Explaining Why SnI4 Bonding is More Covalent Than SnF4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miike012
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bond
AI Thread Summary
The bonding in SnI4 is more covalent than in SnF4 primarily due to the difference in electronegativity between iodine and fluorine. Fluorine's higher electronegativity results in more polar Sn-F bonds compared to the Sn-I bonds, which have greater covalent character. Both SnI4 and SnF4 have symmetric molecular structures, leading to nonpolar overall molecules despite the presence of polar bonds. Understanding the relationship between bond polarity and molecular symmetry is crucial in this context. This analysis highlights the importance of electronegativity in determining the nature of bonding in compounds.
Miike012
Messages
1,009
Reaction score
0
What is the explanation for the fact that the bonding in SnI4 is more covalent than the bonding in SnF4 ?


My thought was... because A polar bond is a covalent bond in which there is a separation of charge between one end and the other.
Thus... I am trying to prove that SnI4 is more polar than SnF4... can some one please help me explain...? thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Miike,
A covalent bond is one in which electrons are shared between two atoms. Fluorine is more electronegative than iodine, meaning that the Sn-F bond is more polar than the Sn-I bond. Because iodine does not pull on the electrons as strongly as fluorine does, the Sn-I bond has more covalent character.

Be careful in the way you think about the polarity of a molecule... A molecule can have polar bonds but still be nonpolar. This is true for both of the molecules here. Both molecular structures are symmetric (SnI4 is tetrahedral and SnF4 is square planar), and so although the Sn-I and Sn-F bonds are polar, the molecules are not.

Cheers,
Kamas
 
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