Lanthanide Crystal Field Splitting Energies

AI Thread Summary
The lanthanoid series experiences significantly smaller crystal field splitting energies compared to the first row transition metals due to the progressive filling of the 4f subshell, where electrons are more tightly bound to the nucleus. This results in ligand field splitting energies for 4f complexes ranging from 50 to 100 cm^-1, while 5f complexes range from 1000 to 2000 cm^-1, indicating a 20-fold difference. Additionally, lanthanides do not exhibit Jahn-Teller Distortion, which further influences their crystal field behavior. The discussion highlights the fundamental differences in electron configuration and its impact on crystal field splitting. Understanding these differences is crucial for predicting the behavior of metal ion complexes in various chemical contexts.
agup
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hey all,
This is a problem I can't really wrap my head around.

1.) The lanthanoid series is formed through the progressive filling of the 4f subshell, whereas the first
row transition metal series is formed through the progressive filling of the 3d subshell.

a) What is the relative magnitude of crystal field splitting energies for metal ion complexes
within each of these series? Explain the reason for any difference.


Attempt at Solution:

In my notes I've written that since the lanthanides are formed through the progressive filling of the 4f subshell, these electrons in the f-orbitals are much more tightly held/embedded in the nucleus. Hence the crystal field splitting energies are much smaller, almost 100x as small as the d-block.

Ligand field splitting energies for
4f: 50 - 100 cm^-1
5f: 1000 - 2000 cm^-1 (Hence there's a 20 fold difference).

There is also no Jahn-Teller Distortion for lanthanides.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks for the post! Sorry you aren't generating responses at the moment. Do you have any further information, come to any new conclusions or is it possible to reword the post?
 
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