This is probably a very simple question but I can't seem to figure it out. If nucleophiles such as ammonia can attack carbonyl groups and form
amides, why don't they form amides when they attack a metal cation. Like:
NH3 + --CO-- forms --NH2-C-OH--
so why not
NH3 + MO --> MOH(NH2)?12AX7 - 7-5-2006 at 11:52
Probably something to do with the bonds, C=O is covalent while most metal bonds are ionic in nature.
Timguy - 7-5-2006 at 12:42
Quote:
Originally posted by 12AX7
Probably something to do with the bonds, C=O is covalent while most metal bonds are ionic in nature.
Uh, can you explain more. It would seem to make more sense to form amides if the species were more ionic in character.12AX7 - 7-5-2006 at 15:48
Well, I don't know about the carbon, but for the metal, you'd be looking at probably NH4+(aq) or so interacting with say, M(2+). At best you could
get ionic displacement.
At high temperatures, under dry conditions or else a different solvent, you might get reactions such as MO + NH3 > MN + H2O (unbal). Such occurs
after some time with alkali metals dissolved in liquid NH3, IIRC, although I also seem to remember amines are formed (-NH2 instead of a full reduction
of N(3-)). Eh, after enough time, NH2 should reduce to NH(2-) to N(3-) given an excess of reducing agent.
If you dissolve that in water, I suppose in a manner of speaking you would get "MOH(NH2)", but the OH bit would be due to hydration and better written
like "MNH2.H2O" or so.
