A new scale for electronegativity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a newly proposed scale for electronegativity defined by Martin Rahm, Tao Zeng, and Roald Hoffmann. The conversation touches on the historical context of electronegativity scales, comparisons with existing scales like the Pauling and Allen scales, and implications for chemistry and education. The scope includes theoretical aspects of electronegativity and its potential applications in alloy and compound design.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the new electronegativity scale is based on the average binding energy of valence electrons and encompasses 96 elements, which is an increase from previous scales.
  • Others highlight that the new scale is similar to the Allen scale but differs in its foundational approach, using ground-state energies rather than configuration energies.
  • A participant mentions that the new scale yields slightly smaller electronegativity values compared to Allen's scale but correlates well with it and other existing scales.
  • Concerns are raised about the acceptance of the new scale in educational contexts, given that the IUPAC still favors the Pauling scale.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the practical implications of the new scale, suggesting it may not be widely adopted in teaching or research for some time.
  • A later reply provides a reference to the new scale, indicating a desire for visual representation of the data.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express mixed views on the new electronegativity scale. While some acknowledge its potential contributions to the field, others question its immediate relevance and acceptance in educational settings. There is no consensus on whether the new scale will gain traction among researchers or educators.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of access to the original publication for some participants, which may affect their understanding of the new scale's details and implications. Additionally, the discussion reflects ongoing debates about the definitions and applications of electronegativity.

Wrichik Basu
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
2,186
Reaction score
2,694
Electronegativity has seen a number of scales throughout its years of existence. Starting from the Pauling scale to the Allen scale, Wikipedia has a long list.

Recently, Martin Rahm, Tao Zeng and Roald Hoffmann have defined a new scale for electronegativity. The news has been published in ScienceDaily, and the main paper has been published in the Journal of American Chemical Society.

As per ScienceDaily, the new definition is the average binding energy of the outermost and weakest bound electrons -- commonly known as the valence electrons. It has a similarity to the Allen Scale, but is different from it. The new scale encompasses 96 elements, a marked increase from previous versions. The scale now runs from the first element, hydrogen, to the ninety-sixth, curium.
Abstract said:
We introduce a new electronegativity scale for atoms, based consistently on ground-state energies of valence electrons. The scale is closely related to (yet different from) L. C. Allen’s, which is based on configuration energies. Using a combination of literature experimental values for ground-state energies and ab initio-calculated energies where experimental data are missing, we are able to provide electronegativities for elements 1–96. The values are slightly smaller than Allen’s original scale, but correlate well with Allen’s and others. Outliers in agreement with other scales are oxygen and fluorine, now somewhat less electronegative, but in better agreement with their chemistry with the noble gas elements. Group 11 and 12 electronegativities emerge as high, although Au less so than in other scales. Our scale also gives relatively high electronegativities for Mn, Co, Ni, Zn, Tc, Cd, Hg (affected by choice of valence state), and Gd. The new electronegativities provide hints for new alloy/compound design, and a framework is in place to analyze those energy changes in reactions in which electronegativity changes may not be controlling.

Journal Reference:

Martin Rahm, Tao Zeng, Roald Hoffmann. Electronegativity Seen as the Ground-State Average Valence Electron Binding Energy. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2018; 141 (1): 342 DOI: 10.1021/jacs.8b10246

I couldn't read the original publication as I don't have a subscription, but I am interested in hearing from someone who can view the full article.
 
Last edited:
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Another EN scale to torture students...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bystander
DrDu said:
Another EN scale to torture students...
It will be a long time before it becomes torture. The IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology (Gold Book) says this:
IUPAC Gold Book said:
Electronegativity - Concept introduced by L. Pauling as the power of an atom to attract electrons to itself. There are several definitions of this quantity. According to Mulliken it is the average of the ionization energy and electron affinity of an atom, but more frequently a relative scale due to Pauling is used..
As the IUPAC still prefers the Pauling scale, this new scale won't enter the syllabus very soon. Researchers might use it, but that is a different issue.
 
For reference, here is the new scale:
ja-2018-10246d_0003.jpg

(Figure 3 from https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.8b10246)
 

Attachments

  • ja-2018-10246d_0003.jpg
    ja-2018-10246d_0003.jpg
    78.1 KB · Views: 911
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Wrichik Basu

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
18K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K