* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Minimum electrophilicity principle in Lewis acid–base complexes of
Molecular orbital diagram wikipedia , lookup
Chemical thermodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Bioorthogonal chemistry wikipedia , lookup
Photoredox catalysis wikipedia , lookup
Citric acid cycle wikipedia , lookup
Pseudo Jahn–Teller effect wikipedia , lookup
History of molecular biology wikipedia , lookup
Chemical bond wikipedia , lookup
Atomic theory wikipedia , lookup
Electron configuration wikipedia , lookup
History of chemistry wikipedia , lookup
Cation–pi interaction wikipedia , lookup
Coordination complex wikipedia , lookup
Inorganic chemistry wikipedia , lookup
Jahn–Teller effect wikipedia , lookup
Resonance (chemistry) wikipedia , lookup
Butyric acid wikipedia , lookup
Transition state theory wikipedia , lookup
Computational chemistry wikipedia , lookup
Hypervalent molecule wikipedia , lookup
Molecular dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Biosynthesis wikipedia , lookup
Boron group wikipedia , lookup
Halogen bond wikipedia , lookup
History of molecular theory wikipedia , lookup
Physical organic chemistry wikipedia , lookup
Stability constants of complexes wikipedia , lookup
Nucleophilic acyl substitution wikipedia , lookup
Acid dissociation constant wikipedia , lookup
Biochemistry wikipedia , lookup
Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM 868 (2008) 22–26 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/theochem Minimum electrophilicity principle in Lewis acid–base complexes of boron trihalides S. Noorizadeh *, E. Shakerzadeh Chemistry Department, College of Sciences, Shahid Chamran University, Golestan Avenue, Ahvaz, Iran a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 7 May 2008 Received in revised form 29 July 2008 Accepted 30 July 2008 Available online 8 August 2008 Keywords: Lewis acid and base Maximum hardness principle Minimum electrophilicity principle . a b s t r a c t The hardness and electrophilicity values for the complexes of some boron trihalides; BX3 (X = F, Cl and Br) with strong (NH3, H2O, N(CH3)3 and O(CH3)2) and weak (CO, CH3F, HCN and CH3CN) bases have been calculated using different levels of theory (HF/6-31G**, HF/6-311++G**, B3LYP/6-31G** and B3LYP/6311++G**). For both strong and weak bases the hardness values decrease from BF3-base to BBr3-base. This indicates more acidity strength of BF3 among the considered boron trihalides, which is not in agreement with experiment for the interaction of BX3 with strong bases. On the other hand, in the case of strong bases the obtained electrophilicities increase in the order BF3-base < BCl3-base < BBr3-base; whereas for weak bases this trend is reversed. Therefore, according to the Minimum Electrophilicity Principle; MEP, the strength of the Lewis acidity of BX3 against strong bases is expected to be in the order BF3 < BCl3 < BBr3; and the reverse trend is predicted for the weak bases. This is in full agreement with the experimental evidences. The extent of dihedral angle distortions of BX3 are also calculated in each series of BX3-strong base complexes and it is shown that there is significant correlation between the obtained electrophilicity values and the extents of distortion for each series. Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The acid and base are among the most widely used concepts in chemistry and are almost as old as chemistry itself. Although there are different definitions for these concepts [1], but all of the current definitions are compatible with each other. Perhaps the most widely used of these definitions is Lewis definition, which is based on electron-pair donation and acceptance. This definition encompasses all reactions entailing hydrogen ion, oxide ion, or solvent interactions, as well as the formation of acid–base adducts and all coordination compounds. The acids and bases are divided into hard acids (H+, Ca2+, AlCl3,. . .), soft acids (Cu+, Hg+, GaCl3,. . .), hard bases (NH3, CO2 3 , R2O,. . .) and soft bases (CO, CN, R2S,. . .). In fact there is no a unique measure to determine the absolute values of the ‘‘acidity strengths” and it is only possible to compare the relative strengths of different species. An obvious way is to measure the enthalpy changes for the reactions of a set of acids with some common (reference) base and the same way can be used for determining the strength of a set of bases. Tendency of an acid in the reaction with a base can be described according to the softness of species. Boron compounds make attractive examples. The acidic boron atom is border lined between hard and soft. Addition of three hard, electronegative atoms (such as fluorine) hardens the boron * Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 6113332156; fax: +98 6113331042. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Noorizadeh). 0166-1280/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.theochem.2008.07.033 and makes it hard Lewis acid. Conversely, addition of three soft, electropositive atoms (such as hydrogen) softens the boron and makes it a soft Lewis acid. It is expected that more electronegative species pull charge from the boron more effectively; therefore, they would have strong interactions with the lone pair of a Lewis base. Both of the experimental [2–5] and theoretical [6–12] studies have shown that the acidity strength of BX3 with respect to weak Lewis bases such as CO, HCN, CH3CN [7] and CH3F [12], increases in the order BF3 > BCl3 > BBr3, which is in the same trend of electronegativity of halogen atoms and charge of boron atom in these compounds. But when a strong base such as N(CH3)3 [4], NH3 [7], O(CH3)2 and OH2 [10] is interacted with BX3, the reverse order is observed for acidity of these compounds (BF3 < BCl3 < BBr3). It seems that in the reaction between boron trihalides and a strong base, the electron deficiency at the boron atom does not explain the relative strength of the X3B-base donor–acceptor interaction and there is no correlation between charge donation and bond strength [13]. There are different explanations to justify this phenomenon. One of the commonly used explanations is the back-donation of charge from one of the np orbital of the halogen to the vacant 2pz orbital of the boron atom. It seems that since the smaller halogen has stronger back-donation, the 2pz orbital of boron in BF3 becomes less available for complex formation than that of BCl3 and BBr3 so that BF3 becomes weaker acid than BCl3 and BBr3. Another explanation is based on the Ligand Close Packing (LCP) model [14]. According to this model as the strong donor molecule S. Noorizadeh, E. Shakerzadeh / Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM 868 (2008) 22–26 is attracted toward the boron atom, by its large positive charge, the structure of BX3 is distorted from its planner geometry and hence pyramidalization energy is required. This distortion depends on the strength of BX bonds (the strength of back-donation). But with very weak base no pyramidalization energy is required because the Lewis acid BX3 is rarely distorted from its planner geometry. Therefore when a weak base is considered, the strength of Lewis acid– base interaction depends only on the charge of boron atom, which is larger in BF3 in the basis of halogen’s electronegativity; therefore, BF3 is the strongest Lewis acid against very weak bases. As an alternative explanation, Brinck et al. [15] suggested that the trend of increase in the Lewis acid strength against strong bases reflects the importance of Lewis BX3-base charge transfer and the ability of BX3 molecule to accept the charge, which is indicated by the charge capacity. In fact the charge capacity is a measure of increasing ability of the larger, more polarizable congeners to accommodate the additional electron. Recently, many attempts have been made to introduce new concepts and principles which can be used in describing the reactivity, selectivity or stability of molecular systems. Prominent among these are electronic chemical potential (l) and hardness (g) [16], which according to the parabola model [17–19] their analytical and operational definitions are given as follows: l¼ g¼ @E @N @2E @N2 ffi mð~rÞ ! ðIP þ EAÞ 2 ffi ðIP EAÞ ð1Þ ð2Þ mð~rÞ IP and EA are the vertical ionization potential and electron affinity of the molecular system, respectively. Following Janaks’ theorem [20], these descriptors can be approximated in terms of the obtained energies of HOMO and LUMO molecular orbital from density functional calculations (eH and eL) as ðeL þ eH Þ 2 g ¼ ðeL eH Þ l¼ ð3Þ ð4Þ Based on the Maximum Hardness Principle (MHP) [21–24], which its validity is verified by different systems [25–29], the preferred direction of a chemical reaction is toward the greater hardness. Parr et al. [30] have defined a global index for the electrophilicity power of a system in terms of its electronic chemical potential and hardness as x¼ l2 ðIP þ EAÞ2 ffi 2g 8ðIP EAÞ ð5Þ Using Janak’s approximation, this relation has the following form: xffi ðeL þ eH Þ2 8ðeL eH Þ ð6Þ This index intended to be a measure of energy lowering causes by maximal electron flow between a donor and an acceptor; therefore it seems that this index can be used in the study of an acid–base reaction. The electrophilicity index is successfully applied in theoretical studies of many systems [31–48] and recently a useful review is also published on it by Chattaraj and Roy [49]. Noorizadeh and Maihami [50] showed that the major product of a Diels–Alder reaction has always less electrophilicity than the minor product. They have claimed that the electrophilicity index can be used as an indicator for regioselectivity in this reaction. Therefore it is concluded that ‘‘It seems that there is a tendency in atoms to arrange themselves so that the obtained molecule reaches the minimum electrophilicity”. This rule is called the Minimum Electrophilicity Principle; MEP, and is checked for some other systems [50–52]. 23 The purpose of this paper is to present a simple explanation for relative Lewis acidity of some boron trihalides against both strong and weak bases, in the basis of Minimum Electrophilicity and Maximum Hardness Principles. 2. Results and discussion To reinvestigate the acidity strength of some boron trihalides (BX3; X = F, Cl and Br) from theoretical point of view, two sets of Lewis bases (weak and strong), which can form stable compounds with these acids, are considered here. It is expected that more stable complexes are formed by stronger acids. Therefore, according to the MHP and MEP, for each set of complexes which are formed for a given base and different acids, the compound with the higher hardness or lesser electrophilicity belongs to the strongest acid. The geometries of the considered BX3-base complexes are optimized with both HF and B3LYP exchange-correlation energy functional methods and two different basis sets (6-31G** and 6311++G**). All calculations are performed using Gaussian98 W program [53] and in all cases the vibrational frequencies are also calculated for optimized structures in order to check if there was a true minimum. Then the chemical potential, hardness and electrophilicity values are calculated using Janak’s approximation (Eqs. (3), (4) and (6)). The obtained frontier molecular orbital energies (HOMO and LUMO) and the calculated chemical potential, hardness and electrophilicity values for Lewis acid–strong base (LA– SB) and Lewis acid–weak base (LA–WB) complexes are gathered in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. In these tables, greater hardness and lesser electrophilicity values for each series are bolded to check the validity of the MHP and MEP in the prediction of acidity strength in each series. The trends of acidity strength in each series are chosen for the failure or acceptance of MHP and MEP and the failed principles are also given in the last column of each table. These two cases (LA–SB and LA–WB) are discussed separately. NH3, N(CH3)3, H2O and O(CH3)2 are selected as strong bases for this consideration. According to Table 1, MHP is not successful in predicting the acidity strength of the considered acids. For example in this table for the complexes of NH3 with BF3, BCl3 and BBr3 by using HF/6-31G** the obtained hardnesses are 0.71236, 0.56708 and 0.52153, respectively; and therefore it is expected that the order of acidity strength is BF3 > BCl3 > BBr3, which is not in agreement with the experiment. The same situation is observed for the other complexes and MHP cannot correctly predict the strongest acid in all cases. It is clear that in these complexes the trend of calculated hardnesses is not depend on the method and basis set. A comparison between the obtained chemical potentials for each series of complexes in Table 1 shows that there are significant differences between the l’s of complexes which form by a given base. Since the constancy of chemical potential is one of the conditions of MHP [54], it seems that the failure of MHP in these complexes may arise from the differences among the chemical potentials of the compared molecules. In contrast with the MHP, another principle (MEP) successfully predicts the strong acids in all cases only with one exception. In the optimized BX3-OH2 series with B3LYP/6-31G**, which predicts BCl3 as the strongest acid among the considered boron trihalides (this complex has the least electrophilicity), this principle is failed. Since this difficulty is removed by using a polar and diffuse basis set (6311++G**), then it may arises from the weakness of the used basis set. It must be mentioned that the interaction between a given BX3 and a base is a weak interaction and therefore it is logical that a polar and diffuse basis set gives better result than the others. In fact, the experimentally observed acidities of BX3 in interaction with strong bases are consistently associated with lower values of electrophilicity in all complexes. 24 S. Noorizadeh, E. Shakerzadeh / Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM 868 (2008) 22–26 Table 1 Calculated Frontier molecular orbital energies, chemical potential, hardness and electrophilicity values for the considered complexes of strong bases with BX3 acids using different levels of theory and Janak’s approximation (all in a.u.) Base HF/6-31G** NH3 N(CH3)3 H2O O(CH3)2 HF/6-311++G** NH3 N(CH3)3 H2O O(CH3)2 B3LYP/6-31G** NH3 N(CH3)3 H2O O(CH3)2 B3LYP/6-311++G** NH3 N(CH3)3 H2O O(CH3)2 Acid eL eH l g x Failed principle BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 0.16856 0.15094 0.14777 0.20206 0.19051 0.18318 0.03473 0.13497 0.13291 0.20923 0.19398 0.18354 0.54380 0.41614 0.37376 0.48137 0.40523 0.3638 0.55957 0.42515 0.38094 0.50041 0.41266 0.36925 0.18762 0.13260 0.11322 0.13966 0.10736 0.09031 0.26420 0.14509 0.12402 0.14559 0.10934 0.09286 0.71236 0.56708 0.52153 0.68343 0.59574 0.54698 0.59430 0.56012 0.51385 0.70964 0.60664 0.55279 0.02471 0.01550 0.01224 0.01427 0.00967 0.00746 0.05794 0.01879 0.01497 0.01493 0.00985 0.00780 MHP BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 0.01893 0.01562 0.01474 0.02874 0.02524 0.02466 0.03472 0.05050 0.03837 0.02949 0.02482 0/02324 0.55962 0.41847 0.38089 0.4934 0.4063 0.36877 0.55961 0.45910 0.40072 0.50917 0.41387 0.37461 0.27035 0.20143 0.18308 0.23233 0.19053 0.17206 0.26245 0.20477 0.18602 0.23984 0.19453 0.17569 0.57855 0.43409 0.39563 0.52214 0.43154 0.39343 0.59433 0.44502 0.40242 0.53866 0.43869 0.39785 0.06316 0.04673 0.04236 0.05169 0.04206 0.03762 0.05795 0.04711 0.04292 0.05339 0.04313 0.03879 MHP BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 0.02447 0.00847 0.00801 0.05931 0.04775 0.03892 0.0168 0.01313 0.00682 0.0566 0.02687 0.02284 0.33661 0.28091 0.25374 0.32073 0.27278 0.24665 0.36643 0.29109 0.26414 0.32839 0.28021 0.25192 0.15607 0.13622 0.12287 0.13071 0.11252 0.10387 0.17482 0.13898 0.13548 0.13590 0.12667 0.11454 0.36108 0.28938 0.26175 0.38004 0.32053 0.28557 0.38323 0.30422 0.25732 0.38499 0.30708 0.27476 0.03373 0.03206 0.02884 0.02248 0.01975 0.01889 0.03987 0.03118 0.03567 0.02398 0.02613 0.02387 MHP BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 0.04824 0.05145 0.05166 0.0238 0.02681 0.02735 0.0478 0.05917 0.06142 0.02273 0.02706 0.02858 0.36766 0.28891 0.26683 0.34366 0.27892 0.25673 0.39748 0.29841 0.27364 0.34632 0.28666 0.26249 0.20795 0.17018 0.15925 0.18373 0.15287 0.14204 0.22264 0.17879 0.16753 0.18453 0.15686 0.14554 0.31942 0.23746 0.21517 0.31986 0.25211 0.22938 0.34968 0.23924 0.21222 0.32359 0.25961 0.23391 0.06769 0.06098 0.05893 0.05277 0.04634 0.04398 0.07088 0.06681 0.06613 0.05261 0.04739 0.04528 MHP To investigate the relative acidity strengths of BX3 towards weak Lewis bases, CO, HCN, CH3CN and CH3F molecules are selected. It is remarked that for the weakly bound molecule, the stability of the BBr3 adduct is lower than the other acid adducts. Therefore, BBr3 is the weaker Lewis acid than BF3 for the weakly bound adducts. According to the Table 2, in LA–WB complexes the MHP correctly predicts BF3 as the strongest acid in all series with all considered methods and basis sets. In this case, as it is shown in Table 2, the compared complexes nearly have the same chemical potentials in contrast with LA–SB complexes. Therefore, the MHP is valid for all of these adducts. But MEP is not successful in predicting the strongest acid and the correct trend for acidity in each series when HF method is used; therefore this principle is failed. It must be noticed that HF method does not consider any electronic correlation; therefore this difficulty may arise from the MHP MHP MHP MHP MHP MHP MHP MHP, MEP MHP MHP MHP MHP weakness of the method. To obviate this hardship, the structures of these complexes are optimized with B3LYP. The results show that by using this method, MEP is always successful in predicting the strongest acid as well as the trend of acidity for each series, with no exception. We now pay attention to the geometry changes of an acid during the formation of a complex. The acid loses its planer structure and take a pyramidal geometry in adduct molecule. This deformation requirs a pryamidalization energy. Although this energy is negligible for a given LA–WB complexes but it is considerable for a LA–SB adduct. The BX3 rarely distorted from its planner geometry in interaction with very weak bases and the strength of the acid– base interaction depends only to the charge of boron atom. Then the interactions between a given acid and weak bases are not consider here. It is clear that between two acids, the stronger one is 25 S. Noorizadeh, E. Shakerzadeh / Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM 868 (2008) 22–26 Table 2 Calculated Frontier molecular orbital energies, chemical potential, hardness and electrophilicity values for the considered complexes of weak bases with BX3 acids using different levels of theory and Janak’s approximation (all in a.u.) Base HF/6-31G** CO HCN CH3CN CH3F HF/6-311++G** CO HCN CH3CN CH3F B3LYP/6-31G** CO HCN CH3CN CH3F B3LYP/6-311++G** CO HCN CH3CN CH3F Acid eL eH l g x Failed principle BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 0.14883 0.07898 0.06457 0.18018 0.10014 0.08413 0.19065 0.11266 0.10546 0.23422 0.09552 0.07706 0.56826 0.45925 0.40911 0.52007 0.44339 0.39423 0.48799 0.40221 0.35939 0.54918 0.44953 0.40234 0.20972 0.19014 0.17227 0.16995 0.17163 0.15505 0.14867 0.14478 0.12697 0.15749 0.17701 0.16264 0.71709 0.53823 0.47368 0.70025 0.54353 0.47836 0.67864 0.51487 0.46485 0.78338 0.54505 0.47941 0.03067 0.03358 0.03133 0.02062 0.02710 0.02513 0.01628 0.02035 0.01734 0.01583 0.02874 0.02759 MEP BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 0.05875 0.05050 0.03837 0.02990 0.03294 0.03343 0.02573 0.00996 0.00928 0.03825 0.03939 0.03773 0.57161 0.45910 0.40072 0.52776 0.44422 0.40081 0.49489 0.40433 0.36662 0.55206 0.45081 0.40545 0.25643 0.20430 0.18118 0.24893 0.20564 0.18369 0.23458 0.19719 0.17867 0.25691 0.20571 0.18386 0.63036 0.50960 0.43909 0.55766 0.47716 0.43424 0.52062 0.41429 0.37590 0.59031 0.49020 0.44318 0.05216 0.04095 0.03738 0.05556 0.04431 0.03885 0.05285 0.04693 0.04246 0.05590 0.04316 0.03814 MEP BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 0.04153 0.06338 0.06954 0.00509 0.04818 0.05585 0.00824 0.06315 0.06093 0.06702 0.05128 0.06078 0.39456 0.31962 0.28494 0.38264 0.30698 0.27322 0.35589 0.24144 0.26851 0.36822 0.31215 0.28006 0.21805 0.19150 0.17724 0.19387 0.17758 0.16453 0.17383 0.15230 0.16472 0.15061 0.18172 0.17042 0.35303 0.25624 0.2154 0.37755 0.25881 0.21735 0.36413 0.17829 0.20758 0.43524 0.26087 0.21928 0.06734 0.07156 0.07292 0.04977 0.06092 0.06227 0.04149 0.06505 0.06535 0.02606 0.06329 0.06622 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 BF3 BCl3 BBr3 0.05607 0.07074 0.08561 0.02966 0.05558 0.07261 0.04108 0.06820 0.07422 0.01356 0.06298 0.07721 0.40678 0.32479 0.29548 0.3989 0.31202 0.28432 0.36657 0.27587 0.25412 0.37944 0.31941 0.28887 0.23143 0.19777 0.19054 0.21428 0.18382 0.17847 0.20383 0.17204 0.16417 0.19651 0.19122 0.18304 0.35071 0.25405 0.20988 0.36924 0.25644 0.21171 0.32549 0.20767 0.17990 0.36588 0.25643 0.21167 0.07636 0.07698 0.08649 0.06218 0.06587 0.07522 0.06382 0.07126 0.07491 0.05277 0.07128 0.07914 more distorted from planarity during the reaction with a base. Therefore the more acidity strength means the more extent of distortion from planarity. In boron trihalide acids the back-donation of charge from one of the boromine 4p orbitals to the vacant 2pz orbital of the boron atom is weaker than that from one of the fluorine 2p orbitals. It causes that B–F bonds to have more double bond character than B–Br bonds; and therefore BBr3 molecule distorts more easily than BF3 in reaction with a base. In the other hand, the high strength of B–F bond, which is due to the large charges on B and F, and the smaller size of the F atom, allows it to come close enough to boron to form a strong polar bond; and it causes that BF3 requires more energy to distort from planarity. But in BBr3 the bond is not so strong and the Br atoms are not as close to boron nuclues; hence the ability of the molecule to distort is much greater than BF3. Then MEP MEP MEP MEP MEP MEP it is expected that the extent of distortions increases in the order BF3 < BCl3 < BBr3, which is in accordance with LCP model [14]. The calculated dihedral angle distortions of BX3 for each series of the considered LA–SB in this study are presented in Table 3. The structures of BX3 in the corresponding complexes which optimized Table 3 Calculated dihedral angle distortions of BX3 in BX3-strong base complexes using B3LYP/6-311++G** Base BF3 BCl3 BBr3 NH3 OH2 NMe3 OMe2 46.125 32.675 49.802 41.799 48.571 42.097 55.991 49.880 48.722 43.662 58.159 51.829 26 S. Noorizadeh, E. Shakerzadeh / Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM 868 (2008) 22–26 0.075 BF3 Electrophilicity 0.07 BCl3 0.065 BF3 BBr3 BCl3 0.06 BBr3 0.055 BF3 BF3 0.05 BCl3 0.045 BBr3 BCl3 BBr3 0.04 0.035 28 38 48 58 68 Dihedal angle distortion Fig. 1. Correlations between the obtained electrophilicity values and the calculated dihedral angle distortions (j – H2O, N – OMe2, s – NH3, d – NMe3). with B3LYP/6-311++G** level of theory is used for calculating the extent of dihedral angle distortion. The reason of this selection is that the electrophilicity values which are obtained with this method shows the correct trend of acidity strengths in all cases. In keeping with the accepted order of base strengths, the methylated molecules are calculated to form adducts with greater distortion of the BX3 group than NH3 and H2O. It appears that NH3 distorts the BX3 group to a greater extent than H2O. These results are supported by experiment [10,55,56]. It is shown that electrophilicity is also a measure of acidity. Therefore it is expected dihedral angel distortions and electrophilicities must be correlated to each others. In Fig. 1, the correlations between the obtained electrophilicities and dihedral distortions for each series of bases are shown, separately. Suprisingly, there is a significant correolation between these parameters (NH3 with R2 = 0.974, N(CH3)3 with R2 = 0.999, H2O with R2 = 1.00 and O(CH3)2 with R2 = 0.990). The least and the most distortions are observed for BF3-OH2 and BBr3-N(CH3)3, respectively. To generalize this principle, its validity is checking in some other cases in our research group. 3. Conclusion The relative acidic strengths of BX3 towards both strong and weak Lewis bases are reinvestigated. The results show that strong acids in interaction with both strong and weak bases are better predicted by MEP than MHP; at least when diffuse basis sets and exchange-correlation energy functional methods are used in calculations. It is also shown that there is a good correlation between the obtained electrophilicity values and the extent of distortions for each series of complexes. The relative tendencies to form the complexes can be better explained in terms of electrophilicity consideration. Therefore, our results show the validity of MEP in acid– base reactions. Acknowledgment The financial support of this work by Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz is greatly appreciated (Grant 1386). References [1] J.E. Huheey, Inorganic Chemistry: Principles of Structure and Reactivity, third ed., Harper Collins Publisher: Inc., New York, 1983. [2] G.G. Volkova, S.I. Reshetnikov, L.N. Shkuratova, A.A. Budneva, E.A. Paukshtis, Chem. Eng. J. 134 (2007) 106. [3] C.M. Jones, M. Bernier, E. Carson, K.E. Colyer, R. Metz, A. Pawlow, E.D. Wischow, I. Webb, E.J. IAndriole, J.C. Poutsma, Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 267 (2007) 54. [4] F.A. Cotton, G. Wilkinson, C.A. Murillo, M. Bochmann, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, sixth ed., Wiley, New York, 1999. p. 165. [5] E.N. Gur’yanova, I.P. Gol’dshtein, I.P. Romm, Donor–Acceptor Bond, Wiley, New York, 1975. p. 100. [6] F. Bessac, G. Frenking, Inorg. Chem. 42 (2003) 7990. [7] V. Jonas, G. Frenking, M.T. Reetz, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 116 (1994) 8741. [8] G. Frenking, S. Fau, C.M. Marchand, H. Grutzmacher, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119 (1997) 6648. [9] E.W. Rothe, B.P. Mather, G.P. Reck, Inorg. Chem. 19 (1980) 829. [10] B.D. Rowsell, R.J. Gillespie, G.L. Heard, Inorg. Chem. 38 (1999) 4659. [11] K. Gupta, D.R. Roy, V. Subramanian, P.K. Chattaraj, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM) 812 (2007) 13. [12] B.J. van der Veken, E.J. Sluyts, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119 (1997) 11516. [13] A. Beste, O. Kramer, A. Gerhard, G. Frenking, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. (1999) 2037. [14] R.J. Gillespie, C.F. Matta, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. Eur. 2 (2001) 73. [15] T. Brinck, J.S. Murray, P. Politzer, Inorg. Chem. 32 (1993) 2622. [16] R.G. Parr, R.G. Pearson, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 105 (1983) 7512. [17] L. Von Szentpaly, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM) 233 (1991) 71. [18] L. Von Szentpaly, Chem. Phys. Lett. 245 (1995) 209. [19] L. Von Szentpaly, J. Phys. Chem. A 102 (1998) 10912. [20] J.F. Janak, Phys. Rev. B 18 (1978) 7165. [21] R.G. Pearson, Chemical Hardness: Applications from Molecules to Solids, Wiley-VCH Verlay GmbH, Weinheim, 1997. [22] R.G. Pearson, Acc. Chem. Res. 26 (1993) 250. [23] R.G. Pearson, P.K. Chattaraj, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 113 (1854) 1854. [24] P.K. Chattaraj, G.H. Liu, R.G. Parr, Chem. Phys. Lett. 237 (1995) 171. [25] S. Noorizadeh, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM) 713 (2005) 27. [26] P.K. Chattaraj, P. Fuentealba, B. Gomez, R. Contreras, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 122 (2000) 348. [27] F.A. Pasha, H.K. Srivastava, P.P. Singh, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 104 (2005) 87. [28] D. Datta, J. Phys. Chem. 96 (1992) 2409. [29] T.K. Ghanty, S.K. Ghosh, J. Phys. Chem. 100 (1996) 12295. [30] R.G. Parr, L.V. Szentpaly, S. Liu, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 121 (1999) 1922. [31] C. Makedonas, C.A. Mitsopoulou, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 26 (2007) 4176. [32] F. De Vleeschouwer, V. Van Speybroeck, M. Waroquier, P. Geerlings, F. De Proft, Org. Lett. 9 (2007) 2721. [33] J. Padmanabhan, R. Parthasarathi, V. Subramanian, P.K. Chattaraj, J. Phys. Chem. A 111 (2007) 1358. [34] D.R. Roy, R. Parthasarath, J. Padmanabhan, U. Sarkar, V. Subramanian, P.K. Chattaraj, J. Phys. Chem. A 110 (2006) 1084. [35] D. Moraleda, D. El Abed, H. Pollissier, M. Santelli, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM) 760 (2006) 113. [36] P.R. Campodonico, A. Aizman, R. Contreras, Chem. Phys. Lett. 422 (2006) 340. [37] U. Sarkar, J. Padmanabhan, R. Parthasarathi, V. Subramanian, P.K. Chattaraj, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM) 758 (2006) 119. [38] J.L. Moncada, A. Toro-Labbe, Chem. Phys. Lett. 429 (2006) 161. [39] J. Padmanabhan, R. Parthasarathi, V. Subramanian, P.K. Chattaraj, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM) 730 (2005) 221. [40] D. Glossman-Mitnik, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM) 725 (2005) 27. [41] J. Olah, F. De Proft, T. Veszpremi, P. Geerlings, J. Phys. Chem. A 109 (2005) 1608. [42] P.K. Chattaraj, D.-R. Roy, J. Phys. Chem. A 109 (2005) 3771. [43] M. Elango, R. Parthasarathi, V. Subramanian, U. Sarkar, P.K. Chattaraj, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM) 723 (2005) 43. [44] R.K. Roy, J. Phys. Chem. A 108 (2004) 4934. [45] E. Chamorro, P.K. Chattaraj, P. Fuentealba, J. Phys. Chem. A 107 (2003) 7068. [46] J. Cadet, A. Grand, C. Morell, J.R. Letelier, J.L. Moncada, A. Toro Labbe, J. Phys. Chem. A 107 (2003) 5334. [47] P. Perez, A. Aizman, R. Contreras, J. Phys. Chem. A 106 (2002) 3964. [48] P.K. Chattaraj, P. Perez, J. Zevallos, A. Toro-Labbe, J. Phys. Chem. A 105 (2001) 4272. [49] P.K. Chattaraj, D.R. Roy, Chem. Rev. 107 (2007) PR46. [50] S. Noorizadeh, H. Maihami, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM) 763 (2006) 133. [51] S. Noorizadeh, J. Phys. Org. Chem. 20 (2007) 514. [52] S. Noorizadeh, Chin. J. Chem. 10 (2008) 1439. [53] M.J. Frisch, G.W. Trucks, H.B. Schlegel, G.E. Scuseria, M.A. Robb, J.R. Cheeseman, V.G. Zakrzewski, J.A. Montgomery, Jr. R.E. Stratmann, J.C. Burant, S. Dapprich, J.M. Millam, A.D. Daniels, K.N. Kudin, M.C. Strain, O. Farkas, J. Tomasi, V. Barone, M. Cossi, R. Cammi, B. Mennucci, C. Pomelli, C. Adamo, S. Clifford, J. Ochterski, G.A. Petersson, P.Y. Ayala, Q. Cui, K. Morokuma, D.K. Malick, A.D. Rabuck, K. Raghavachari, J.B. Foresman, J. Cioslowski, J.V. Ortiz, A.G. Baboul, B.B. Stefanov, G. Liu, A. Liashenko, P. Piskorz, I. Komaromi, R. Gomperts, R.L. Martin, D.J. Fox, T. Keith, M.A. Al-Laham, C.Y. Peng, A. Nanayakkara, C. Gonzalez, M. Challacombe, P.M.W. Gill, B. Johnson, W. Chen, M.W. Wong, J.L. Andres, C. Gonzalez, M. Head-Gordon, E.S. Replogle, J.A. Pople, Gaussian 98, Inc., Pittsburgh, Revision A.7. [54] P.K. chattaraj, P. Fuentealba, P. Jaque, A. Toro-Labbe, J. Phys. Chem. A 103 (1999) 9307. [55] J.L. Hoard, S. Geller, T.B. Owen, Acta Crystallogr. 4 (1951) 405. [56] P.H. Clippard, J.C. Hanson, R.C. Taylor, J. Cryst. Mol. Struct. 1 (1971) 363.