Chemistry Compare the Bond lengths of IO2F2 and IOF3

AI Thread Summary
IO2F2- has a larger bond length than IOF3 due to its greater number of double bonds, which increases its p character. However, there is confusion regarding the existence of IO2F2- and the average bond length comparison. The discussion highlights that IOF3 contains three single bonds and a double bond, potentially leading to a higher average bond length. Participants express uncertainty about the question's clarity and the validity of the structures provided. Overall, the conversation reveals a need for better framing of chemistry questions to avoid confusion among students.
Navin
Messages
112
Reaction score
34
Homework Statement
Compare the average bondlengths of the following compounds

IO2F2 and IOF3
Relevant Equations
Bent rules

%S charecter inversly proportional to bond lenth
Okay So our Chemistry Professor gave us the answer as the following

IO2F2 has a larger bond length than IOF3

The reason being is once you draw the structures of the compounds IO2F2 has more number of double bonds that the later hence it shall have more p charecter than IOF3...hence it will have a larger avg bond length...but well i sort of don't undestand this logic

Well hear me out, so a single bond is larger than a double bond right, so IOF3
Has 3 single bonds, a lone pair and a double bond while IO2F2 has 2 single , 2 double bonds , and a lone pair...so due to the latger no of single bonds the avg bond length will be higher in IOF3

Yea so i think the answer is IOF3 has the larger avg bond length.(as opposed to my professor)

Could you please rectify me if I am wrong ?
Thank you :)
 

Attachments

  • 1570132763178465907916.jpg
    1570132763178465907916.jpg
    33.6 KB · Views: 800
Physics news on Phys.org
IO2F2 doesn't exist. Do you mean IO2F2-?

Do you mean average length of all bonds, I-O and I-F? That doesn't seem to be a very meaningful comparison.
 
mjc123 said:
IO2F2 doesn't exist. Do you mean IO2F2-?

Do you mean average length of all bonds, I-O and I-F? That doesn't seem to be a very meaningful comparison.

The question was just compare average bond lengths. They didnt specify which bonds to compare

And yes, I am sorry the copound was IO2F2-
Im so sorry for that error
 
EDIT#1 - THe Question is to compare Average bond lengths of IO2F2- and IOF3There is an error in the Orignal post where i forgot to add the "-" superscript, sorry for the inconvinience
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
I think you'd have too many electrons round I if you had two I=O double bonds in IO2F2-. In IOF3, replace one F by O- (with a single bond). The IO2 moiety should be O=I-O- ↔ O--I=O (not linear!)
 
mjc123 said:
I think you'd have too many electrons round I if you had two I=O double bonds in IO2F2-. In IOF3, replace one F by O- (with a single bond). The IO2 moiety should be O=I-O- ↔ O--I=O (not linear!)

I agree with this, but they gave the structure like that in the question.
(Im beginning to think this is a horribly framed question...Good job publishers ! Making us students life easier)
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
Back
Top