Natural Bond Orbital Analysis Tutorial1
Tutorial Example For Methylamine
|
H3 | | | | | | H7 |
| \ | | | | / | |
H4 | - | C1 | - | N2 | | |
| / | | | | \ | |
H5 | | | | | | H6 |
|
The full output for this example is
methylamine.
Natural Bond Orbital Analysis
The Lewis structure that is closest to your structure is determined.
This process generates "natural bond orbitals," or NBOs. These orbitals
are localized electron pair orbitals for bonding pairs and lone pairs.
The hybridization of the atoms and the weight of each atom in each localized
electron pair bond is calculated in this idealized Lewis structure. The
output for methylamine is given in the table below as as example.
Best Lewis Structure
Hybridization in the Best Lewis Structure
1. A bonding orbital for C1-N2 with 1.9979 electrons
__has 40.75% C 1 character in a sp2.68 hybrid
__has 59.25% N 2 character in a sp2.20 hybrid
2. A bonding orbital for C1-H3 with 1.9931 electrons
__has 58.59% C 1 character in a s0.95 p3 hybrid
__has 41.41% H 3 character in a s orbital
3. A bonding orbital for C1-H4 with 1.9973 electrons
__has 57.68% C 1 character in a s0.99 p3 hybrid
__has 42.32% H 4 character in a s orbital
4. A bonding orbital for C1-H5 with 1.9931 electrons
__has 58.59% C 1 character in a s0.95 p3 hybrid
__has 41.41% H 5 character in a s orbital
5. A bonding orbital for N2-H6 with 1.9919 electrons
__has 67.28% N 2 character in a s0.96 p3 hybrid
__has 32.72% H 6 character in a s orbital
6. A bonding orbital for N2-H7 with 1.9920 electrons
__has 67.28% N 2 character in a s0.96 p3 hybrid
__has 32.72% H 7 character in a s orbital
9. A lone pair orbital for N2 with 1.9695 electrons
__made from a s0.77 p3 hybrid
-With core pairs on: C 1 N 2 -
|
The first line for each orbital gives the type of orbital
and the occupancy (between 0 and 2.0000 electrons).
The type can be "bonding," "lone pair," and "antibonding." A normal
Lewis structure wouldn't have any antibonding orbitals, so the
presence of antibonding orbitals shows deviations from normal Lewis
structures. Antibonding localized orbitals are called non-Lewis NBOs.
An example is given below where antibonding orbitals
are encountered. For methylamine, however, no antibonding orbitals
are listed so that the stucture is adequately explained by normal
Lewis electron pair orbitals.
For example, the first NBO in the sample
output is the 2-center bond with 1.9979 electrons
between carbon (atom 1) and nitrogen (atom 2), the SigmaCN
bond. If the occupancy is not 2.0, then there are deviations from
an ideal Lewis structure. Methylamine shows some small deviations, but
otherwise is well-approximated using Lewis structures. The next lines summarize
the natural atomic hybrids of which the NBO is composed, giving the
percentage of the NBO on each hybrid,
the atom label, and a hybrid
label showing the splambda composition
(the amount of s-character, p-character, etc.).
For example, the SigmaCN NBO
is formed from an sp2.68 hybrid
on carbon interacting with an sp2.20
hybrid on nitrogen:
SigmaCN = 0.638 (sp2.68)C + 0.770 (sp2.20)N
The sp2.68 hybrid on carbon has 72.8%
p-character. The sp2.20
hybrid on nitrogen has 68.8% p-character.
An idealized sp3
hybrid has 75% p-character. The SigmaCN bond then
corresponds roughly to the qualitative concept
of interacting sp3 hybrids. The two coefficients,
0.638 and 0.770, in the
SigmaCN equation above are called polarization coefficients.
The sizes of these coefficients show the importance of the two hybrids in the
formation of the bond. They are easily calculated given that the percentage
of the NBO on each hybrid is (100|cA|2).
Nitrogen has the larger percentage of this NBO, at 59.25%, and gives the
larger polarization coefficient of 0.770, because it has the higher
electronegativity.
In the methylamine example, the NBO search
finds the C-N bond (NBO 1), three C-H bonds (NBOs 2, 3, 4), two N-H
bonds (NBOs 5, 6), and the N lone pair (NBO 9) of the expected Lewis structure.
At the end of the table are listed the C and N
core pairs, which are the 1s electrons for each atom.
In this example, it is interesting to note the slight asymmetry
of the three SigmaCH NBOs. The C-H bond
lying trans to the nitrogen lone pair has slightly more electron
density. This different orbital is NBO 3, which is for the C1-H4
bond. This difference can be explored using Perturbation Theory
Energy Analysis to calculate Donor Acceptor Interactions among the electron
pairs.
Donor Acceptor Interactions: Perturbation Theory Energy Analysis
The localized orbitals in your best Lewis structure can interact strongly.
A filled bonding or lone pair orbital can act as a donor and an empty or
filled bonding, antibonding, or lone pair orbital can act as an acceptor.
These interactions can strengthen and weaken bonds. For example, a lone pair
donor -> antibonding acceptor orbital interaction will weaken the bond
associated with the antibonding orbital. Conversely, an interaction with
a bonding pair as the acceptor will strengthen the bond. Strong electron
delocalization in your best Lewis structure will also show up as
donor-acceptor interactions.
Only interactions greater than 20 kJ/mol are listed.
Donor Acceptor Interactions in the Best Lewis Structure
The interaction of lone pair donor orbital, 9, for N2 with the antibonding
acceptor orbital, 75, for C1-H4 is 44.3 kJ/mol.
|
This calculation is done by examining all possible interactions between
`filled' (donor) Lewis-type NBOs and `empty' (acceptor) non-Lewis
NBOs, and estimating their energetic importance by 2nd-order perturbation
theory. Since these interactions lead to loss of occupancy from the
localized NBOs of the idealized Lewis structure into
the empty non-Lewis orbitals (and thus, to departures from the
idealized Lewis structure description), they are referred to
as `delocalization' corrections to the natural Lewis
structure.
In the methylamine example
above, the lone pair donor orbital, nN ->
Sigma*CH interaction between the
nitrogen lone pair (NBO 9) and the antiperiplanar C1 -H4
antibond (NBO 75) is seen to give a strong stabilization, 44.3 kJ/mol.
Resonance
Systems that have multiple resonance structures or extensive delocalization
cannot be described by a single Lewis structure. The failure of the Lewis
approach is chemically interesting and NBO analysis readily highlights
any deviations from pure localized electron pair bonds. Systems with:
- Bond occupancy less than 2.0
- Antibonding NBOs and or
- Strong Donor-Acceptor interactions
help highlight deviations from idealized Lewis bonding. An interesting
example is ozone. Two resonance structures are
necessary to describe ozone, because the molecule has a delocalized
three-center bond. The Best Lewis Structure Section of the output for
ozone is given below:
Hybridization in the Best Lewis Structure
1. A bonding orbital for O1-O2 with 1.9954 electrons
__has 60.78% O 1 character in a s0.95 p3 hybrid
__has 39.22% O 2 character in a p3 hybrid
2. A bonding orbital for O1-O3 with 1.9985 electrons
__has 44.41% O 1 character in a p-pi orbital ( 99.81% p)
__has 55.59% O 3 character in a p-pi orbital ( 99.85% p)
3. A bonding orbital for O1-O3 with 1.9954 electrons
__has 60.76% O 1 character in a s0.95 p3 hybrid
__has 39.24% O 3 character in a p3 hybrid
7. A lone pair orbital for O1 with 1.9974 electrons
__made from a sp0.89 hybrid
8. A lone pair orbital for O2 with 1.9988 electrons
__made from a s orbital
9. A lone pair orbital for O2 with 1.9682 electrons
__made from a p3 hybrid
10. A lone pair orbital for O2 with 1.3836 electrons
__made from a p-pi orbital ( 99.89% p)
11. A lone pair orbital for O3 with 1.9988 electrons
__made from a s orbital
12. A lone pair orbital for O3 with 1.9682 electrons
__made from a p3 hybrid
71. A antibonding orbital for O1-O3 with 0.6110 electrons
__has 55.59% O 1 character in a p-pi orbital ( 99.81% p)
__has 44.41% O 3 character in a p-pi orbital ( 99.85% p)
|
O1 is the central atom and forms a single bond to O2
and a double bond to O3 (NBOs 2 and 3).
Note that the Sigma bonds have
occupancies that are a little low. Note that one of the lone pairs on the
singly bonded outer oxygen is quite small at 1.384 electrons. The biggest
indication that simple Lewis structures can't account for the bonding is the
antibonding orbital with a very large occupancy of 0.611 electrons.
A quick look at the Donor Acceptor Interactions output shows how the
NBO analysis deals with the delocalization:
Donor Acceptor Interactions in the Best Lewis Structure
The interaction of bonding donor orbital, 2, for O1-O3 with the
third lone pair acceptor orbital, 10, for O2 is 65.3 kJ/mol.
The interaction of bonding donor orbital, 2, for O1-O3 with the
antibonding acceptor orbital, 71, for O1-O3 is 35.6 kJ/mol.
The interaction of the second lone pair donor orbital, 9, for O2
with the second antibonding acceptor orbital, 72, for O1-O3 is 66.4 kJ/mol.
The interaction of the third lone pair donor orbital, 10, for O2
with the antibonding acceptor orbital, 71, for O1-O3 is 1394 kJ/mol.
The interaction of the second lone pair donor orbital, 12, for O3
with the antibonding acceptor orbital, 70, for O1-O2 is 66.4 kJ/mol.
|
The program can't list two resonance structures, so it builds the
delocalization by strong donor acceptor interactions. The largest
interaction is between the third lone pair donor orbital, 10, for O2
and the antibonding acceptor orbital, 71, for O1-O3
at 1394 kJ/mol. This interaction builds a partial pi bond between O1
and O2 and weakens the pi bond between O1 and
O3 by donation of electrons into the pi-antibonding orbital.
This picture of the bonding in ozone may appear awkward, but the NBO
analysis quickly shows the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the Lewis
formalism and the more exact molecular orbital approach. Lewis structures
just aren't a good model for delocalized systems. As you can see from
our methylamine and ozone examples, the Donor Acceptor Interaction
approach is most useful for small deviations from idealized Lewis structures
4.
References and Notes
1. Reworked from the
Natural Bond Orbital Analysis Program Manual to fit
the output style used by the Molecular Structure Calculations Web pages:
Natural Bond Orbital Program Manual, E. D. Glendening, A. E. Reed2,
J. E. Carpenter3, and F. Weinhold.
Theoretical Chemistry Institute and Department of Chemistry,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706
2. Present address: Bayer AG, Abteilung AV-IM-AM,
5090 Leverkusen, Bayerwerk, Federal Republic of Germany.
3. Present address: Department of Chemistry, University of
California-Irvine, Irvine, California 92717.
4. The RESONANCE keyword is always used for the NBO analysis.
Principal references to the development and applications of NAO/NBO/NLMO
methods are:
Natural Bond Orbitals:
J. P. Foster and F. Weinhold, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 102, 7211-7218
(1980).
Natural Atomic Orbitals and Natural Population Analysis:
A. E. Reed and F. Weinhold, J. Chem. Phys. 78, 4066-4073 (1983);
A. E. Reed, R. B. Weinstock, and F. Weinhold, J. Chem. Phys. 83,
735-746 (1985).
Natural Localized Molecular Orbitals:
A. E. Reed and F. Weinhold, J. Chem. Phys. 83, 1736-1740 (1985).
Open-Shell NBO:
J. E. Carpenter and F. Weinhold, J. Molec. Struct. (Theochem) 169,
41-62 (1988); J. E. Carpenter, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, 1987.
Review Articles:
A. E. Reed, L. A. Curtiss, and F. Weinhold, Chem. Rev.88,
899-926 (1988).
F. Weinhold and J. E. Carpenter, in, R. Naaman
and Z. Vager (eds.), The Structure of Small Molecules and
Ions,Plenum, New York, 1988, pp. 227-236.