KOH. the structural formula for it

[ptrcao]

Is it valid to express KOH in this way (see attached image)?

I wasn't sure if structural formulae are applicable to ions.

The single bond to me denotes a covalent bond, which isn't applicable to the ionic compound KOH, is it?

 

[Borek]

That's how these things are sometimes shown at the beginning of the chemistry course, but - as you correctly guessed - they don't make any sense for ionic compounds.

 

[ptrcao]

That's how these things are sometimes shown at the beginning of the chemistry course, but - as you correctly guessed - they don't make any sense for ionic compounds.

So a single bond represented by a single line is not applicable to ionic compounds?

What about "structural formulae", are they not appropriate for covalent compounds?

Can you explain please?

 

[Borek]

Line suggests kind of directionality of the bond - ions bonds are (in general) not directional. That's not exactly true, as for example OH^- is a dipole, so in KOH - given chance - it will tend to put negatively charged oxygen closer to positively charged potassium; in a way that's kind of directionality.

OTOH covalent bonds are directional and they are responsible for molecule shape, so drawing them as lines makes sense (the only problem being - they are usually drawn on the flat surface, while molecules are not necessarily flat).

 

[LudusRex]

I can confirm that the structural formula for KOH is valid. However, it is important to note that structural formulae are typically used to represent covalent compounds, not ionic compounds. In the case of KOH, the potassium ion (K+) and hydroxide ion (OH-) are held together by ionic bonds, not covalent bonds. Therefore, using a structural formula may not accurately represent the bonding in this compound. A more appropriate way to represent KOH would be with a chemical formula, K+OH-, to show the presence of ions.