Statistical model of ligand substitution Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679:...
How to motivate offshore teams and trust them to deliver?
How to find all the available tools in macOS terminal?
Why does Python start at index 1 when iterating an array backwards?
Why don't the Weasley twins use magic outside of school if the Trace can only find the location of spells cast?
Are my PIs rude or am I just being too sensitive?
Gastric acid as a weapon
How discoverable are IPv6 addresses and AAAA names by potential attackers?
What causes the vertical darker bands in my photo?
I am not a queen, who am I?
What LEGO pieces have "real-world" functionality?
The logistics of corpse disposal
What is a Meta algorithm?
When to stop saving and start investing?
Should I discuss the type of campaign with my players?
Did Xerox really develop the first LAN?
Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?
Why did the IBM 650 use bi-quinary?
"Seemed to had" is it correct?
Why is black pepper both grey and black?
Did Kevin spill real chili?
Is there a service that would inform me whenever a new direct route is scheduled from a given airport?
What is the musical term for a note that continously plays through a melody?
Is there a Spanish version of "dot your i's and cross your t's" that includes the letter 'ñ'?
If Jon Snow became King of the Seven Kingdoms what would his regnal number be?
Statistical model of ligand substitution
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is there a reason for the mathematical form of the equilibrium constant?Why is ligand substitution only partial with copper(II) ions and ammonia?Ligand Binding Paradox?How do we decide which ligand is monodentate, bidentate, etc.?In the reversible reactions of acyl substitution, how do backward reactions happen by being against the forward reaction drives?Why is thiourea a monodentate ligand?Is glycine strong or weak field ligand? If yes, how?What is an uninegative ligandWhy does ligand substitution occur when OH- is a better ligand than NH3?Is there a difference between a chelate ligand and a polydentate ligand?
$begingroup$
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?
equilibrium coordination-compounds
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
equilibrium coordination-compounds
$endgroup$
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
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
equilibrium coordination-compounds
$endgroup$
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
equilibrium coordination-compounds
edited yesterday
andselisk
19.5k664126
19.5k664126
asked yesterday
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
yesterday
add a comment |
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$$K=frac{k_{f,N-n}}{k_{r,n+1}}approxfrac{(N-n)k_{f,1}}{(n+1)k_{r,1}}proptofrac{(N-n)}{(n+1)}$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
edited 23 hours ago
Tyberius
7,29032160
7,29032160
answered yesterday
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.3k7117247
40.3k7117247
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$$K=frac{k_{f,N-n}}{k_{r,n+1}}approxfrac{(N-n)k_{f,1}}{(n+1)k_{r,1}}proptofrac{(N-n)}{(n+1)}$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$$K=frac{k_{f,N-n}}{k_{r,n+1}}approxfrac{(N-n)k_{f,1}}{(n+1)k_{r,1}}proptofrac{(N-n)}{(n+1)}$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$$K=frac{k_{f,N-n}}{k_{r,n+1}}approxfrac{(N-n)k_{f,1}}{(n+1)k_{r,1}}proptofrac{(N-n)}{(n+1)}$$
$endgroup$
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.
$$K=frac{k_{f,N-n}}{k_{r,n+1}}approxfrac{(N-n)k_{f,1}}{(n+1)k_{r,1}}proptofrac{(N-n)}{(n+1)}$$
edited 7 hours ago
answered 23 hours ago
TyberiusTyberius
7,29032160
7,29032160
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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
yesterday