Electron Config: ns2 (n-1)d9 & ns1 np6

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the electron configurations of transition metals, specifically the stability associated with the filling of "d" orbitals compared to "s" and "p" orbitals. Participants explore the reasons behind the preference for certain electron configurations, particularly in the context of elements like chromium (Cr) and copper (Cu). The scope includes theoretical explanations and conceptual clarifications regarding atomic structure and electron behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that "d" orbitals gain stability by receiving an electron from the nearest "s" orbital, while questioning why "p" orbitals do not exhibit similar behavior.
  • Others argue that the energy levels of "s" and "d" orbitals are much closer than those of "p" and "d" orbitals, which may explain the observed electron transitions.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about whether the energy gain from filling "p" orbitals is smaller than that from filling "d" orbitals, suggesting that the energy differences between these orbitals play a crucial role.
  • Another participant notes that the explanations provided are somewhat hand-wavy and lack rigor, indicating a need for more thorough models, such as quantum mechanics (QM).
  • There is a mention of the common teaching that elements like Cr and Cu have unusual electron configurations, but the reasons behind these configurations are not clearly articulated in educational settings.
  • One participant explains that the stability associated with half-filled or fully filled "d" orbitals leads to preferred configurations, but acknowledges that this reasoning is also hand-wavy.
  • Another participant elaborates on the energy dynamics between "s" and "d" orbitals, particularly how the energy levels change across the transition series, affecting electron configurations.
  • A later reply introduces a detailed explanation regarding the energy levels of "s" and "d" orbitals as one moves across the transition series, highlighting the influence of increasing nuclear charge.
  • One participant draws an analogy between electron configurations and the behavior of water molecules at boiling point, suggesting a conceptual equilibrium in atomic behavior.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the reasons behind the electron configurations of transition metals. While there is some consensus on the closeness of energy levels between "s" and "d" orbitals, the discussion remains unresolved on the specific mechanisms and implications of these configurations.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the lack of rigorous models to fully explain the phenomena discussed, as well as the dependence on definitions of stability and energy differences that are not universally agreed upon.

Knightycloud
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
In the "d" orbital of an atom, if it's almost half filled or filled it will get an electron from the nearest "s" orbital to gain a better stability.
My question is why not "p" orbital doesn't do such?

ns2 (n-1)d9 → ns1 (n-1)d10

ns2 np5 -/→ ns1 np6 ?:cry:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
These s/d pairs are much closer in the energy level than possible p/d pairs.
 
well my problem is why don't p orbitals drag s level orbitals? Is that because s-d distance is lesser than s-p distance?
 
Honestly, I am not sure. It is either that the the energy gain of having the p filled up is smaller than having the d filled up, or that the energy difference between ns/(n-1)d is smaller than the energy difference between s/p.

Note that these are very hand wavy explanations, and they lack rigor - which means you can bend them to fit whatever you want them to be. I hate putting too much meaning to such models, you would be just deluding yourself you know what is going on. There are definitely better answers, but they require much more rigorous models (QM).
 
Are there no theories behind that abnormal d filling? :confused:

Having said that, even my school teachers didn't say anything about how it happens. They just taught that Cr and Cu has a rather different electron configuration.
 
They say there is an energy gain connected with half/full filled d, so 3d54s1 is preferred over 3d44s2 and 3d104s1 is preferred over 3d94s2. But this is hand wavy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Borek said:
These s/d pairs are much closer in the energy level than possible p/d pairs.

Borek is correct, the d orbital is close in energy to the s orbital so when an electro jumps from s to d, the energy is much less than jumping from a p or f to a d. They are close enough to allow this.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
So there will be stability only when a s electron jumps to d, not p! And the inter distance is the reason. :D Thank you both of you! I think I can understand now.
 
Yes, I found this guy's explanation very accurate. Check it out.

'At the beginning of the first transition series (scandium), the 4s orbital is lower in energy than the 3d orbitals. Thus Sc has the configuration [Ar] 4s2 3d1. This continues as far as V which has the configuration [Ar] 4s2 3d3. We might expect Cr to have the configuration [Ar] 4s2 3d4 but, due to the shape of the 3d orbitals and the increasing nuclear charge as we go across the series, the 3d orbitals are now closer in energy to 4s than they were at Sc. The energy difference is so small, in fact, that it is smaller than the 'pairing' energy to put two electrons in the 4s orbital. Consequently the configuration [Ar] 4s1 3d5 is lower in energy than [Ar] 4s2 3d4. For Mn, the next electron goes into the 4s orbital as a paired electron in 4s is still lower in energy than a paired electron in 3d. As we go further to the right, the 3d orbitals continue to fill up but, by the time we get to Cu, the energy of 3d is now lower than 4s, so [Ar] 4s1 3d10 is preferred to [Ar] 4s2 3d9.

So you see that the unusual electronic configurations of Cr and Cu are a consequence of the increasing stability of the 3d subshell with respect to the 4s subshall as you go across the series due to the increasing nuclear charge. It is interesting to note that in ALL transition metal cations, because of the increased effective nuclear charge in the ion, the 3d subshell is always lower in energy than 4s. This is why 4s electrons are always lost first on ionisation of transition metals'
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ARCHANASALANDRI
  • #10
Yea and from this phrase I think when the configuration is around 4s2 3d4, the atmosphere there, around the atom behaves like the boiling point where the water molecules easily moves away. I mean, just like that, an equilibrium. :D
And thanks again for this one. It's worthy!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K