Electron orbitals of iron and copper

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The electron configurations of iron and copper are crucial for understanding their chemical properties. Iron's configuration is 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d6, while copper's is 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s1 3d10. The stability of these configurations is influenced by the energy levels of the orbitals, with copper exhibiting a full d orbital and an incomplete s orbital. This phenomenon is explained by the Slater rules, which describe the effective nuclear charge and its impact on electron stability.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electron configurations
  • Familiarity with atomic orbitals (s, p, d)
  • Knowledge of Slater's rules
  • Basic concepts of nuclear charge and electron shielding
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of electron configurations on chemical reactivity
  • Study the Slater rules in detail for effective nuclear charge calculations
  • Explore the concept of orbital hybridization in transition metals
  • Investigate the role of electron pairing in stability of d orbitals
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, educators, and professionals interested in transition metal properties and electron configuration stability.

Johnleprekan
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
I was reading an article about the electron orbitals of iron and copper:

The electronic configuration of iron is 1s 2, 2s 2, 2p 6, 3s 2, 3p 6, 4s 2, 3d 6

And that of copper is 1s 2, 2s 2, 2p 6, 3s 2, 3p 6, 4s 1, 3d 10


Iron has an incompletely filled d orbital while copper has a full d orbital. The s orbital of iron is full while copper is not. Why is the d orbital of copper full when the s (of copper) one isn't? (s orbitals being able to hold two electrons that is) Why doesn't the s orbital fill up and leave the d orbital incomplete?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Order in which orbitals are filled depends on the energy - the lower the energy of the atom, the more stable the configuration. Energies of these orbitals are almost identical, and some very tiny effects (like pairing or not pairing spins on a particular orbital) make one of the configurations slightly more stable. These differences are typically so small they require quite elaborate models to be reproduced.

You can also see an explanation saying that there is an additional energy gain in the case of half filled or full filled d orbital which makes d5 and d10 particularly stable. As far as I am aware it is not entirely true, even if we do observe d5 and d10 quite often. But I am not going into details, as it is not a subject I feel comfortable with.
 
Because it is more favorable (in terms of energy) to have a filled 3d and a partially filled 4s than the other way around. Why that is is much more complicated to answer. Check the following thread for more information: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=712360
 
There is an empirical set of rules, called the Slater rules
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slater's_rules
, to estimate the effective nuclear charge seen by electrons in the different sub-shells.
The effective nuclear charge seen by the d-electrons increases with increasing filling of the d-shell resulting in the d shell becoming more and more stabilized when the number of d-electrons increases.
This is understandable, as electrons in the same sub shell are not very efficient in screening each other from the nuclear charge.
Hence the energetic stabilization of the d-shell has two maxima at d5 and d10 respectively, as at going from d5 to d6 an electron has to be put into an orbital which contains already an electron, which is not as favourable as putting an electron into an empty orbital.
 
Delete please.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
9K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
16K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
40K