Despite their isoelectronic properties,
fluoro and oxo ligands
exhibit completely different chemical behavior. Formally speaking,
the first is known to exclusively form single bonds, while the latter
is generally observed to form double (or even triple) bonds. The biggest
difference, however, lies in what is known among inorganic chemists
as the Oxo Wall: the fact that six-coordinate tetragonal transition
metal oxo complexes are not observed beyond group 7 elements. While
the Oxo Wall was explained a few decades ago, some questions regarding
the nature of the Oxo Wall remain unanswered. For example, why do
group 8 oxo complexes with high oxidation states not violate the Oxo
Wall? Moreover, why are transition metal fluoro complexes observed
through the whole transition metal series? In order to understand
how the small difference between these two isoelectronic ligands can
give rise to such different chemical behaviors, we conducted an extensive
computational analysis of the geometric and electronic properties
of model fluoro and oxo complexes with metals around the Oxo Wall.
Among many insights into the details of the Oxo Wall, we mostly learned
that the oxygen 2p orbitals are prone to meaningfully interact with
transition metal d orbitals, because they match not only spatially
but also energetically, while for fluorine the p orbital energies
are lower to an extent that interaction with transition metal d orbitals
is much reduced. This in turn implies that in those instances where
the metal d orbitals principally accessible for interaction are occupied,
the oxygen 2p orbitals are too exposed to be stable.