Statistical model of ligand substitution












7












$begingroup$


Recently, I was told that in case of a particular step of a generic ligand substitution reaction:



$$ce{M(OH2)_{$N - n$}L_{n} + L <=> M(OH2)_{$N - n - 1$}L_{$n + 1$} + H2O}$$



The probability of the forward reaction and by extension, the equilibrium constant of this step, $K_n$ would be proportional to



$$frac{N - n}{n + 1}$$



by a purely statistical analysis. Now I have thought about this for quite a bit, but I can't understand the mathematical reasoning behind arriving at this expression. I suspect it has something to do with the numbers of the ligand being replaced and the ligand which is replacing the other one. Can anyone explain the process of arriving at this expression using simple (if possible) reasoning?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I may add a more complete answer later, but for now, read this page, in particular example 2 and the remaining paragraphs in that section. chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/…
    $endgroup$
    – Tyberius
    Apr 14 at 20:55
















7












$begingroup$


Recently, I was told that in case of a particular step of a generic ligand substitution reaction:



$$ce{M(OH2)_{$N - n$}L_{n} + L <=> M(OH2)_{$N - n - 1$}L_{$n + 1$} + H2O}$$



The probability of the forward reaction and by extension, the equilibrium constant of this step, $K_n$ would be proportional to



$$frac{N - n}{n + 1}$$



by a purely statistical analysis. Now I have thought about this for quite a bit, but I can't understand the mathematical reasoning behind arriving at this expression. I suspect it has something to do with the numbers of the ligand being replaced and the ligand which is replacing the other one. Can anyone explain the process of arriving at this expression using simple (if possible) reasoning?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I may add a more complete answer later, but for now, read this page, in particular example 2 and the remaining paragraphs in that section. chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/…
    $endgroup$
    – Tyberius
    Apr 14 at 20:55














7












7








7





$begingroup$


Recently, I was told that in case of a particular step of a generic ligand substitution reaction:



$$ce{M(OH2)_{$N - n$}L_{n} + L <=> M(OH2)_{$N - n - 1$}L_{$n + 1$} + H2O}$$



The probability of the forward reaction and by extension, the equilibrium constant of this step, $K_n$ would be proportional to



$$frac{N - n}{n + 1}$$



by a purely statistical analysis. Now I have thought about this for quite a bit, but I can't understand the mathematical reasoning behind arriving at this expression. I suspect it has something to do with the numbers of the ligand being replaced and the ligand which is replacing the other one. Can anyone explain the process of arriving at this expression using simple (if possible) reasoning?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Recently, I was told that in case of a particular step of a generic ligand substitution reaction:



$$ce{M(OH2)_{$N - n$}L_{n} + L <=> M(OH2)_{$N - n - 1$}L_{$n + 1$} + H2O}$$



The probability of the forward reaction and by extension, the equilibrium constant of this step, $K_n$ would be proportional to



$$frac{N - n}{n + 1}$$



by a purely statistical analysis. Now I have thought about this for quite a bit, but I can't understand the mathematical reasoning behind arriving at this expression. I suspect it has something to do with the numbers of the ligand being replaced and the ligand which is replacing the other one. Can anyone explain the process of arriving at this expression using simple (if possible) reasoning?







equilibrium coordination-compounds






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 14 at 20:38









andselisk

19.7k665128




19.7k665128










asked Apr 14 at 20:35









Shoubhik Raj MaitiShoubhik Raj Maiti

1,408732




1,408732








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I may add a more complete answer later, but for now, read this page, in particular example 2 and the remaining paragraphs in that section. chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/…
    $endgroup$
    – Tyberius
    Apr 14 at 20:55














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I may add a more complete answer later, but for now, read this page, in particular example 2 and the remaining paragraphs in that section. chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/…
    $endgroup$
    – Tyberius
    Apr 14 at 20:55








1




1




$begingroup$
I may add a more complete answer later, but for now, read this page, in particular example 2 and the remaining paragraphs in that section. chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/…
$endgroup$
– Tyberius
Apr 14 at 20:55




$begingroup$
I may add a more complete answer later, but for now, read this page, in particular example 2 and the remaining paragraphs in that section. chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/…
$endgroup$
– Tyberius
Apr 14 at 20:55










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

I think the easy way out is to invoke $S_mathrm m = R ln Omega$. If we assume that for a generic complex $ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}$,



$$Omega = {N choose n} = frac{N!}{n!(N-n)!} quad left[ = {N choose N-n} right]$$



and that for the individual molecules $ce{A}$ and $ce{B}$, $Omega = 1$, then the equilibrium constant $K$ for



$$ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$} + A <=> MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$} + B}$$



is given by



$$begin{align}
K &= expleft(frac{-Delta_mathrm r G}{RT}right) \
&= expleft(frac{Delta_mathrm r S}{R}right) \
&= expleft(frac{S_mathrm{m}(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}}) + S_mathrm{m}(ce{B}) - S_mathrm{m}(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}) - S_mathrm{m}(ce{A})}{R}right) \
&= exp[lnOmega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}}) + lnOmega(ce{B}) - lnOmega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}) - lnOmega(ce{A})] \
&= expleft[lnleft(frac{Omega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}})Omega(ce{B})}{Omega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}})Omega(ce{A})}right)right] \
&= frac{Omega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}})Omega(ce{B})}{Omega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}})Omega(ce{A})} \
&= frac{N!}{(n+1)!(N-n-1)!} cdot frac{n!(N-n)!}{N!} \
&= frac{N-n}{n+1}
end{align}$$



The reason for ignoring $Delta_mathrm r H$ is because we are only interested in statistical effects, i.e. entropy, and we don't care about the actual stability of the complex or the strength of the M–L bonds. However, the exact justification for assuming this form for $Omega$ still eludes me. It makes intuitive sense (that there are $N!/(n!(N-n)!)$ ways to arrange $n$ different ligands in $N$ different coordination sites), but I can't convince myself (and don't want to attempt to convince you) that it's entirely rigorous. In particular, I feel like symmetry should play a role here; maybe it is simply that the effects of any symmetry eventually cancel out.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    3












    $begingroup$

    I think the answer may just come down to a simple counting of available sites. The equilibrium constant for a reaction is equal to the ratio of the forward and reverse reaction rates. For the forward reaction, there are $N-n$ sites available at which a ligand can replace an $ce{H2O}$. Conversely, for the reverse reaction, there are $n+1$ ligand sites at which a water molecules can replace it. If we assume that in each case the reaction rate with $m$ sites available is equal to $m$ times the reaction rate with $1$ site available, we obtain an equilibrium constant that is proportional to the ratio of sites available for the forward and reverse reactions.



    $$K=frac{k_{f,N-n}}{k_{r,n+1}}approxfrac{(N-n)k_{f,1}}{(n+1)k_{r,1}}proptofrac{(N-n)}{(n+1)}$$






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$














      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "431"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f112749%2fstatistical-model-of-ligand-substitution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      7












      $begingroup$

      I think the easy way out is to invoke $S_mathrm m = R ln Omega$. If we assume that for a generic complex $ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}$,



      $$Omega = {N choose n} = frac{N!}{n!(N-n)!} quad left[ = {N choose N-n} right]$$



      and that for the individual molecules $ce{A}$ and $ce{B}$, $Omega = 1$, then the equilibrium constant $K$ for



      $$ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$} + A <=> MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$} + B}$$



      is given by



      $$begin{align}
      K &= expleft(frac{-Delta_mathrm r G}{RT}right) \
      &= expleft(frac{Delta_mathrm r S}{R}right) \
      &= expleft(frac{S_mathrm{m}(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}}) + S_mathrm{m}(ce{B}) - S_mathrm{m}(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}) - S_mathrm{m}(ce{A})}{R}right) \
      &= exp[lnOmega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}}) + lnOmega(ce{B}) - lnOmega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}) - lnOmega(ce{A})] \
      &= expleft[lnleft(frac{Omega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}})Omega(ce{B})}{Omega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}})Omega(ce{A})}right)right] \
      &= frac{Omega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}})Omega(ce{B})}{Omega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}})Omega(ce{A})} \
      &= frac{N!}{(n+1)!(N-n-1)!} cdot frac{n!(N-n)!}{N!} \
      &= frac{N-n}{n+1}
      end{align}$$



      The reason for ignoring $Delta_mathrm r H$ is because we are only interested in statistical effects, i.e. entropy, and we don't care about the actual stability of the complex or the strength of the M–L bonds. However, the exact justification for assuming this form for $Omega$ still eludes me. It makes intuitive sense (that there are $N!/(n!(N-n)!)$ ways to arrange $n$ different ligands in $N$ different coordination sites), but I can't convince myself (and don't want to attempt to convince you) that it's entirely rigorous. In particular, I feel like symmetry should play a role here; maybe it is simply that the effects of any symmetry eventually cancel out.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        7












        $begingroup$

        I think the easy way out is to invoke $S_mathrm m = R ln Omega$. If we assume that for a generic complex $ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}$,



        $$Omega = {N choose n} = frac{N!}{n!(N-n)!} quad left[ = {N choose N-n} right]$$



        and that for the individual molecules $ce{A}$ and $ce{B}$, $Omega = 1$, then the equilibrium constant $K$ for



        $$ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$} + A <=> MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$} + B}$$



        is given by



        $$begin{align}
        K &= expleft(frac{-Delta_mathrm r G}{RT}right) \
        &= expleft(frac{Delta_mathrm r S}{R}right) \
        &= expleft(frac{S_mathrm{m}(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}}) + S_mathrm{m}(ce{B}) - S_mathrm{m}(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}) - S_mathrm{m}(ce{A})}{R}right) \
        &= exp[lnOmega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}}) + lnOmega(ce{B}) - lnOmega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}) - lnOmega(ce{A})] \
        &= expleft[lnleft(frac{Omega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}})Omega(ce{B})}{Omega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}})Omega(ce{A})}right)right] \
        &= frac{Omega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}})Omega(ce{B})}{Omega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}})Omega(ce{A})} \
        &= frac{N!}{(n+1)!(N-n-1)!} cdot frac{n!(N-n)!}{N!} \
        &= frac{N-n}{n+1}
        end{align}$$



        The reason for ignoring $Delta_mathrm r H$ is because we are only interested in statistical effects, i.e. entropy, and we don't care about the actual stability of the complex or the strength of the M–L bonds. However, the exact justification for assuming this form for $Omega$ still eludes me. It makes intuitive sense (that there are $N!/(n!(N-n)!)$ ways to arrange $n$ different ligands in $N$ different coordination sites), but I can't convince myself (and don't want to attempt to convince you) that it's entirely rigorous. In particular, I feel like symmetry should play a role here; maybe it is simply that the effects of any symmetry eventually cancel out.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          7












          7








          7





          $begingroup$

          I think the easy way out is to invoke $S_mathrm m = R ln Omega$. If we assume that for a generic complex $ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}$,



          $$Omega = {N choose n} = frac{N!}{n!(N-n)!} quad left[ = {N choose N-n} right]$$



          and that for the individual molecules $ce{A}$ and $ce{B}$, $Omega = 1$, then the equilibrium constant $K$ for



          $$ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$} + A <=> MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$} + B}$$



          is given by



          $$begin{align}
          K &= expleft(frac{-Delta_mathrm r G}{RT}right) \
          &= expleft(frac{Delta_mathrm r S}{R}right) \
          &= expleft(frac{S_mathrm{m}(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}}) + S_mathrm{m}(ce{B}) - S_mathrm{m}(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}) - S_mathrm{m}(ce{A})}{R}right) \
          &= exp[lnOmega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}}) + lnOmega(ce{B}) - lnOmega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}) - lnOmega(ce{A})] \
          &= expleft[lnleft(frac{Omega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}})Omega(ce{B})}{Omega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}})Omega(ce{A})}right)right] \
          &= frac{Omega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}})Omega(ce{B})}{Omega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}})Omega(ce{A})} \
          &= frac{N!}{(n+1)!(N-n-1)!} cdot frac{n!(N-n)!}{N!} \
          &= frac{N-n}{n+1}
          end{align}$$



          The reason for ignoring $Delta_mathrm r H$ is because we are only interested in statistical effects, i.e. entropy, and we don't care about the actual stability of the complex or the strength of the M–L bonds. However, the exact justification for assuming this form for $Omega$ still eludes me. It makes intuitive sense (that there are $N!/(n!(N-n)!)$ ways to arrange $n$ different ligands in $N$ different coordination sites), but I can't convince myself (and don't want to attempt to convince you) that it's entirely rigorous. In particular, I feel like symmetry should play a role here; maybe it is simply that the effects of any symmetry eventually cancel out.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          I think the easy way out is to invoke $S_mathrm m = R ln Omega$. If we assume that for a generic complex $ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}$,



          $$Omega = {N choose n} = frac{N!}{n!(N-n)!} quad left[ = {N choose N-n} right]$$



          and that for the individual molecules $ce{A}$ and $ce{B}$, $Omega = 1$, then the equilibrium constant $K$ for



          $$ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$} + A <=> MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$} + B}$$



          is given by



          $$begin{align}
          K &= expleft(frac{-Delta_mathrm r G}{RT}right) \
          &= expleft(frac{Delta_mathrm r S}{R}right) \
          &= expleft(frac{S_mathrm{m}(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}}) + S_mathrm{m}(ce{B}) - S_mathrm{m}(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}) - S_mathrm{m}(ce{A})}{R}right) \
          &= exp[lnOmega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}}) + lnOmega(ce{B}) - lnOmega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}}) - lnOmega(ce{A})] \
          &= expleft[lnleft(frac{Omega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}})Omega(ce{B})}{Omega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}})Omega(ce{A})}right)right] \
          &= frac{Omega(ce{MA_{n + 1}B_{$N-n-1$}})Omega(ce{B})}{Omega(ce{MA_{n}B_{$N-n$}})Omega(ce{A})} \
          &= frac{N!}{(n+1)!(N-n-1)!} cdot frac{n!(N-n)!}{N!} \
          &= frac{N-n}{n+1}
          end{align}$$



          The reason for ignoring $Delta_mathrm r H$ is because we are only interested in statistical effects, i.e. entropy, and we don't care about the actual stability of the complex or the strength of the M–L bonds. However, the exact justification for assuming this form for $Omega$ still eludes me. It makes intuitive sense (that there are $N!/(n!(N-n)!)$ ways to arrange $n$ different ligands in $N$ different coordination sites), but I can't convince myself (and don't want to attempt to convince you) that it's entirely rigorous. In particular, I feel like symmetry should play a role here; maybe it is simply that the effects of any symmetry eventually cancel out.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Apr 15 at 2:05









          Tyberius

          7,32032160




          7,32032160










          answered Apr 14 at 21:30









          orthocresolorthocresol

          40.4k7117247




          40.4k7117247























              3












              $begingroup$

              I think the answer may just come down to a simple counting of available sites. The equilibrium constant for a reaction is equal to the ratio of the forward and reverse reaction rates. For the forward reaction, there are $N-n$ sites available at which a ligand can replace an $ce{H2O}$. Conversely, for the reverse reaction, there are $n+1$ ligand sites at which a water molecules can replace it. If we assume that in each case the reaction rate with $m$ sites available is equal to $m$ times the reaction rate with $1$ site available, we obtain an equilibrium constant that is proportional to the ratio of sites available for the forward and reverse reactions.



              $$K=frac{k_{f,N-n}}{k_{r,n+1}}approxfrac{(N-n)k_{f,1}}{(n+1)k_{r,1}}proptofrac{(N-n)}{(n+1)}$$






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                3












                $begingroup$

                I think the answer may just come down to a simple counting of available sites. The equilibrium constant for a reaction is equal to the ratio of the forward and reverse reaction rates. For the forward reaction, there are $N-n$ sites available at which a ligand can replace an $ce{H2O}$. Conversely, for the reverse reaction, there are $n+1$ ligand sites at which a water molecules can replace it. If we assume that in each case the reaction rate with $m$ sites available is equal to $m$ times the reaction rate with $1$ site available, we obtain an equilibrium constant that is proportional to the ratio of sites available for the forward and reverse reactions.



                $$K=frac{k_{f,N-n}}{k_{r,n+1}}approxfrac{(N-n)k_{f,1}}{(n+1)k_{r,1}}proptofrac{(N-n)}{(n+1)}$$






                share|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  3












                  3








                  3





                  $begingroup$

                  I think the answer may just come down to a simple counting of available sites. The equilibrium constant for a reaction is equal to the ratio of the forward and reverse reaction rates. For the forward reaction, there are $N-n$ sites available at which a ligand can replace an $ce{H2O}$. Conversely, for the reverse reaction, there are $n+1$ ligand sites at which a water molecules can replace it. If we assume that in each case the reaction rate with $m$ sites available is equal to $m$ times the reaction rate with $1$ site available, we obtain an equilibrium constant that is proportional to the ratio of sites available for the forward and reverse reactions.



                  $$K=frac{k_{f,N-n}}{k_{r,n+1}}approxfrac{(N-n)k_{f,1}}{(n+1)k_{r,1}}proptofrac{(N-n)}{(n+1)}$$






                  share|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  I think the answer may just come down to a simple counting of available sites. The equilibrium constant for a reaction is equal to the ratio of the forward and reverse reaction rates. For the forward reaction, there are $N-n$ sites available at which a ligand can replace an $ce{H2O}$. Conversely, for the reverse reaction, there are $n+1$ ligand sites at which a water molecules can replace it. If we assume that in each case the reaction rate with $m$ sites available is equal to $m$ times the reaction rate with $1$ site available, we obtain an equilibrium constant that is proportional to the ratio of sites available for the forward and reverse reactions.



                  $$K=frac{k_{f,N-n}}{k_{r,n+1}}approxfrac{(N-n)k_{f,1}}{(n+1)k_{r,1}}proptofrac{(N-n)}{(n+1)}$$







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Apr 15 at 18:04

























                  answered Apr 15 at 2:17









                  TyberiusTyberius

                  7,32032160




                  7,32032160






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Chemistry Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f112749%2fstatistical-model-of-ligand-substitution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Plaza Victoria

                      In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

                      How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...