+

-4.921

-36.940

24.366

1.314

-3801

-17.073

10.431

6.699

Y3+

-4.663

-30.539

20.039

1.291

-3457

-15.179

7.550

5.679

La3+

-4.183

-26.870

15.386

1.475

-3155

-13.805

9.090

5.649

Fe3+

-5.927

-36.689

12.074

2.548

-4271

-18.557

35.731

12.669

Co3+

-5.911

-37.950

8.900

3.600

-4503

-19.701

59.247

14.148

Au3+

-6.919

-41.575

8.350

4.150

-4416

-19.075

81.561

17.349

a μ + bath = μ - atom = - 3 I M + A M 4 - 3 I M 4 because of the neglectable values of electron affinities, AM, for atoms. b μ + and η+ are obtained from Equation 3a. c The product of the charge number, z, and the absolute reduction potential, E°abs. The values of E°abs are calculated form Equation 18 where the absolute standard hydrogen electrode potential, E°SHE = 0, is 4.263 eV according to Marcus [21].

Further, we try to extend our approach to examine the solvent effect on the ω±. For the charged ions, we suppose that the chemical potential, μ±bath, of the electron bath equals that of the parent atoms of ions since the charged ions become neutral atoms after accepting or donating the maximum amount of electrons. In addition, as the solvent only has little effect on the chemical potential, μ, of the neutral species [12, 13, 15], there exists a relationship as μ±bath = μs, atomμg, atom. The ion exchanges electrons from the bath to the point that its chemical potential, μ±, equals the value μ±bath with the maximum amount of electron flow:
Δ N ± max = μ ± bath - μ ± η ± .
(11)
The first-order variation in the ω± leads to the following equation:
Δ ω ± g s = μ ± g η ± g Δ μ ± g s - 1 2 μ ± g 2 - μ ± bath 2 η ± g 2 Δ η ± g s = Δ ω ± 1 , g s + Δ ω ± 2 , g s .
(12)
The first part of Equation 12 in terms of the variation in μ± is given by
Δ ω ± 1 , g s = μ ± g η ± g Δ μ ± g s = Δ E g Δ N ± g υ r Δ N ± g Δ μ ± g Δ μ ± g s Δ G hyd
(13)

where the energy change Δω±1,g→s due to the variation of the chemical potential from the gas to solution phase can be represented by ΔGhyd[16, 17].

The second part of Equation 12 in terms of the variation in η± is given by
Δ ω ± 2 , g s = - 1 2 μ ± g 2 - μ ± bath 2 η ± g 2 Δ η ± g s = - 1 2 μ ± g 2 - μ ± bath 2 η ± g 2 Δ Δ μ ± Δ N ± = - 1 2 μ ± g 2 - μ ± bath 2 η ± g 2 Δ μ ± s Δ N s , max - Δ μ ± g Δ N g , max - 1 2 μ ± g 2 - μ ± bath 2 η ± g 2 μ ± bath - μ ± s - μ ± bath - μ ± g Δ N g , max = 1 2 μ ± g 2 - μ ± bath 2 η ± g 2 η ± g Δ μ ± g Δ μ ± g s = - 1 2 μ ± bath + μ ± g η ± g Δ μ ± g s = - 1 2 μ ± bath + μ ± g μ ± g μ ± g η ± g Δ μ ± g s = - 1 2 μ ± bath + μ ± g μ ± g Δ ω ± 1 , g s
(14)
Combining Equation 13 with Equation 14 yields
Δ ω ± g s = Δ ω ± 1 , g s + Δ ω ± 2 , g s = 1 - 1 2 μ ± bath + μ ± g μ ± g Δ ω ± 1 , g s = 1 - 1 2 μ ± bath + μ ± g μ ± g Δ G hyd .
(15)
Therefore, the electroaccepting and electrodonating powers in solution, ω±s, can be calculated by
ω ± s = ω ± g + Δ ω ± g s = μ ± g 2 - μ bath 2 2 η ± g + 1 - 1 2 μ ± bath + μ ± g μ ± g Δ G hyd .
(16)

Results and discussion

According to Pearson's viewpoint that cations are electron acceptors and anions are electron donors [16], we pay attention to the ω+s for cations and ω-s for anions. By using Equation 16, the ω+s values for 39 metal cations with charges from +1e to +3e are calculated and summarized in Table 1. From Table 1, we find that the solvation weakens the capacity of cations to accept electrons due to the negative values of Δω+, in agreement with the previous conclusions [1216]. Unfortunately, it is impossible to quantitatively calculate the ω-s values for anions so far due to the absence of experimental electron affinities needed in Equation 3b. Herein, these values can be qualitatively estimated:
ω - s = ω - g + Δ ω - g s = ω - g + 1 - 1 2 μ - bath + μ - g μ - g Δ G hyd > ω - g + 1 - 1 2 μ - g + μ - g μ - g Δ G hyd > ω - g .
(17)

Since a larger value of ω-s implies a smaller capability of donating charges, we can conclude from Equation 17 that the solvation also weakens the capacity of anions to donate electrons, which agrees with the general viewpoints [1216].

Many liquid-phase chemical reactions involve the electron-transfer steps, and a key thermodynamic variable that describes the tendency of chemical species in solution to gain or lose electrons is the redox potential. The quantum-chemical computation approach to electrochemistry has become available very recently [18]. However, the estimation of redox potential by the quantum-chemical calculations is a great challenge due to the complexity of the processes involved in a typical electrochemical reaction [19]. For example, the complicated diffusion and adsorption processes on the electrode surface which should be necessarily taken into account in the quantum-chemical modeling of the reduction-oxidation reaction lead to the considerable system size and thus require strong computing power. Therefore, previous studies mainly focus on the one-electron reduction reactions between different oxidation states of transition metals to avoid modeling of an electrode-solution boundary [1820]. In this work, we try to use the ω+s to describe the many-electron reduction reaction including both main- and sub-group metal cations. According to the reaction formula MZ+(aq) + z/2H2 (g) = M (aq) + z H+ (aq), the absolute reduction potential, E°abs, can be calculated by
E abs = E SHE = 0 + E abs SHE
(18)
where E°abs(SHE) is the conventional reduction potential and E°SHE = 0 is the absolute standard hydrogen electrode potential. Note that the ω+s is the energy lowing associated with a maximum amount of electron flow between two species; it is reasonable to establish a correlation between zE°abs and ω+s. A good relationship shown in Figure 1 approves that our ω+s can act as an appropriate descriptor of the many-electron energy change. Moreover, this method is more simple and convenient compared to the quantum-chemical approach to the estimation of the E°abs.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1556-276X-7-6/MediaObjects/11671_2011_Article_432_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Plot of the ω + s versus zE ° abs .

Except for the reduction reaction, the ω±s can also be expected to qualitatively and quantitatively predict other properties of ions in connection with ligand binding, hydrolysis processes, and stability of coordination compounds, etc. In addition, compilation of experimental data on solvation energies in nonaqueous solutions will make it possible to evaluate the corresponding electroaccepting and electrodonating powers, ω±, which will undoubtedly lead to the deeper understanding of the chemical reactivity of ions in these media.

Conclusions

By reconstructing a first-order variation of the ω due to the solvation, the linear relationship between the change in the ω and the solvation energy is reproduced, which suggests that our method is theoretically reasonable. The solvent effect on the electroaccepting and electrodonating powers, ω±, for charged ions is examined, and a definite quantitative expression for the aqueous ω±s is established. It is found that the solvation weakens the capability of both electron-accepting power of cations and electron-donating power of anions. A good relationship between the ω + s and E°abs shows the validity of the electroaccepting powers in determining the chemical reactivity of the ions in aqueous solution. It is expected that our ω±s will be helpful to achieve a better understanding of chemical properties of ions in solution and further be used in many aspects of solution chemistry such as the design of solution-phase reactions according to these indices.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The financial support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 50872016, 51125009 and 20973033) is greatly acknowledged.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
State Key Laboratory of Fine Chemicals, School of Chemical Engineering, Dalian University of Technology
(2)
State Key Laboratory of Rare Earth Resource Utilization, Changchun Institute of Applied Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences

References

  1. Liu J, Xue D: Cation-induced coiling of vanadium pentoxide nanobelts. Nanoscale Res Lett 2010, 5: 1619. 10.1007/s11671-010-9685-zView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Wu D, Jiang Y, Liu J, Yuan Y, Wu J, Jiang K, Xue D: Template route to chemically engineering cavities at nanoscale: a case study of Zn(OH)2template. Nanoscale Res Lett 2010, 5: 1779. 10.1007/s11671-010-9711-1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Wu J, Xue D: In situ precursor-template route to semi-ordered NaNbO3nanobelt arrays. Nanoscale Res Lett 2011, 6: 14.Google Scholar
  4. Liu J, Xue D, K Li: Single-crystalline nanoporous Nb2O5nanotubes. Nanoscale Res Lett 2011, 6: 138. 10.1186/1556-276X-6-138View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Yan C, Liu J, Liu F, Wu J, Gao K, Xue D: Tube formation in nanoscale materials. Nanoscale Res Lett 2008, 3: 473. 10.1007/s11671-008-9193-6View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Liu J, Xue D: Hollow nanostructured anode materials for Li-ion batteries. Nanoscale Res Lett 2010, 5: 1525. 10.1007/s11671-010-9728-5View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Parr R, Szentpaly L, Liu S: Electrophilicity index. J Am Chem Soc 1999, 121: 1922. 10.1021/ja983494xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Roy D, Chattaraj P: Reactivity, selectivity, and aromaticity of Be32-and its complexes. J Phys Chem A 2008, 112: 1612. 10.1021/jp710820cView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Kostova I, Trendafilova N, Mihaylov T: Theoretical and spectroscopic studies of pyridyl substituted bis-coumarins and their new neodymium (III) complexes. Chem Phys 2005, 314: 73. 10.1016/j.chemphys.2005.01.026View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Gazquez J, Cedillo A, Vela A: Electrodonating and electroaccepting powers. J Phys Chem A 2007, 111: 1966. 10.1021/jp065459fView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Chattaraj P, Sarkar U, Roy D: Electrophilicity index. Chem Rev 2006, 106: 2065. 10.1021/cr040109fView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Jaramillo P, Perez P, Fuentealba P, Canuto S, Coutinho K: Solvent effects on global reactivity properties for neutral and charged systems using the sequential Monte Carlo quantum mechanics model. J Phys Chem B 2009, 113: 4314. 10.1021/jp808210yView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Safi B, Balawender R, Geerlings P: Solvent effect on electronegativity, hardness, condensed Fukui functions, and softness, in a large series of diatomic and small polyatomic molecules: use of the EFP model. Phys Chem A 2001, 105: 11102. 10.1021/jp012652vView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Perez P, Toro-Labbe A, Contreras R: Solvent effects on electrophilicity. J Am Chem Soc 2001, 123: 5527. 10.1021/ja004105dView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Valiev M, Yang J, Adams J, Taylor S, Weare J: Phosphorylation reaction in cAPK protein kinase-free energy quantum mechanical/molecular mechanics simulations. J Phys Chem B 2007, 111: 13455. 10.1021/jp074853qView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Pearson R: Ionization potentials and electron affinities in aqueous solution. J Am Chem Soc 1986, 108: 6109. 10.1021/ja00280a002View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Contreras R, Andres J, Safont V, Campodonico P, Santos J: A theoretical study on the relationship between nucleophilicity and ionization potentials in solution phase. J Phys Chem A 2003, 107: 5588. 10.1021/jp0302865View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Moens J, Roos G, Jaque P, Proft F, Geerlings P: Can electrophilicity act as a measure of the redox potential of first-row transition metal ions? Chem Eur J 2007, 13: 9331. 10.1002/chem.200700547View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaque P, Marenich A, Cramer C, Truhlar D: Computational electrochemistry: the aqueous Ru3+/Ru2+ reduction potential. J Phys Chem C 2007, 111: 5783. 10.1021/jp066765wView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Uudsemaa M, Tamm T: Density-functional theory calculations of aqueous redox potentials of fourth-period transition metals. J Phys Chem A 2003, 107: 9997. 10.1021/jp0362741View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Marcus Y: Thermodynamics of solvation of ions. Part 5.--Gibbs free energy of hydration at 298.15 K. J Chem Soc, Faraday Trans 1991, 87: 2995. 10.1039/ft9918702995View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Li et al; licensee Springer. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.