Coordination Compounds
Alfred Werner (1866-1919), a Swiss chemist was the first to formulate his ideas about the structures of coordination compounds. He prepared and characterised a large number of coordination compounds and studied their physical and chemical behaviour by simple experimental techniques. Werner proposed the concept of a primary valence and a secondary valence for a metal ion. The formulas and names adopted for coordination entities are based on the recommendations of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). Many approaches have been put forth to explain the nature of bonding in coordination compounds viz. Valence Bond Theory (VBT), Crystal Field Theory (CFT), Ligand Field Theory (LFT) and Molecular Orbital Theory (MOT). The Valence Bond Theory (VBT) explains with reasonable success, the formation, magnetic behaviour and geometrical shapes of coordination compounds. It, however, fails to provide a quantitative interpretation of magnetic behaviour and has nothing to say about the optical properties of these compounds. The Crystal Field Theory (CFT) to coordination compounds is based on the effect of different crystal fields (provided by the ligands taken as point charges), on the degeneracy of d orbital energies of the central metal atom/ion. The splitting of the d orbitals provides different electronic arrangements in strong and weak crystal fields. The treatment provides for quantitative estimations of orbital separation energies, magnetic moments and spectral and stability parameters. However, the assumption that ligands constitute point charges creates many theoretical difficulties.
The metal to carbon bonding in metal carbonyl, creates an effect which strengthens the bond between metal and carbonyl that is known as
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 1
The correct answer is Option (1) → Synergic effect
In a metal carbonyl, the σ donation from CO and the π back donation from the metal strengthen each other; this mutual strengthening of the metal–carbon bond is the synergic effect.
Why the other options are incorrect
Option (2) Chelation effect — Incorrect. It is the extra stability of a complex in which a polydentate ligand forms a ring with the metal; CO is monodentate.
Option (3) Lead poisoning effect — Incorrect. This is not a bonding effect; lead poisoning is treated with the chelating ligand EDTA.
Option (4) Planar effect — Incorrect. There is no such bonding effect; metal carbonyls are not even planar (\( \ce{Ni(CO)4} \) is tetrahedral).
NCERT (2026-27 edition):
Bonding in Metal Carbonyls – …
