Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

VSEPR theory

Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) theory is a fundamental model in chemistry used to predict the three-dimensional of covalently bonded molecules and polyatomic ions by considering the repulsive interactions among electron pairs in the valence shell of the central atom. Developed by Ronald J. Gillespie and Ronald S. Nyholm in their 1957 paper "Inorganic ," the theory builds on earlier ideas from Sidgwick and Powell, refining them into a systematic approach that assumes pairs—both bonding and lone pairs—arrange themselves to minimize electrostatic repulsion, thereby determining the overall shape of the molecule. This model is particularly effective for main-group elements and provides qualitative predictions without requiring complex quantum mechanical calculations, making it a cornerstone of introductory inorganic and education. At its core, VSEPR theory classifies molecular geometries using the AXE notation, where A represents the central atom, X denotes the number of atoms bonded to it (ligands), and E indicates the number of lone pairs on the central atom. The total number of electron domains (X + E) dictates the , which may differ from the if lone pairs are present, as these occupy space but are not visible in the final structure. For instance, with two electron domains, the arrangement is linear (180° bond angle); three domains yield trigonal planar (120°); four domains result in tetrahedral (109.5°); five in trigonal bipyramidal (90° and 120° angles); and six in octahedral (90° angles). Lone pairs exert stronger repulsion than bonding pairs, distorting bond angles—for example, in (H₂O, AX₂E₂), the bent shape has a bond angle of about 104.5° rather than the ideal 109.5° of tetrahedral . While VSEPR excels at explaining geometries for simple molecules like (CH₄, tetrahedral) and (NH₃, trigonal pyramidal), it has limitations, particularly for complexes, molecules with multiple bonds, or those involving d-orbitals, where hybridization or field effects play larger roles. The theory does not predict bond lengths, strengths, or vibrational frequencies quantitatively and can falter in cases of significant π-bonding or hypervalent molecules, though refinements by Gillespie and others have addressed some exceptions, such as or T-shaped geometries for five-electron-domain species. Despite these constraints, VSEPR remains widely taught and applied due to its simplicity and accuracy for many common molecular structures.

Introduction

Definition and Scope

The Valence Shell Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) theory is a qualitative model in that predicts the three-dimensional of molecules by considering the arrangement of pairs around a central . It builds upon dot structures to determine how atoms are spatially oriented in a , focusing on the shell of the central . The core assumption of VSEPR theory is that the pairs—both bonding pairs and lone pairs—in the shell of the central repel one another due to electrostatic forces, leading to spatial arrangements that minimize these repulsions. This repulsion drives the pairs to adopt positions as far apart as possible, thereby defining the overall molecular shape. VSEPR theory primarily applies to compounds involving main-group elements and simple molecular species, where it provides reliable predictions without the need for computational intensity. Its scope extends to coordination compounds, where models like the Kepert extension adapt VSEPR principles to predict geometries around centers based on repulsions. Developed in the mid-20th century, VSEPR emerged as an accessible, non-mathematical alternative to quantum mechanical calculations for rationalizing molecular structures.

Historical Development

The foundational ideas of what would become VSEPR theory emerged from the work of British chemists Nevil V. Sidgwick and Herbert M. Powell, who in 1940 proposed that the repulsion between pairs in the shell of a central atom determines the overall shape of simple molecules. In their Bakerian Lecture, they correlated the number of pairs (ranging from two to six) with geometric arrangements such as linear, trigonal planar, and octahedral structures, providing an early qualitative framework for predicting molecular geometries based on minimization. This approach built on prior concepts but emphasized stereochemical implications without invoking hybridization or detailed orbital interactions. The theory was formalized and refined in 1957 by Ronald J. Gillespie and Ronald S. Nyholm at , who introduced the valence shell electron pair repulsion (VSEPR) model as a systematic predictive tool for inorganic . In their seminal paper "Inorganic Stereochemistry," published in the Quarterly Reviews of the Chemical Society, they expanded on Sidgwick and Powell's ideas by incorporating the differential repulsions between bonding and lone electron pairs, enabling more accurate predictions for a wider range of main-group compounds. This work established VSEPR as a cornerstone of structural , emphasizing its simplicity and utility over quantum mechanical calculations at the time. By the 1960s, VSEPR had gained widespread acceptance in chemical education and research, appearing in major inorganic chemistry textbooks that disseminated the model to students and practitioners. For instance, it was integrated into discussions of molecular structure in texts like F. Albert Cotton and Geoffrey Wilkinson's Advanced Inorganic Chemistry (first edition, 1962), reflecting its rapid adoption as a standard teaching tool. In the 1970s, David L. Kepert extended the model to coordination compounds of transition metals, developing the Kepert model to account for ligand repulsions while treating d-electrons as stereochemically inactive, as detailed in his 1972 book The Early Transition Metals. Over subsequent decades, VSEPR's evolution included growing recognition of its limitations, particularly in explaining hypervalent molecules like SF6 or PCl5, where the model predicts expanded octets but struggles with the absence of d-orbital involvement confirmed by modern quantum calculations. Critiques from the onward highlighted these issues, prompting integrations with () theory to provide a more complete picture of bonding and geometry, such as in hybrid models that combine VSEPR heuristics with MO-derived electron densities. This synthesis has refined VSEPR's role as an introductory predictive method while addressing its empirical shortcomings through computational validation.

Core Concepts

Valence Shell Electron Pairs

In VSEPR theory, the valence shell refers to the outermost of the central atom in a , encompassing the s involved in bonding and those remaining as non-bonding pairs. This shell includes bonding pairs, which are shared between the central atom and surrounding atoms, and lone pairs, which are localized entirely on the central atom without participation in bonding. These pairs collectively dictate the spatial arrangement of atoms by minimizing mutual repulsions within the valence shell. A prerequisite for applying VSEPR theory is the construction of a to identify the bonding and lone pairs around the central atom. The total s for the molecule are calculated by summing the s contributed by each atom, based on their positions in the periodic table (e.g., group number for main-group elements). For the central atom, the effective s include its own contribution plus one per monovalent atom (or adjusted for polyatomic ligands and molecular charge), which are then used to form bonds and place lone pairs. The total number of pairs around the central atom is determined by dividing these total s by 2, as each pair consists of two s. For example, in (H₂O), oxygen contributes 6 s, each contributes 1, yielding 8 total s and 4 pairs around oxygen (2 bonding, 2 lone). The foundational principle of VSEPR relies on the repulsion among these valence shell electron pairs, which adopt geometries that minimize electrostatic interactions. Lone pairs exert stronger repulsions than bonding pairs because their is more concentrated near the central atom, occupying greater effective and causing distortions in bond angles. In contrast, bonding pairs have their electron density delocalized between the central atom and ligands, resulting in less intense repulsions. Multiple bonds, such as or bonds, are treated as a single effective bonding pair in this model, since the dominates the spatial repulsion while pi bonds lie in the nodal plane and contribute minimally to the overall . This approach simplifies predictions while capturing the essential in main-group compounds. The sum of bonding and lone pairs, known as the steric number, provides the basis for arranging these pairs , though the detailed of repulsions is considered separately.

Steric Number and Repulsion Strengths

In VSEPR theory, the steric number () of a central atom is defined as the sum of the number of atoms directly bonded to it and the number of lone pairs residing on it, which corresponds to the total count of domains surrounding the atom ( = A + E, where A represents bonded atoms and E represents lone pairs in the AXE classification system). This quantification provides a foundational metric for predicting by assessing the spatial arrangement needed to minimize repulsions. The concept builds directly on the principles outlined by Gillespie and Nyholm, who emphasized the role of pairs in dictating . Electron domains, or regions of high around the central atom, encompass both bonding pairs and lone pairs; notably, multiple bonds—such as or bonds—are treated as a single domain equivalent to a for repulsion purposes, as the is concentrated in a similar directional lobe. This treatment simplifies the model while capturing the effective spatial occupancy, ensuring that the reflects the overall repulsion dynamics rather than bond multiplicity alone. Gillespie and Nyholm's framework underscores that these domains arrange to achieve the lowest possible energy configuration through mutual repulsion. The relative strengths of repulsions between electron domains follow a clear hierarchy: lone pair–lone pair (lp–lp) interactions are the strongest, exerting the greatest force due to the unshared s' larger effective volume; lone pair–bonding pair (lp–bp) repulsions are intermediate; and bonding pair–bonding pair (bp–bp) interactions are the weakest, as shared s are partially constrained by nuclear attraction from adjacent atoms. This ordering, central to VSEPR predictions, can be visualized through qualitative energy diagrams where lp–lp repulsions elevate the most significantly, followed by lp–bp, with bp–bp contributing the least distortion. The originates from the differential spatial demands of lone versus bonding pairs, as articulated in the foundational VSEPR model. The ideal geometries derived from the steric number minimize these repulsions by positioning domains as far apart as possible on the valence shell surface. For SN = 2, the arrangement is linear; for SN = 3, trigonal planar; for SN = 4, tetrahedral; for SN = 5, trigonal bipyramidal; and for SN = 6, octahedral. These configurations represent the baseline geometries before accounting for distortions, providing a systematic basis for VSEPR applications across main-group compounds.
Steric Number (SN)Ideal Electron Pair Geometry
2Linear
3Trigonal planar
4Tetrahedral
5Trigonal bipyramidal
6Octahedral

AXE Notation and Geometry Prediction

Notation for Main-Group Elements

The AXE notation provides a systematic way to classify molecules and predict their geometries under the VSEPR theory for compounds of main-group elements, particularly those in the p-block. In this scheme, "A" denotes the central , "X" represents each surrounding directly bonded to the central (often called ligands), and "E" stands for each lone pair of electrons residing on the central . This notation simplifies the analysis by focusing on the total number of electron domains around the central , treating both bonding pairs and lone pairs as repelling entities. To apply AXE notation, the process begins with constructing the of the molecule, which reveals the central , the bonds to surrounding (counted as X), and any non-bonding pairs on the central (counted as E). The steric number (SN) is then determined as the SN = X + E, corresponding to the total pairs in the valence ; this dictates the geometry, such as linear for SN=2, trigonal planar for SN=3, or octahedral for SN=6. The follows by positioning the X groups around this arrangement, with E pairs ideally placed to maximize separation and minimize repulsion, often in less sterically demanding locations. For instance, in cases of higher SN like 5 or 6, lone pairs may preferentially occupy equatorial positions in trigonal bipyramidal or axial/equatorial distinctions in octahedral arrangements due to varying repulsion strengths. Common classifications illustrate the notation's utility. (CO₂) is AX₂, featuring a central carbon bonded to two oxygens with no lone pairs, yielding a with a 180° bond angle. (NH₃) is AX₃E, with bonded to three hydrogens and one , resulting in a trigonal pyramidal shape derived from a tetrahedral , with H-N-H angles of approximately 107°. tetrafluoride (XeF₄) exemplifies AX₄E₂, where bonds to four fluorines and has two lone pairs, leading to a square planar from an octahedral arrangement, with F-Xe-F angles of 90°. These examples highlight how AXE notation guides predictions for p-block central atoms. The AXE notation assumes octet adherence or expanded octets without significant d-orbital participation, making it primarily valid for main-group elements in the p-block where valence electrons occupy s and p orbitals. It does not account for cases involving transition metals or substantial d-orbital involvement, which are addressed separately.

Extension to Transition Metals

The Kepert model, introduced by D. L. Kepert in 1972, adapts VSEPR theory specifically for predicting the coordination geometries of complexes by considering ligands as the dominant electron domains that generate repulsions. In this framework, the geometry is determined primarily by the (CN), which equates to the number of ligand attachments (denoted as X in an AXE-type notation, where E=0 due to the negligible stereochemical role of lone pairs on the central metal). This approach treats the metal center as a point from which ligands repel each other to minimize , much like electron pairs in standard VSEPR, but it emphasizes the positional arrangement on a spherical surface around the metal. Key differences from VSEPR applications to main-group elements arise because transition metal complexes typically ignore metal-centered lone pairs, concentrating instead on inter-ligand repulsions, which enables higher coordination numbers such as 7–9 that are stabilized by d-orbital participation. The model accommodates variable bond types (ionic or covalent) between metal and ligands, and repulsion strengths follow a similar hierarchy to VSEPR—close approaches between ligands are disfavored—but geometries often exhibit angular distortions influenced by crystal field stabilization energies. Notation is adapted for simplicity, using ML_n to indicate the metal (M) and number of ligands (n = CN), for instance, ML_4 for square planar arrangements common in d^8 configurations like Ni(II) complexes. Illustrative examples highlight the model's predictive power: for CN=6, the octahedral geometry (ML_6) is standard, as in hexaamminecobalt(III) ion, [Co(NH_3)_6]^{3+}, where six equivalent ligands occupy positions to maximize separation at 90° and 180° angles. For certain electronic configurations, such as d^0 or d^{10}, the model predicts trigonal prismatic ML_6 structures over octahedral, exemplified by the layered sulfide MoS_2 (where Mo is effectively six-coordinate to S) or the alkyl complex [Ta(CH_3)_6]^-, due to reduced repulsion in the prismatic arrangement for these cases. The steric number here aligns directly with the , serving as the basis for these predictions.

Molecular Geometries

Basic Shapes and Bond Angles

The Valence Shell Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) theory determines the arrangement of electron pairs around a central atom, leading to specific electron geometries based on the steric number (), defined as the total number of bonding pairs and lone pairs in the valence shell. These geometries minimize repulsions between electron pairs, resulting in characteristic ideal bond angles. The basic electron geometries for SN = 2 to 6 are as follows:
Steric Number (SN)Electron GeometryIdeal Bond Angles
2Linear180°
3Trigonal planar120°
4Tetrahedral109.5°
590° (axial-equatorial), 120° (equatorial-equatorial), 180° (axial-axial)
690° (adjacent), 180° (opposite)
These angles arise from the equal repulsion assumption among electron pairs, with the tetrahedral angle specifically derived from the of four equivalent positions around a point. Molecular geometries are obtained by considering only the positions of the bonding pairs (denoted as X in AXE notation, where A is the central atom and E represents lone pairs), while lone pairs occupy the remaining positions in the electron but are not visible in the molecular structure. Lone pairs exert stronger repulsions than bonding pairs due to their higher , often occupying positions that minimize interactions, such as equatorial sites in trigonal bipyramidal arrangements over axial ones to reduce 90° repulsions. The resulting molecular shapes for common AXE configurations (SN = 2–6) are summarized below, with ideal bond angles matching the parent electron unless distorted:
SNAXE NotationMolecular GeometryDescription of 3D Arrangement
2AX2LinearTwo atoms aligned opposite the central atom along a straight line.
3AX3Trigonal planarThree atoms in a plane, equally spaced around the central atom.
AX2EBentTwo atoms with a , forming a V-shape in the plane of the trigonal arrangement.
4AX4Four atoms at the vertices of a , all equivalent.
AX3ETrigonal pyramidalThree atoms forming a with the central atom at the apex.
AX2E2BentTwo atoms with two s, resulting in an angular structure.
5AX5Trigonal bipyramidalThree equatorial atoms in a plane (120° apart) and two axial atoms perpendicular (90° to equatorial).
AX4EFour atoms: two axial, two equatorial, resembling a seesaw with the central atom as .
AX3E2T-shapedThree atoms: two axial and one equatorial, forming a T configuration.
AX2E3LinearTwo atoms in axial positions, with three equatorial s.
6AX6Six atoms at the vertices of an , all equivalent positions.
AX5ESquare pyramidalFive atoms: four basal in a square plane, one apical perpendicular.
AX4E2Square planarFour atoms in a square plane, with lone pairs trans to each other.
In these arrangements, axial positions in trigonal bipyramidal are distinct from equatorial ones, with axial bonds forming 90° angles to the equatorial plane and 180° to the opposite axial bond, influencing placement to favor less crowded equatorial sites. Observed bond angles often deviate from ideal values due to the greater effective size of compared to bonding pairs, which compress adjacent bond angles to reduce repulsion. For instance, in a tetrahedral (SN=4), the presence of one or more reduces the X-A-X angle below 109.5°, such as to approximately 104.5° in cases with two . Multiple bonds, treated as single domains in basic VSEPR, can slightly expand bond angles due to their higher and reduced repulsion in certain directions, though this effect is minor and secondary to influences. These deviations highlight the qualitative nature of VSEPR in prioritizing repulsion hierarchies over exact predictions.

Illustrative Examples

(BF₃) serves as a foundational example of VSEPR application for main-group elements. The molecule has a total of 24 electrons: contributes 3, and each contributes 7. The places as the central bonded to three via single bonds, with no lone pairs on and three lone pairs on each ; this results in three bonding pairs around the central . Using AXE notation, BF₃ is classified as AX₃ (A = central , X = bonding pair, E = lone pair), with a steric number of 3. The is trigonal planar, and since there are no lone pairs, the is also trigonal planar, with ideal angles of 120°. Experimental verification via confirms F-B-F angles of exactly 120°. Methane (CH₄) illustrates VSEPR for a tetrahedral arrangement without lone pairs. It possesses 8 valence electrons: carbon provides 4, and each hydrogen provides 1. The Lewis structure features carbon centrally bonded to four hydrogens with single bonds and no lone pairs on carbon. This corresponds to AX₄ notation, with a steric number of 4. The electron and molecular geometries are both tetrahedral, predicting bond angles of 109.5°. Microwave spectroscopy measurements yield H-C-H bond angles of 109.47°, closely matching the VSEPR prediction and underscoring the model's accuracy for saturated hydrocarbons. Sulfur tetrafluoride (SF₄) demonstrates VSEPR effects of a , leading to distorted geometries. With 34 valence electrons (sulfur contributes 6, each fluorine 7), the shows sulfur central with four single bonds to fluorines and one on sulfur. Designated AX₄E, the steric number is 5, yielding a trigonal bipyramidal geometry. The occupies an equatorial position to minimize repulsion, resulting in a ; the two axial fluorines form bonds at approximately 173° to each other, the two equatorial F-S-F is about 102°, and the axial-equatorial F-S-F angles are roughly 87° due to -bond pair repulsions stronger than bond pair-bond pair interactions. Gas-phase confirms these distortions, with axial F-S-F at 173.1° and equatorial F-S-F near 101.6°.

Limitations and Exceptions

Deviations in Hypervalent Molecules

Hypervalent molecules, in which the central atom from the p-block appears to exceed the by accommodating more than eight valence electrons, challenge the foundational assumptions of the valence shell electron pair repulsion (VSEPR) theory. While VSEPR successfully extends to these cases by assigning steric numbers greater than four—treating all and lone s as repelling domains—it provides only an approximate model for their geometries and . For instance, in XeF₂, the central atom has a steric number of 5 (AX₂E₃ notation), leading to a predicted trigonal bipyramidal geometry with the two pairs axial and three lone pairs equatorial, resulting in a linear molecular shape. This prediction aligns with experimental observations, yet the structure involves 10 valence electrons around , which VSEPR accommodates phenomenologically without explaining the mechanism. The bonding in such hypervalent species is better rationalized through models like the 3-center-4-electron (3c-4e) bond, where four electrons are delocalized over three atomic centers, effectively describing the F-Xe-F unit in XeF₂ as two such bonds supplemented by two lone pairs on . This approach, building on early proposals by Rundle and Pimentel, avoids reliance on d-orbital hybridization, which quantum calculations show contributes negligibly to . Similarly, for XeF₄ (AX₄E₂, steric number 6), VSEPR predicts an octahedral electron geometry with two lone pairs trans to each other, yielding a square planar molecular shape, which matches experiment. The four Xe–F bonds are characterized by 3c-4e interactions, forming two linear F–Xe–F units, highlighting VSEPR's limitation in distinguishing bond types and electron sharing. Quantum chemical analyses indicate that the valence electron population on the central atom remains close to eight, with significant charge transfer from ligands rendering largely ionic in character. Further examples illustrate VSEPR's qualitative successes amid subtle deviations. In IF₇ (AX₇E₀, steric number 7), the theory predicts a pentagonal bipyramidal geometry, with five equatorial fluorine atoms in a plane and two axial, and the observed structure confirms this, featuring ideal 72° equatorial angles and 90° axial-equatorial angles. Nonetheless, experimental bond lengths show axial I-F bonds shorter (≈1.79 Å) than equatorial (≈1.86 Å), a distortion attributed to varying repulsion strengths or partial 3c-4e character in the equatorial plane, which simple VSEPR pairwise repulsions do not fully predict. For [XeF₈]²⁻ (AX₈E₀, steric number 8), VSEPR suggests a square antiprismatic or dodecahedral arrangement, and crystallographic data reveal a slightly distorted square antiprism, with bond angles deviating by a few degrees from ideality due to ligand crowding and anion charge effects. These cases underscore VSEPR's utility as an empirical tool for main-group hypervalent geometries but its inadequacy for precise electron distributions. In contemporary understanding, VSEPR serves as a heuristic for predicting shapes in hypervalent molecules but is superseded by (MO) theory or advanced valence bond methods for detailed electronic structure, particularly when electron counts exceed eight. MO descriptions reveal multicenter delocalizations and recoupled pair bonds that rationalize octet expansion without d-orbital involvement, aligning with topological analyses showing concentrations consistent with 3c-4e motifs. Ronald Gillespie, a pioneer of VSEPR, emphasized that while the theory effectively models repulsions, hypervalency arises from close-packing and rather than expanded valence shells, rendering the irrelevant for these compounds. This perspective reconciles VSEPR's predictive power with the nuanced bonding realities of hypervalent p-block . Additionally, VSEPR struggles with molecules involving significant multiple bonds, such as (H₂C=C=CH₂), where the cumulative double bonds lead to a perpendicular arrangement not fully predicted by simple electron repulsions, as π-bonding effects dominate.

Cases Involving d-Orbitals and Relativistic Effects

VSEPR theory encounters significant limitations when applied to transition metal complexes where d-orbitals play a prominent role in determining geometry. For four-coordinate d^8 metal complexes such as [Ni(CN)_4]^{2-}, VSEPR predicts a tetrahedral arrangement based on minimizing electron pair repulsions around the central atom. However, these complexes often adopt a square planar geometry due to the large crystal field stabilization energy arising from the splitting of d-orbitals in a square planar ligand field, which favors pairing of electrons in lower-energy orbitals. This deviation highlights how VSEPR overlooks the energetic contributions from d-electron configurations and ligand field effects. Another key failure occurs in octahedral transition metal complexes subject to the Jahn-Teller effect, where electronically degenerate ground states lead to structural distortions. For instance, the d^9 Cu^{2+} in [Cu(H_2O)_6]^{2+} exhibits an elongated tetragonal geometry, with two axial Cu-O bonds significantly longer than the four equatorial ones (approximately 2.4 vs. 1.96 ). VSEPR would predict a regular octahedral shape for this AX_6 system, assuming equivalent lone pair and bond pair repulsions, but the distortion arises from the uneven occupation of degenerate e_g d-orbitals, lowering the overall energy. Such effects are not captured by VSEPR, which treats all pairs as equivalent in repulsion strength. In superheavy elements, relativistic effects further challenge VSEPR predictions by altering orbital energies and bonding patterns through spin-orbit coupling and orbital contraction/expansion. For oganesson (element 118), the difluoride OgF_2 is theoretically predicted to adopt a bent rather than the linear AX_2 structure expected from VSEPR for a central atom with two bonding pairs and three lone pairs. This deviation stems from strong relativistic stabilization of the 7s orbital and significant spin-orbit splitting of the 7p orbitals, which modifies the repulsion and hybridization, leading to a angle closer to 90° in computational models. Overall, these cases underscore a fundamental critique of VSEPR: it neglects metal- π-bonding interactions and d-orbital participation, which are crucial in transition metals and heavier elements. Models like or the Kepert extension, which incorporate ligand repulsions in non-spherical fields, are necessary for better accuracy, though even they have limitations in highly relativistic regimes.

Special Applications

Odd-Electron Molecules

Odd-electron molecules, or free radicals, pose a unique challenge to the standard VSEPR theory because they possess an odd total number of electrons, leading to an that cannot be neatly paired into full electron domains around the central atom. This disrupts the conventional counting of bonding and domains, as the occupies an orbital but exerts only partial repulsive force compared to a complete . To extend VSEPR to these species, the is conceptualized as a "phantom " or a fractional electron domain equivalent to 0.5 of a standard domain, which accounts for its reduced steric demand and weaker repulsion. This adaptation modifies the AXE notation by incorporating the 0.5 E , allowing of geometries where the are between those of even-electron analogs—for instance, larger than in the corresponding AX2E species due to diminished lone-pair repulsion. The modified steric number reflects this fractional contribution, enabling the theory to approximate the arrangement of atoms. A representative example is (NO2), which has 17 electrons and features a central atom bonded to two oxygen atoms with an on nitrogen, denoted as AX2E0.5. VSEPR predicts a with an O-N-O bond angle of approximately 134°, consistent with the experimental value of 134.1°. Another illustrative case is (ClO2), with 19 electrons and a central atom, classified as AX2E1.5 (two bonding domains, one full , and one half lone pair from the ). This arrangement yields a bent structure with an O-Cl-O bond angle of about 117°, aligning closely with observed data. Despite these successes, VSEPR adaptations for odd-electron molecules have limitations, particularly when the is delocalized across the structure, leading to less precise geometric predictions. In such scenarios, the model is often complemented by quantum computational approaches, such as , for more accurate descriptions.

Inorganic and Organometallic Complexes

In , VSEPR theory successfully predicts the geometry of hypervalent main-group compounds such as (IF5), classified as AX5E with five bonding pairs and one on the central iodine atom, resulting in a square pyramidal molecular shape that minimizes lone-pair/bond-pair repulsions. This structure features bond angles close to 90° in the basal plane and approximately 81° for the axial-equatorial interactions, consistent with the octahedral electron-pair geometry. VSEPR also anticipates fluxional behavior in certain pentacoordinate species with steric number 5, where pseudorotation facilitates rapid exchange between apical and equatorial positions, averaging the ligand environments on the NMR timescale. In , VSEPR theory encounters significant limitations due to the role of delocalized π-bonding and metal-ligand interactions that deviate from simple electron-pair repulsion models. For instance, (Fe(C5H5)2) exhibits a parallel sandwich geometry driven by η5-coordination of the cyclopentadienyl ligands and d-orbital overlap with the iron center, rather than the localized bonding assumed by VSEPR. Similarly, π-ligand effects distort predictions in bent metallocenes such as bis(cyclopentadienyl)titanium dichloride (Cp2TiCl2), where the Cp ligands impose a bent structure (Cp-M-Cp angle ~134°) through back-donation and steric factors, overriding expectations of a linear or trigonal arrangement based on steric number alone. Advanced applications extend VSEPR to higher coordination numbers, such as in seven-coordinate complexes like heptafluorozirconate ([ZrF7]3-), which adopts a capped octahedral geometry to accommodate seven ligands while minimizing repulsions, with the capping fluoride positioned over a triangular face of the . For complexes, relativistic effects—particularly scalar relativistic contraction of s-orbitals—require adjustments to VSEPR predictions, as they stabilize more compact geometries and influence bond angles in compounds involving elements like or mercury. The Kepert model provides a foundational extension of VSEPR for these coordination compounds by focusing solely on ligand-bonding electron pairs, independent of metal d-electron configuration. Practically, VSEPR and its modifications guide the rational design of inorganic and organometallic complexes for and materials applications, predicting stable geometries to target specific reactivity profiles, though experimental validation through techniques like and vibrational is essential to confirm structures and account for dynamic behaviors.

References

  1. [1]
    Valence-Shell Electron-Pair Repulsion Theory (VSEPR)
    The VSEPR theory assumes that each atom in a molecule will achieve a geometry that minimizes the repulsion between electrons in the valence shell of that atom.
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
    vsepr - FSU Chemistry & Biochemistry
    VSEPR theory is a model used in chemistry to predict the geometry of individual molecules from the number of electron pairs surrounding their central atoms.
  4. [4]
    VSEPR Theory
    VSEPR theory proposes that the geometric arrangement of terminal atoms, or groups of atoms about a central atom in a covalent compound, or charged ion,
  5. [5]
    Review Fifty years of the VSEPR model - ScienceDirect.com
    It is 50 years since the ideas of the VSEPR model were first introduced in an article by Ron Nyholm and myself entitled Inorganic Stereochemistry.
  6. [6]
    VSEPR Theory - Chemistry 301
    In VSEPR theory, we are interested in the geometry around a particular atom typically referred to as the central atom. The goal is to determine the geometry of ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  7. [7]
    Inorganic stereochemistry - Quarterly Reviews, Chemical Society ...
    Inorganic stereochemistry. R. J. Gillespie and R. S. Nyholm, Q. Rev. Chem. Soc., 1957, 11, 339 DOI: 10.1039/QR9571100339. To request permission to reproduce ...Missing: PDF | Show results with:PDF
  8. [8]
    Bakerian Lecture: Stereochemical types and valency groups - Journals
    Published:09 October 1940https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1940.0084 ... This text was harvested from a scanned image of the original document using optical character ...<|separator|>
  9. [9]
    Fifty years of the VSEPR model - ResearchGate
    Aug 5, 2025 · The history and development of the VSEPR model since its inception in 1957 are reviewed. Exceptions to the model are discussed and are shown ...
  10. [10]
    The early transition metals | Semantic Scholar
    The early transition metals · D. Kepert · Published 1972 · Materials Science.
  11. [11]
    Hypervalence: A Useful Concept or One That Should Be Gracefully ...
    Historical Criticisms; A Brief Mention of VSEPR and the Treatment of Hypervalence in Modern Texts; A Summary of the Arguments So Far; The Question of π-Bonding ...
  12. [12]
    Lewis Structures
    We start by writing symbols that contain the correct number of valence electrons for the atoms in the molecule. We then combine electrons to form covalent bonds ...
  13. [13]
    Valence-Shell Electron-Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) Model
    1. Lone Pairs Occupy More Space than Bonding Pairs. When a pair of electrons is confined to a σ bonding orbital, the electron density is concentrated in the ...
  14. [14]
    1.2: VSEPR Theory and its Utility - Chemistry LibreTexts
    May 3, 2023 · This model was first suggested by Nevil Sidgwick and Herbet Powell in 1940 and later improved by Ronald Gillespie and Ronald Nyholm.
  15. [15]
    9.2: The VSEPR Model - Chemistry LibreTexts
    Jul 7, 2023 · The VSEPR model can be used to predict the structure of somewhat more complex molecules with no single central atom by treating them as linked ...
  16. [16]
    VSEPR - Chemistry LibreTexts
    Jun 30, 2023 · The VSEPR model combines the original ideas of Sidwick and Powell and further development of Nyholm and Gillespie. How VSEPR works. In a ...
  17. [17]
    The VSEPR Model of Molecular Geometry - Google Books
    This authoritative reference, written by the developer of Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion (VSEPR) theory, features extensive coverage of structural ...Missing: milestones 1960s
  18. [18]
    Stereochemistry of eight-coordination. Effect of bidentate ligands
    D. L. Kepert. ACS Legacy Archive. Open PDF. Inorganic Chemistry. Cite this: Inorg. Chem. 1972, 11, 7, 1556–1561. Click to copy citationCitation copied! https ...
  19. [19]
    Stereochemistry of tris(bidentate) complexes | Inorganic Chemistry
    Inorganic Chemistry. Cite this: Inorg. Chem. 1972, 11, 7, 1561–1563. Click to ... D. L. Kepert. Aspects of the Stereochemistry of Six‐Coordination. 1977 ...
  20. [20]
    Experimental data for BF 3 (Borane, trifluoro-)
    Calculated geometries for BF3 (Borane, trifluoro-). Experimental Bond Angles (degrees) from cartesians bond angles. atom1, atom2, atom3, angle, atom1, atom2 ...
  21. [21]
    Experimental data for CH 4 (Methane)
    Calculated geometries for CH4 (Methane). Experimental Bond Angles (degrees) from cartesians bond angles. atom1, atom2, atom3, angle, atom1, atom2, atom3, angle.
  22. [22]
    VSEPR SF4 Sulfur Tetrafluoride - ChemTube3D
    These are arranged in a trigonal bipyramidal shape with 102° F-S-F bond angles between the equatorial fluorine atoms and 173° between the axial fluorine atoms.Missing: experimental BF3
  23. [23]
    Ligand field spectra of square-planar platinum(II) and palladium(II ...
    Modeling the Vibronic Spectra of Transition Metal Complexes: The Ligand-Field Spectrum of [PtCl4]2−. ... Dynamic ligand-field theory for square planar transition ...Missing: VSEPR | Show results with:VSEPR
  24. [24]
    The octet rule and hypervalence: two misunderstood concepts
    The octet rule and hypervalence: two misunderstood concepts. Author links open overlay panelRonald J Gillespie , Bernard Silvi. Show more. Add to Mendeley.Missing: Gillespie | Show results with:Gillespie
  25. [25]
    Theory of Hypervalency: Recoupled Pair Bonding in SFn (n = 1−6)
    Many cases of hypervalent bonding do involve four electrons contributed by three centers. But there is limited predictive value in the 3c/4e model, because ...
  26. [26]
    Transition metal systems - VSEPR - The University of Sheffield
    Transition metal systems. The method delineated above works very well for main group compounds but is less useful for transition metal compounds.
  27. [27]
    Colloquium: Superheavy elements: Oganesson and beyond
    Jan 22, 2019 · The third principal relativistic effect comes from the fine-structure splitting (mainly spin-orbit coupling) of orbitals with angular momentum ...Missing: OgF2 bent
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Chemical Bonding and Molecular Geometry
    . VSEPR Theory. Valence shell electron-pair repulsion theory (VSEPR theory) enables us to predict the molecular structure, including approximate bond angles ...
  29. [29]
    Teaching Molecular Geometry with the VSEPR Model
    No readable text found in the HTML.<|control11|><|separator|>
  30. [30]
    Radicals and VSEPR calculation for nitrogen dioxide, NO 2
    Addition of one electron to NO2 gives the nitrite anion NO2-. This last electron completes the half-occupied lone-pair orbital and this filling of the orbital ...Missing: nitric oxide
  31. [31]
  32. [32]
    Why does IF5 have a square pyramidal shape? | CK-12 Foundation
    IF5 has a square pyramidal shape due to five bonding pairs and one lone pair around the central iodine atom, minimizing repulsion per VSEPR theory.
  33. [33]
    Revisiting the polytopal rearrangements in penta-coordinate d 7 ...
    Jun 2, 2017 · ... transition metal complexes. Our work is primarily based on a ... Soc., 1970, 92, 6455 CrossRef CAS; (f) D. L. Kepert, Inorg. Chem ...
  34. [34]
    Particle on a Ring Model for Teaching the Origin of the Aromatic ...
    Sep 22, 2022 · In this work, the particle on a ring (POR) and the PIB models are used to elucidate the concept of aromaticity in Introductory Chemistry courses.
  35. [35]
    α,α-Bis(trimethylsilyl)-Substituted Benzyl Complexes of Potassium ...
    These deformations can be rationalized by applying VSEPR theory on the various ... For reviews see: (a) Lindsell, W. E. In Comprehensive Organometallic ...
  36. [36]
    When VSEPR Fails: Experimental and Theoretical Investigations of ...
    ... heavier elements as a result of relativistic effects. The d orbital involvement would result in a (n−1)d ns rehybridization involving bent geometry.
  37. [37]
    Designing in the Face of Uncertainty: Exploiting Electronic Structure ...
    Mar 5, 2019 · A unified approach to computational high-throughput screening in open-shell transition-metal chemistry is presented in which challenges in uncertainty ...