Jerzy Karpiuk Sep 8, 2019:

I put my suggestion partly in support of John's suggestion and partly to provide a more detailed explanation. I agree with David that strongly bonded implies formation of a strong bond. The sentence Bei Produkt X wird XYZ fest an drei ABC-moleküle gebunden und bildet einen stabilen Komplex. refers, essentially, to complex formation and the way its parts are kept together. The notion of a complex rules out covalent bonds between its parts, as otherwise it would be a new molecule, not a complex. Generally, complexes may be metal complexes where a metal ion is bonded to ligands by coordination bonds, or complexes between molecules (molecular complexes) which are kept together by so called non-covalent interactions, where no new bonds are formed. Accordingly, though the term strongly bonded, as referring to bonds, could be applied to metal complexes, the term strongly bound is in my opinion more suitable, as it refers not only to bonds, but also to the strength of interactions between complex components.

David Moore (X) Sep 8, 2019:

@Barbara: for me, it's a question of terminology. I feel "bonded" to be correct, and "bound" to be wrong.

Barbara Schmidt, M.A. (X) Sep 8, 2019:

Why have three colleagues suggested essentially the same answer here?
Is there a deeper reason for this?

Jerzy Karpiuk Sep 5, 2019:

@Barbara:
Thanks for your suggestion. Working for many years in physical chemistry I had many opportunities to talk to them and I have rather a positive experience.

Jerzy Karpiuk Sep 5, 2019:

@Barbara There is nothing strange in tightly bound carbon atoms forming an aromatic ring. They are simply close to each other and therefore tightly arranged. In your example tightly refers to spatial arrangement and bond lengths / distances between atoms, not to binding energy.