Is this interpretation correct? (diagrams of Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide)

In summary: The main point to take away from this is that it is very important to consider the hybridization of atoms when looking at the bonding in molecules.
  • #1
prakhargupta3301
58
1
*SORRY FOR BAD DIAGRAM*

Is this correct for C(triple bond)O ie Carbon Monoxide
upload_2018-7-10_19-10-45.png

upload_2018-7-10_19-46-57.png

This is for CO2. Please check both.
ALso check everything ie hybridized orbitals, bondings etc. I'm trying to clear concepts.
(Note: red= unhybridized, black= hybridized)

Thank you.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-7-10_19-10-45.png
    upload_2018-7-10_19-10-45.png
    4.5 KB · Views: 1,729
  • upload_2018-7-10_19-46-57.png
    upload_2018-7-10_19-46-57.png
    12.6 KB · Views: 2,215
Last edited:
Chemistry news on Phys.org
  • #2
First, the orbitals are fine. Some details can be improved though.

I'm going to explain CO2 first. It is very close to being right. You forgot to draw bonding (black scribble between orbitals) for the other side (negative phase) of the Pz and Py orbitals. I'm sure this is a careless mistake because you did it for CO. Otherwise, they are good.

As for the CO, the orbitals are a mixture of a resonance structure ⊕:C≡O:⊖ ↔ :C=O:: (sorry the four electrons on the oxygen is wrong, two electrons belong on sp and the other two on Pz, but I cannot write that here). In that sense, the orbitals are fine, but the bond order cannot be discretely written in the diagram.

EDIT: You forgot to color code CO for the unhybridized or hybridized.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Spinnor, prakhargupta3301 and berkeman
  • #3
HAYAO said:
First, the orbitals are fine. Some details can be improved though.

I'm going to explain CO2 first. It is very close to being right. You forgot to draw bonding (black scribble between orbitals) for the other side (negative phase) of the Pz and Py orbitals. I'm sure this is a careless mistake because you did it for CO. Otherwise, they are good.

As for the CO, the orbitals are a mixture of a resonance structure ⊕:C≡O:⊖ ↔ :C=O:: (sorry the four electrons on the oxygen is wrong, two electrons belong on sp and the other two on Pz, but I cannot write that here). In that sense, the orbitals are fine, but the bond order cannot be discretely written in the diagram.

EDIT: You forgot to color code CO for the unhybridized or hybridized.
Okay, the silly mistakes apart. I wanted to ask you something, will side atoms (or ligands. here O) show hybridization too? People on my other posts have said they won't..
:\
Thanks
 
  • #4
prakhargupta3301 said:
Okay, the silly mistakes apart. I wanted to ask you something, will side atoms (or ligands. here O) show hybridization too? People on my other posts have said they won't..
:\
Thanks

I think I need to clear the misunderstanding first. DrDu meant to say that hybridization won't fully explain what happens in PF3. Any elements beyond 2nd period is going to be quite complicated. As an example, as you may already know, compounds containing phosphorous can sometimes show hypervalency (such as PF5), which you won't see for 1st and 2nd period elements. Larger atoms tend to be quite complicated where conventional understanding of bonding may or may not apply.

Carbon and oxygen in CO2 and CO can surely be explained well by hybridized orbitals.
 
  • #5
CO2 is an example where you can see that different assumptions about hybridization lead to comparable bonding schemes. In the case of CO2 you have several choices:
a) take the O's to be sp2 hybridized, which is what you apparently did. Note that you can draw two equivalent structures depending on whether the sp2 hybrids on the left oxygen atom lie in the xy plane or xz plane. You can even get resonance stabilization by considering both structures at once.
b) Take the O's to be sp hybridized. Then you get again at least two resonance structures depending on whether the pi bond between the o on the left and the central c lies in the xy or xz plane. There will be a bit more repulsion between the lone pairs on O and the pi bonds as in case a.
c) Consider the oxygens as completely unhybridized. This will lead to somewhat weaker sigma bonds as in case b.
d) Consider all atoms to be sp3 hybridized. This will lead to so-called "banana bonds" between the atoms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_bond). Banana bonds are energetically favourable over sigma-pi type bonds as the "bananas" are at greater distance from each other which reduces electrostatic repulsion between the bonds. There is some confusion about this even on wikipedia. The reason is that in molecular orbital theory banana-bonds and sigma-pi bonds are equivalent while in valence bond theory, they are not.
 

1. What is the difference between Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide?

Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is toxic to humans and animals. It is formed from incomplete combustion of carbon-containing substances. On the other hand, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless gas that is essential for plant photosynthesis and is also produced in small amounts by human and animal respiration. It is also a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.

2. How are the diagrams of Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide different?

The diagrams of Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide are different in terms of their molecular structures. Carbon Monoxide has a linear structure, with one carbon atom bonded to one oxygen atom. Carbon Dioxide, on the other hand, has a linear structure with two carbon atoms bonded to two oxygen atoms.

3. Is Carbon Monoxide or Carbon Dioxide more harmful to the environment?

Both Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide have negative effects on the environment. Carbon Monoxide is harmful because it can lead to air pollution and contribute to the formation of smog. It is also a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Carbon Dioxide, on the other hand, is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect and global warming. It is also a major component of ocean acidification, which can have detrimental effects on marine life.

4. Can Carbon Monoxide be converted into Carbon Dioxide?

Yes, Carbon Monoxide can be converted into Carbon Dioxide through a process called oxidation. This can happen naturally in the atmosphere through reactions with oxygen, or it can be induced through catalytic converters in vehicles. However, this conversion does not eliminate the harmful effects of Carbon Monoxide, as Carbon Dioxide is also a harmful gas.

5. Why is it important to understand the difference between Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide?

It is important to understand the difference between Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide because they have different impacts on human health and the environment. Carbon Monoxide is a toxic gas that can have immediate negative effects on human health, while Carbon Dioxide contributes to long-term environmental issues such as climate change. By understanding the differences between these two gases, we can take appropriate measures to reduce their harmful effects and protect our health and the environment.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
35
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
26K
Back
Top