20.9
Crystal Field Theory - Tetrahedral and Square Planar Complexes
Tetrahedral Complexes
Crystal field theory (CFT) is applicable to molecules in geometries other than octahedral. In octahedral complexes, the lobes of…
Crystal field theory can be used to model tetrahedral and square planar transition metal complexes in an analogous manner to the application of this theory in octahedral complexes.
For example, to model the tetrahedral tetrachloronickelate(II) ion, each chloride ligand is replaced by a negative point charge, resulting in a tetrahedral crystal field.
Due to the influence of this field, the dxy, dyz, and dxz orbitals are higher in energy than the dx2−y2 and dz2 orbitals. This is attributed to the stronger interaction between the tetrahedral crystal field and the dxy, dyz, and dxz orbitals.
The higher-energy orbitals possess t2 symmetry and are referred to as the t2 set, while the lower-energy orbitals have e symmetry and comprise the e set.
In comparison to the splitting of the d orbitals in octahedral complexes, the relative energies of the orbitals in tetrahedral complexes are inverted and the crystal field splitting energy, or Δtet, is lower.
In square planar complexes such as the tetracyanonickelate(II) ion, all the ligands lie in the xy plane. Here, a square planar crystal field is obtained by replacing the cyanide ligands with negative point charges.
Under the influence of this field, the d orbitals of the metal ion are split into four different energy levels.
Here, the dx2−y2 orbital is the highest-energy orbital and has lobes pointing directly at the ligand charges. The dxy orbital is next in energy with lobes lying in the same plane as the ligand charges.
The dz2 orbital is yet lower in energy, attributed to a small overlap between the dz2 orbital and the crystal field in the xy plane. The lowest energy set of orbitals, dxz and dyz, have relatively minimal interaction with the crystal field.
The crystal field splitting energy in square planar complexes, or Δsp, is defined as the energy difference between the highest-energy orbital, dx2−y2, and the lowest-energy orbitals, dyz and dxz.
Assuming the same metal ion and ligand molecules for all complexes, the ratio of Δtet, Δsp, and Δoct is 0.44:1.7:1.
View the full transcript and gain access to JoVE Core videos
Q1: How do d orbitals split in tetrahedral complexes compared to octahedral complexes?
In tetrahedral complexes, the d orbital splitting pattern is inverted relative to octahedral complexes. The dxy, dyz, and dxz orbitals are higher in energy (t2 set), while dx2−y2 and dz2 orbitals are lower in energy (e set). This inversion occurs because none of the tetrahedral ligands point directly at the d orbital lobes, resulting in weaker interactions and smaller crystal field splitting energy (Δtet).
Q2: Why is the crystal field splitting energy smaller in tetrahedral complexes than octahedral complexes?
Tetrahedral complexes have smaller crystal field splitting energy (Δtet) because the ligands are positioned between the Cartesian axes rather than pointing directly at the d orbital lobes. This geometry creates less overlap between the crystal field and the d orbitals, resulting in weaker electrostatic repulsion and reduced orbital destabilization compared to octahedral arrangements.
Q3: What is the orbital energy order in square planar complexes?
In square planar complexes, the dx2−y2 orbital is highest in energy, followed by dxy, then dz2, with dxz and dyz lowest. The dx2−y2 orbital has lobes pointing directly at ligands in the xy plane, while dxz and dyz have minimal interaction with the crystal field. This arrangement results from removing two trans ligands from an octahedral geometry along the z-axis.
Q4: How is crystal field splitting energy defined in square planar complexes?
Crystal field splitting energy in square planar complexes (Δsp) is defined as the energy difference between the highest-energy orbital, dx2−y2, and the lowest-energy orbitals, dyz and dxz. This splitting is larger than in octahedral complexes, reflecting the significant destabilization of orbitals aligned with the xy plane ligands.
Q5: What is the relative magnitude of crystal field splitting across different geometries?
The ratio of crystal field splitting energies for tetrahedral, square planar, and octahedral complexes is 0.44:1.7:1, assuming the same metal ion and ligand molecules. This demonstrates that square planar complexes have the largest splitting, octahedral complexes are intermediate, and tetrahedral complexes have the smallest splitting energy.
Q6: Why does the dz2 orbital have lower energy in square planar complexes?
The dz2 orbital has lower energy in square planar complexes because there is minimal overlap between this orbital and the crystal field in the xy plane where the ligands are positioned. Since the dz2 orbital extends primarily along the z-axis, it experiences reduced electrostatic repulsion from the square planar arrangement of ligands.
Q7: How does crystal field theory apply to non-octahedral coordination complexes?
Crystal field theory applies to tetrahedral and square planar complexes by replacing ligands with negative point charges and analyzing resulting d orbital interactions. The theory predicts orbital energy diagrams based on orbital overlap with the crystal field geometry. Understanding these geometries requires recognizing how ligand positioning relative to d orbital lobes determines destabilization patterns.