Write the electron configuration of Cd2+

AI Thread Summary
The electron configuration for the cadmium ion Cd2+ requires removing two electrons from the neutral cadmium configuration. The correct configuration for Cd2+ is 1s^2 2s^2 2p^6 3s^2 3p^6 3d^10 4s^2 4p^6 4d^10, as the two electrons are lost from the 5s subshell. The shorthand notation for neutral cadmium is [Kr] 5s^2 4d^10, which must be adjusted to account for the ionization. The confusion arose from an incorrect inclusion of 3s^1 in the initial configuration. Therefore, the proper configuration for Cd2+ reflects the removal of the outermost electrons.
jupiter_8917
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Write the electron configuration of Cd2+

Is It right if I write it like this 1s^2 2s^2 2p^6 3s^1 3p^6 3d^10 4s^2 4p^6 5s^2 4d^10?

Can anyone please correct me if it is wrong? Thank you very much!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
5s24d10 looks to me like neutral atom, not a cation.

Why 3s1? Is it just a typo?
 
Hi,
In order for Cd to form Cd2+, Cd has to lose its 2e- in the outer-shell. So, take a look at your configuration, you are having the configuration for the neutral Cd, you need to remove 2 outer e- to get the right configuration. And also don't forget the "reminder" from Mr. Borek about the 3s1 typo.

Good Luck!
 
do you mean it need to be like this in order to form Cd2+? 1s^2 2s^2 2p^6 3s^1 3p^6 3d^10 4s^2 4p^6

thanks again,
 
Sorry for the confusion. Electron configuration of Cd can be given as [Kr]5s24d10 - that is very convenient short hand notation, that uses noble gas configuration as its basis. Configuration of Kr is 1s22s22p63s23p64s23d104p6, so [Kr]5s24d10 means 1s22s22p63s23p64s23d104p65s24d10 - that's configuration of neutral Cd atom. I was referring to this notation and just to the last two subshells.

[Kr]5s24d10 is a configuration of the neutral atom. As it was said several times - to make Cd2+ you have to remove two electrons.
 
Last edited:
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top