thebean
Hazard to Others
Posts: 116
Registered: 26-9-2013
Location: Minnesota
Member Is Offline
Mood: Deprotonated
|
|
Organometallic Chemistry
I'm not sure that this is the right place to be posting but a thought occurred to me today that I wanted to ask about. Have any of the admins or mods
ever discussed having an organometallic subforum? Or would that just belong in Organic? I personally would like it but it is quite the niche subject.
[Edited on 3-2-2014 by thebean]
"You need a little bit of insanity to do great things."
-Henry Rollins
|
|
|
bfesser
|
Thread Moved
2-2-2014 at 12:17 |
forgottenpassword
Hazard to Others
Posts: 374
Registered: 12-12-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Considering that inorganic chemistry has yet to have its own section, I can't see it happening!
|
|
|
Zyklon-A
International Hazard
Posts: 1547
Registered: 26-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fluorine radical
|
|
I see nothing wrong with it (although my opinion likely matters little).
| Quote: |
Considering that inorganic chemistry has yet to have its own section, I can't see it happening! |
I think that's because inorganic chemistry is summed up in all the other forums/sub-forums except organic chemistry.
[Edited on 2-2-2014 by Zyklonb]
|
|
|
Random
International Hazard
Posts: 1120
Registered: 7-5-2010
Location: In ur closet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Energetic
|
|
Organometallic chemistry often requires dangerous reagents and it's also a rare subject to be discussed here just as are organophosphorus compounds
for example.
Most of the time when a subject that contains it appears, it is posted in organic chemistry. After all it actually is organic chemistry.
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4357
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Online
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Random  | Organometallic chemistry often requires dangerous reagents and it's also a rare subject to be discussed here just as are organophosphorus compounds
for example.
|
True. I've done a lot of organometallic chemistry, and I'd never try to do any of it at home.
| Quote: | | After all it actually is organic chemistry. |
Um...no. It isn't.
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid | | Quote: Originally posted by Random | Organometallic chemistry often requires dangerous reagents and it's also a rare subject to be discussed here just as are organophosphorus compounds
for example.
|
True. I've done a lot of organometallic chemistry, and I'd never try to do any of it at home.
|
Why not? I've done a couple Grignards in my garage lab and didn't consider them of much concern.
<!-- bfesser_edit_tag -->[<a href="u2u.php?action=send&username=bfesser">bfesser</a>: fixed
mismatched BBCode tags]
[Edited on 3.2.14 by bfesser]
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
TheChemiKid
Hazard to Others
Posts: 493
Registered: 5-8-2013
Location: ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'̵͇̿̿з=༼ ▀̿̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿ ༽
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Even simpler, there are some simple organometallic ligands such as Copper Aspirinate
When the police come
\( * O * )/ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'̵͇̿̿з=༼ ▀̿̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿ ༽
|
|
|
forgottenpassword
Hazard to Others
Posts: 374
Registered: 12-12-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
... with no organo-metallic bonds! 
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4357
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Online
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
Which is neither a ligand nor organometallic.
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
mnick12
Hazard to Others
Posts: 404
Registered: 30-12-2009
Location: In the lab w/ Dr. Evil
Member Is Offline
Mood: devious
|
|
Organometallic chemistry is awesome, and coordination chemistry is as well. They are very interesting fields of chemistry and are yet to be explored
to the extent as o-chem and others. My research at school is devoted to this field, and what is being done is freakin sweet!
However I agree that certain reactions should be left to professionally equipped labs. Grignards are probably the farthest I would go in a home lab, I
would never use anything like sodium triethylborohydride or methyllithium in a home lab. With that being said there are some very fulfilling
experiments that can be conducted at home, personally I think coordination chemistry has some of the prettiest reactions around! Most ligand synthesis
is pretty straight forward, and making chelates is also pretty easy.
|
|
|
Random
International Hazard
Posts: 1120
Registered: 7-5-2010
Location: In ur closet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Energetic
|
|
Aside from a metal atom, the other stuff is mainly organic. Just as is methanethiol for example. Not completely same though, I agree.
Also grignard reagents are pretty basic stuff from what I have read, when you get into the real stuff then it hardly gets easily done. Pyrophoric
chemicals that can basically burn you can be a common sight for example.
[Edited on 3-2-2014 by Random]
<!-- bfesser_edit_tag -->[<a href="u2u.php?action=send&username=bfesser">bfesser</a>: fixed
mismatched BBCode tags]
[Edited on 4.2.14 by bfesser]
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4357
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Online
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
| Quote: | | Aside from a metal atom, the other stuff is mainly organic. |
That's a bit like saying that, apart from the hydrogen ion, perchloric acid's just a weak base.
| Quote: | | Also grignard reagents are pretty basic stuff from what I have read, when you get into the real stuff then it hardly gets easily done. Pyrophoric
chemicals that can basically burn you can be a common sight for example. |
Grignard reagents are fairly harmless, yes (okay, pyrophoric and extremely basic, but simple enough to work with). But things like diethyl zinc,
nickel tetracarbonyl, ferrocene, cyclopentadienyliron dicarbonyl dimer...these are what I consider *real* organometallic compounds, and I'm not having
them at home (well, okay, I wouldn't mind having a sample of ferrocene to display, but not the others).
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
BromicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 3254
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Rock n' Roll
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid | | But things like diethyl zinc, nickel tetracarbonyl, ferrocene, cyclopentadienyliron dicarbonyl dimer...these are what I consider *real* organometallic
compounds, and I'm not having them at home (well, okay, I wouldn't mind having a sample of ferrocene to display, but not the others).
|
When I was doing chemistry at home I made a number of organometallic compounds, diisopropyl lead, methyl lithium, and sodium napthalide spring to mind
immediately. There are plenty that can be done safely at home. As for things like dimethyl zinc I would feel comfortable working with those at home
only one the 1-4 gram scale. Wearing proper flame resistant PPE that kind of quantity is limited to what kind of damage it can do, provided you don't
have bottles of solvent or combustible building materials laying around.
These are all *real* organometallics, inherent danger does not an organometallic make. Dimethylmercury isn't pyrophoric at all afterall 
The real question though is, is there a need for such a subforum? Are organometallic posts clogging your threads in the other sections? If you want
to sift through all the threads on the forum (takes about 8 hours if you're quick about it) and take note of the threads involving organometallic
chemistry then compare that to the Computational Models and Techniques sub-forum (which is pretty devoid of traffic) you might be able to make a case.
But really I think organometallic fits in nicely where ever you put it.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8030
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
Organometallic chemistry certainly is not the easiest thing to do at home (there are a few exceptions). In many cases, you need to exclude air and
some of the experiments require special solvents, which are not easy to get. Many ligands are very sensitive (air/moisture) and hardly can be kept
around in a normal home-setting (e.g. they must be stored under argon or nitrogen and never ever may come in contact with air, so all processing must
be done in a special box).
I like to read about all those weird and surprising complexes, but I feel no need to experiment with them at home, simply because it requires too much
apparatus and too many very special chemicals. I think that for the home chemist there is a lot of coordination chemistry, which can be done at home,
using water or other common solvents (e.g. ethanol, methanol, acetone, certain acids) and which also has interesting properties.
|
|
|
thebean
Hazard to Others
Posts: 116
Registered: 26-9-2013
Location: Minnesota
Member Is Offline
Mood: Deprotonated
|
|
Copper aspirinate is neither an organometallic compound (It lacks the carbon-metal bond) or a ligand. What you are describing is sometimes called a
metalorganic.
"You need a little bit of insanity to do great things."
-Henry Rollins
|
|
|
Acidum
Harmless
Posts: 39
Registered: 2-5-2013
Location: Serbia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sublimed
|
|
First - Organometallic chemistry, as interesting as it is, does not need subforum, as it is perfectly fitted at Organic chemistry subforum and does
not have that much homemade examples to separate it because of numerous posts.
Topics with clearly understandable titles are all we need...
Second - There seems to be ongoing conflict between org and inorg chemists about organometallic definition... As organic chemist, I (we if we count
all my colleagues) consider compounds such as BuLi, Grignard reagents, diethyl zinc, Li-diisopropylamide, allkoxides, etc... to be organic,
organometallic. Salts and complexes, such as CaCO3, Ni(CO)4, copper acetylsalicilate, sodium acetate, etc... are considered as
inorganic.
...just my couple of cents...
...and then I disappeared in the mist...
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4357
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Online
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Acidum | Second - There seems to be ongoing conflict between org and inorg chemists about organometallic definition... As organic chemist, I (we if we count
all my colleagues) consider compounds such as BuLi, Grignard reagents, diethyl zinc, Li-diisopropylamide, allkoxides, etc... to be organic,
organometallic. Salts and complexes, such as CaCO3, Ni(CO)4, copper acetylsalicilate, sodium acetate, etc... are considered as
inorganic.
...just my couple of cents... |
To be considered organometallic, there needs to be a covalent bond between a metal and carbon. Lithium diisopropylamide and alkali metal alkoxides
don't have these. Neither do calcium carbonate, copper acetylsalicylate, sodium acetate or potassium cyanide.
Diethyl zinc and nickel tetracarbonyl are definitely organometallic.
Alkyllithiums and Grignards are borderline- most of the chemists I know would consider them organometallic, but leave them to the organic chemists.
Many inorganic chemists will not consider cyanide complexes to be organometallic, considering cyanide to be a pseudohalogen, not really an organic
ligand.
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That's what Wikipedia says. But if you open an issue of Organometallics you will find that many of the common ligands used in organometallic chemistry
do not coordinate via C.
| Quote: | | [N]ickel tetracarbonyl [is] definitely organometallic |
Not as definitely as you think. Yes, the structures of Ni(CO)4 and Fe(CO)5 were published in Organometallics, but they are
archived in the ICSD (http://www.fiz-karlsruhe.com/icsd.html) and I'm quite sure many organometallic chemists consider metal carbonyls as precursors to rather than
"real" organometallics.
The whole differentiation between organic and inorganic chemistry is arbitrary anyway and I don't think that there is something that could be called a
"conflict". Holleman-Wiberg for example lists mellitic anhydride as an inorganic compound, because it does not have C-H bonds. *shrug*
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4357
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Online
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by turd | That's what Wikipedia says. But if you open an issue of Organometallics you will find that many of the common ligands used in organometallic chemistry
do not coordinate via C.
| Quote: | | [N]ickel tetracarbonyl [is] definitely organometallic |
Not as definitely as you think. Yes, the structures of Ni(CO)4 and Fe(CO)5 were published in Organometallics, but they are
archived in the ICSD (http://www.fiz-karlsruhe.com/icsd.html) and I'm quite sure many organometallic chemists consider metal carbonyls as precursors to rather than
"real" organometallics. |
Your last statement surprises me. I did a PhD and a post-doc with organometallic chemists, and never heard that opinion from any of them. Then
again, I haven't seen an issue of Organometallics in nearly ten years...
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
bfesser
Resident Wikipedian
Posts: 2114
Registered: 29-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Regardless of what we choose to classify as Organometallics discussion, <em>there's simply not enough activity to justify the creation of a new
forum.</em> Hell, we hardly get enough activity in the <strong><a href="forumdisplay.php?fid=10">Organic
Chemistry</a></strong> forum—most of the posts end up in Beginnings. Any genuine organometallics threads we've
seen so far fit nicely into the Organic forum.
It's important to note that <em>this is only my personal opinion</em> based on my own observations of forum activity. It's neither my
decision to make, nor have we seen the opinions of other mods and the admins.
|
|
|
turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid | | Your last statement surprises me. I did a PhD and a post-doc with organometallic chemists, and never heard that opinion from any of them. Then
again, I haven't seen an issue of Organometallics in nearly ten years... |
On the other hand it surprises me that anyone would consider CO as definitely organic. A corner-case, sure, but definitely? Because it really
does not look like what you would expect from an organic compound (C-C bonds, C-H, bonds, tetravalent C, bivalent O).
| Quote: Originally posted by bfesser | | Regardless of what we choose to classify as Organometallics discussion, <em>there's simply not enough activity to justify the creation of a new
forum.</em> Hell, we hardly get enough activity in the <strong><a href="forumdisplay.php?fid=10">Organic
Chemistry</a></strong> forum—most of the posts end up in Beginnings. Any genuine organometallics threads we've
seen so far fit nicely into the Organic forum. |
Agreed. If it's ligand synthesis it fits nicely into organic chemistry, if it's complex formation with a common ligand, it goes into general
chemistry. No point in fragmenting the forum.
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4357
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Online
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by turd | | Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid | | Your last statement surprises me. I did a PhD and a post-doc with organometallic chemists, and never heard that opinion from any of them. Then
again, I haven't seen an issue of Organometallics in nearly ten years... |
On the other hand it surprises me that anyone would consider CO as definitely organic. A corner-case, sure, but definitely? Because it really
does not look like what you would expect from an organic compound (C-C bonds, C-H, bonds, tetravalent C, bivalent O). |
Actually, I don't consider CO to be organic; I just consider carbonyls to be organometallic. That seems counterintuitive, I know...
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid | | Actually, I don't consider CO to be organic; I just consider carbonyls to be organometallic. That seems counterintuitive, I know...
|
Yes, that is a bit counterintuitive.
Just to get this straight: Suppose you have a pyridine based neutral pincer L and a bivalent metal M. According to your definition
the neutral complex [MLCl2] is not an organometallic, but the cationic [ML(CO)2]2+ is
organometallic, not because of the organic ligand L, but because of the inorganic molecule CO? I will have to think about that.
Because so far it doesn't make much sense to me...
[Edited on 28-2-2014 by turd]
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4357
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Online
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by turd | | Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid | | Actually, I don't consider CO to be organic; I just consider carbonyls to be organometallic. That seems counterintuitive, I know...
|
Yes, that is a bit counterintuitive.
Just to get this straight: Suppose you have a pyridine based neutral pincer L and a bivalent metal M. According to your definition
the neutral complex [MLCl2] is not an organometallic, but the cationic [ML(CO)2]2+ is
organometallic, not because of the organic ligand L, but because of the inorganic molecule CO? I will have to think about that.
Because so far it doesn't make much sense to me... |
It's all in the metal-carbon bond. If you count a pyridine complex as organometallic, then you've have to count ethylenediamine complexes, EDTA
chelates and acetates as organometallic, and that would be ridiculous.
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
