Do all transition metals have the n2 and (n-1)d orbitals?

AI Thread Summary
Transition metals typically have their n2 and (n-1)d orbitals involved in valence electron considerations, but there is no universal rule for all. For example, iron has 8 valence electrons (4s2 + 3d6), while nickel's valence electron count is debated, with some claiming it has 10 (4s2 + 3d8) and others asserting it has only 2 due to the d orbital's energy level. The distinction between valence and non-valence electrons can be unclear, particularly for d-group elements, where the formal oxidation state may provide insight into valence counts. As one moves across the periodic table, d-electrons become more tightly bound, affecting their contribution to valence. Understanding these nuances is essential for accurately determining valence electron counts in transition metals.
Silhorn
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Does all transition metals have their n2 and ( n-1)d orbitals as valence electrons?
I have been scouring the internet to the answer of this question but have mixed results.
Iron has an electron configuration of: 1s2,2s2,2p6,3s2,3p6,4s2,3d6
Aparantly it has 8 valence electrons because 4s2 + 3d6 = 8 electrons.
Nickel has an electron configuration of: 1s2,2s2,2p6,3s2,3p6,4s2,3d8
Some people say it has 10 valence electrons because 4s2 + 3d8 = 10 electrons.
And some other people say it is wrong, it only has 2 valence electrons because the d orbital is in the 3rd energy level.

And then I come across another thing saying only certain transition metals you count the electrons in the n2 and ( n-1)d orbitals and the rest is just count the electrons in the outside shell as normal. This seems to be the solution but am I right and which ones?

Could someone clear this up for me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no clear-cut difference between valence and non-valence electrons. With d-group elements, you may consider the formal oxidation number as an indication of the number of valence electrons. As d-electrons become more tightly bound to the nucleus the farther right you move in the period and the farther up you move in the column, in the first period, the maximal oxidation number is reached with + VII with manganum which hence uses all its 4s and 3d electrons. Its right neighbour, iron, has a maximal oxidation number of +VI, and not VIII so that it can't use all its 4s and 3d electrons. On the other hand, in the 3rd long period, the maximal oxidation number is reached with Iridium with +IX while its right neighbour, Platin, only reaches +VI.
 
Ok, I understand.
Thanks for the help.
 
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...
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