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?

I'm thinking of a number

How did the aliens keep their waters separated?

How does modal jazz use chord progressions?

How to politely respond to generic emails requesting a PhD/job in my lab? Without wasting too much time

What are the performance impacts of 'functional' Rust?

Single author papers against my advisor's will?

How to say that you spent the night with someone, you were only sleeping and nothing else?

Is there folklore associating late breastfeeding with low intelligence and/or gullibility?

Slither Like a Snake

Why does tar appear to skip file contents when output file is /dev/null?

Am I ethically obligated to go into work on an off day if the reason is sudden?

How to retrograde a note sequence in Finale?

What's the point in a preamp?

How do I automatically answer y in bash script?

What was the last x86 CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?

Can't figure this one out.. What is the missing box?

How many spell slots should a Fighter 11/Ranger 9 have?

3 doors, three guards, one stone

What LEGO pieces have "real-world" functionality?

The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551

Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?

What kind of display is this?

How to market an anarchic city as a tourism spot to people living in civilized areas?

What did Darwin mean by 'squib' here?



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?










5












$begingroup$


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



$$ceM(OH2)_$N - n$L_n + L <=> M(OH2)_$N - n - 1$L_$n + 1$ + H2O$$



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



$$fracN - nn + 1$$



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
    58 mins ago















5












$begingroup$


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



$$ceM(OH2)_$N - n$L_n + L <=> M(OH2)_$N - n - 1$L_$n + 1$ + H2O$$



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



$$fracN - nn + 1$$



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
    58 mins ago













5












5








5





$begingroup$


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



$$ceM(OH2)_$N - n$L_n + L <=> M(OH2)_$N - n - 1$L_$n + 1$ + H2O$$



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



$$fracN - nn + 1$$



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:



$$ceM(OH2)_$N - n$L_n + L <=> M(OH2)_$N - n - 1$L_$n + 1$ + H2O$$



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



$$fracN - nn + 1$$



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 1 hour ago









andselisk

19.2k662125




19.2k662125










asked 1 hour ago









Shoubhik Raj MaitiShoubhik Raj Maiti

1,398732




1,398732







  • 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
    58 mins ago












  • 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
    58 mins ago







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
58 mins ago




$begingroup$
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
58 mins ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

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



$$Omega = N choose n = fracN!n!(N-n)! quad left[ = N choose N-n right]$$



and that for the individual molecules $ceA$ and $ceB$, $Omega = 1$, then the equilibrium constant $K$ for



$$ceMA_nB_$N-n$ + A <=> MA_n+1B_$N-n-1$ + B$$



is given by



$$beginalign
K &= expleft(frac-Delta_mathrm r GRTright) \
&= expleft(fracDelta_mathrm r SRright) \
&= expleft(fracS_mathrmm(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$) + S_mathrmm(ceB) - S_mathrmm(ceMA_nB_$N-n$) - S_mathrmm(ceA)Rright) \
&= exp[lnOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$) + lnOmega(ceB) - lnOmega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$) - lnOmega(ceA)] \
&= expleft[lnleft(fracOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$)Omega(ceB)Omega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$)Omega(ceA)right)right] \
&= fracOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$)Omega(ceB)Omega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$)Omega(ceA) \
&= fracN!(n+1)!(N-n-1)! cdot fracn!(N-n)!N! \
&= fracN-nn+1
endalign$$



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









$endgroup$













    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

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2












    $begingroup$

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



    $$Omega = N choose n = fracN!n!(N-n)! quad left[ = N choose N-n right]$$



    and that for the individual molecules $ceA$ and $ceB$, $Omega = 1$, then the equilibrium constant $K$ for



    $$ceMA_nB_$N-n$ + A <=> MA_n+1B_$N-n-1$ + B$$



    is given by



    $$beginalign
    K &= expleft(frac-Delta_mathrm r GRTright) \
    &= expleft(fracDelta_mathrm r SRright) \
    &= expleft(fracS_mathrmm(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$) + S_mathrmm(ceB) - S_mathrmm(ceMA_nB_$N-n$) - S_mathrmm(ceA)Rright) \
    &= exp[lnOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$) + lnOmega(ceB) - lnOmega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$) - lnOmega(ceA)] \
    &= expleft[lnleft(fracOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$)Omega(ceB)Omega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$)Omega(ceA)right)right] \
    &= fracOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$)Omega(ceB)Omega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$)Omega(ceA) \
    &= fracN!(n+1)!(N-n-1)! cdot fracn!(N-n)!N! \
    &= fracN-nn+1
    endalign$$



    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









    $endgroup$

















      2












      $begingroup$

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



      $$Omega = N choose n = fracN!n!(N-n)! quad left[ = N choose N-n right]$$



      and that for the individual molecules $ceA$ and $ceB$, $Omega = 1$, then the equilibrium constant $K$ for



      $$ceMA_nB_$N-n$ + A <=> MA_n+1B_$N-n-1$ + B$$



      is given by



      $$beginalign
      K &= expleft(frac-Delta_mathrm r GRTright) \
      &= expleft(fracDelta_mathrm r SRright) \
      &= expleft(fracS_mathrmm(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$) + S_mathrmm(ceB) - S_mathrmm(ceMA_nB_$N-n$) - S_mathrmm(ceA)Rright) \
      &= exp[lnOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$) + lnOmega(ceB) - lnOmega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$) - lnOmega(ceA)] \
      &= expleft[lnleft(fracOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$)Omega(ceB)Omega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$)Omega(ceA)right)right] \
      &= fracOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$)Omega(ceB)Omega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$)Omega(ceA) \
      &= fracN!(n+1)!(N-n-1)! cdot fracn!(N-n)!N! \
      &= fracN-nn+1
      endalign$$



      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









      $endgroup$















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

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



        $$Omega = N choose n = fracN!n!(N-n)! quad left[ = N choose N-n right]$$



        and that for the individual molecules $ceA$ and $ceB$, $Omega = 1$, then the equilibrium constant $K$ for



        $$ceMA_nB_$N-n$ + A <=> MA_n+1B_$N-n-1$ + B$$



        is given by



        $$beginalign
        K &= expleft(frac-Delta_mathrm r GRTright) \
        &= expleft(fracDelta_mathrm r SRright) \
        &= expleft(fracS_mathrmm(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$) + S_mathrmm(ceB) - S_mathrmm(ceMA_nB_$N-n$) - S_mathrmm(ceA)Rright) \
        &= exp[lnOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$) + lnOmega(ceB) - lnOmega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$) - lnOmega(ceA)] \
        &= expleft[lnleft(fracOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$)Omega(ceB)Omega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$)Omega(ceA)right)right] \
        &= fracOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$)Omega(ceB)Omega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$)Omega(ceA) \
        &= fracN!(n+1)!(N-n-1)! cdot fracn!(N-n)!N! \
        &= fracN-nn+1
        endalign$$



        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 $ceMA_nB_$N-n$$,



        $$Omega = N choose n = fracN!n!(N-n)! quad left[ = N choose N-n right]$$



        and that for the individual molecules $ceA$ and $ceB$, $Omega = 1$, then the equilibrium constant $K$ for



        $$ceMA_nB_$N-n$ + A <=> MA_n+1B_$N-n-1$ + B$$



        is given by



        $$beginalign
        K &= expleft(frac-Delta_mathrm r GRTright) \
        &= expleft(fracDelta_mathrm r SRright) \
        &= expleft(fracS_mathrmm(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$) + S_mathrmm(ceB) - S_mathrmm(ceMA_nB_$N-n$) - S_mathrmm(ceA)Rright) \
        &= exp[lnOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$) + lnOmega(ceB) - lnOmega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$) - lnOmega(ceA)] \
        &= expleft[lnleft(fracOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$)Omega(ceB)Omega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$)Omega(ceA)right)right] \
        &= fracOmega(ceMA_n+1B_$N-n-1$)Omega(ceB)Omega(ceMA_nB_$N-n$)Omega(ceA) \
        &= fracN!(n+1)!(N-n-1)! cdot fracn!(N-n)!N! \
        &= fracN-nn+1
        endalign$$



        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










        answered 23 mins ago









        orthocresolorthocresol

        40.3k7117247




        40.3k7117247



























            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

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480