Understanding the Bond Length Differences in sp3d and sp3d2 Hybridization

  • Thread starter jd12345
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Shapes
In summary: In this case, it seems the idea of hybrid orbitals just doesn't mesh well with the way we traditionally visualize molecules. Without getting too into the nitty gritty details, the idea of hybrid orbitals comes about when we start to take into account the fact that electrons in atoms aren't located at the center of the atom. Instead, they're distributed around the nucleus in shells. These shells have a specific energy, and when two atoms come close to each other, some of the electrons in one atom will jump into the other atom's shell. This creates a new orbital with a higher energy, and the old orbital is destroyed. So, in a way, hybrid orbitals are kind of like
  • #1
jd12345
256
2
Why are the bonds in sp3d hybridisation of different length? And why sp3d2 has bonds of equal length. For me sp3d should also contain all equal ond lengths with a symmetrical shape
but it doesnt. Why not?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
  • #2
Are all of the bonds for a molecule with sp3d hybridization different lengths? Imagine, for example, PCl5 as a representative molecule.

Insofar as a symmetrical shape, compare PCl5 to something like SF6, a representative molecule with sp3d2 hybridization. Are they symmetric in exactly the same way?
 
  • #3
In PCl5 equatorial bonds adn axial bonds areof different lengths and hence of different bond energies. I was asking the reason for this since orbitals hybridise to from new orbitals of equal energies all bonds should have the same stabiltiy but it isn't in case of trigonal bipyramidal. Why?
 
  • #4
The question is interesting and I have to think about it. However in the case of a pentagonal bipyramid it is clear on geometrical grounds that not all 5 corners are equivalent.
Furthermore I would like to remark that nowadays neither in PCl5 nor SF6 d orbitals are believed to participate in bonding. So this discussion might be somehow reminiscent of that medieval discurse "how many angels can sit on the tip of a needle?" although there may be some transition metal complexes where such a description might be useful.
 
  • #5
DrDu said:
The question is interesting and I have to think about it. However in the case of a pentagonal bipyramid it is clear on geometrical grounds that not all 5 corners are equivalent.

That was pretty much what I was thinking. I would feel that the geometric argument would be adequate, at least at a semi-qualitative level. Especially since consideration of the relative size/radii also can help to understand the resulting geometry, particularly in the examples I mentioned.

Furthermore I would like to remark that nowadays neither in PCl5 nor SF6 d orbitals are believed to participate in bonding. So this discussion might be somehow reminiscent of that medieval discurse "how many angels can sit on the tip of a needle?" although there may be some transition metal complexes where such a description might be useful.

I agree. Of course, I also still see general chemistry textbooks being written with these sorts of specious hybridization arguments to explain molecular geometry, amongst other minor and major sins. It's been a while since I last cranked through an inorganic chemistry textbook, but I even recall seeing similar arguments in a text I used ~ 10 years ago for my own brush with a formal inorganic chemistry class.
 
  • #6
This whole idea is based on the fact that orbitals arrange themselves so that there is minimum repulsion, but considering a 3 dimensional molecule with same bonds, shouldn't a spherical arrangement ensure minimum repulsion? That would make a structure with equal lengths and equal angles.(Which is how PCl5 should be according to my thinking.)

Chemical bonding was taught to us just a few months back, and if the things they are teaching us is not correct,without stating so, its a shame.
 
  • #7
I am explaining this in this forum every couple of months.
The reason is that chemistry teachers apparently worldwide aren't obligated to take some classes
in theoretical chemistry during their formation.
This whole concept of d electrons in main group elemental compounds goes back to the
influential books by the Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling, like "General Chemistry".
While the book was excellent, unfortunately at the time it was written it was out of scope to test these ideas quantitatively on a computer.
And invariably when this became possible some of his reasoning had to be revised.
Unfortunately, 99% of the chemistry teachers (and even textbook authors) are completely ignorant of this scientific development.

If you want to know how valence bond theory describes these molecules nowadays,
here is a link to start with
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1380-7323(99)80022-3 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
DrDu said:
I am explaining this in this forum every couple of months.
The reason is that chemistry teachers apparently worldwide aren't obligated to take some classes in theoretical chemistry during their formation.

That there are apparently undergraduate chemistry programs (at least here in the US) which don't require a full year of physical chemistry for chemistry majors is not helping things. There is the occasional J. Chem. Ed. article urging the tossing of hybrid orbitals every so often, but it seems to be a no-go on the wider front.

AlchemistK said:
Chemical bonding was taught to us just a few months back, and if the things they are teaching us is not correct,without stating so, its a shame.

Many chemists tend to be visual thinkers, in my anecdotal experiences. We love pictures. Many, though, get too attached to said pictures since they're simple and seem to "work" well in day-to-day issues.
 
  • #9
Mike, don't get me wrong. Actually I am a big fan of VB theory, but it makes me sick how it is taught nowadays as a purely qualitative concept, which is often not even distinguished from pre-QM models like Lewis structures. Then regularly in "advanced" classes some putative failiures of the VB method are shown and how MO theory triumphantly leads to correct answers.
In the meantime I looked up the sp3d concept in Paulings "The nature of the chemical bond". It mightstill be usefull to describe transition metal complexes like VF5.
While Pauling explains how sp3d2 orbitals are to be constructed, he does not go into details for sp3d.
However it is clear that there are actually two different hybrid orbitals, the apical and the equatorial ones which are different mixtures of s p and d orbitals. The exact mixing coefficients will depend somehow on how one exactly maximizes the localization of both orbitals simultaneously, but it can be shown that the best apical orbitals which can be costructed are more localized than the equatorial ones explaining already the stronger bond.
 
  • #10
DrDu - I think that we're on the same page regarding VB theory. My issue - as is yours, it would seem - is that it (and MO theory, at least in my experience) is presented in such a qualitative manner early on in the educational process (lower-division university chemistry courses here in the US, or its equivalent elsewhere) it feels that it's been 'cut off at the knees'. Still, people try to use this truncated description at that point to explain everything and anything about chemical structure, reactivity, and so on. My feeling is that - as was noted in a review by Hoffmann andShaik that I recall from a good while ago - both VB and MO are essential tools for understanding and inquiry, they just need to be taught and implemented properly. One might be more convenient to apply than the other for a particular problem, but one could use the other and converge upon the same answer.
 

1. What is the difference between sp3d and sp3d2 hybridization?

Sp3d and sp3d2 are both types of hybridization, which is the mixing of atomic orbitals to form new hybrid orbitals. The main difference between them is the number of atomic orbitals that are mixed. In sp3d hybridization, 3p, 1s, and 1d orbitals are mixed, while in sp3d2 hybridization, 3p, 2s, and 2d orbitals are mixed.

2. How do the shapes of sp3d and sp3d2 hybrid orbitals differ?

The shapes of sp3d and sp3d2 hybrid orbitals differ due to the different types of atomic orbitals that are mixed. In sp3d hybridization, the resulting hybrid orbitals have a trigonal bipyramidal shape, while in sp3d2 hybridization, the resulting hybrid orbitals have an octahedral shape.

3. What is the bond angle in sp3d and sp3d2 hybridized molecules?

In sp3d hybridized molecules, the bond angle is approximately 90 degrees between the axial and equatorial hybrid orbitals, and 120 degrees between the equatorial hybrid orbitals. In sp3d2 hybridized molecules, the bond angle is approximately 90 degrees between all of the hybrid orbitals.

4. What types of molecules exhibit sp3d and sp3d2 hybridization?

Sp3d hybridization is commonly found in molecules with five electron domains, such as trigonal bipyramidal molecules like PF5. Sp3d2 hybridization is commonly found in molecules with six electron domains, such as octahedral molecules like SF6.

5. How does hybridization affect the polarity of a molecule?

Hybridization can affect the polarity of a molecule by changing the spatial arrangement of the atoms and their bonds. In sp3d hybridization, the resulting trigonal bipyramidal shape can lead to a polar molecule if the bonded atoms have different electronegativities. In sp3d2 hybridization, the resulting octahedral shape can lead to a nonpolar molecule if the bonded atoms have similar electronegativities.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
929
  • Chemistry
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
590
  • Chemistry
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top