NH2- vs. H-: Electronegativity and Basicity

AI Thread Summary
NH2- is a stronger base than H- due to its greater ability to donate a proton, despite nitrogen's higher electronegativity. The Gibbs free energy (ΔG) for the reaction involving NH2- is -1657 kJ/mol, compared to -1649 kJ/mol for H-, indicating a more favorable reaction. The equilibrium constant for the NH2- reaction is also greater, suggesting it is more likely to proceed to products. The discussion highlights the complexity of determining basicity based solely on structure, as electronegativity does not directly correlate with basic strength in this case. Understanding these reactions requires consideration of both thermodynamic data and molecular structure.
Avi_R
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Why is NH2- a stronger base than H-. I would think that due to N's greater electronegatavity, it would want to hold on to its electrons more, making it less basic.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
NH2- + H+ --> NH3; (delta)G reaction = -1657 Kj/mol
H- + H+ --> H2; (delta)G reaction = -1649 Kj/mol

So, the reaction NH2- + H2O --><-- NH3 + OH- has a lesser (delta)G than the reaction H- + H2O --><-- H2 + OH-; that is, the first one has a greater equilibrium constant than the second.

with --><-- I mean equilibrium reaction.
 
Thanks for the answer, but speaking strictly based on structure, how would we determine this?
 
Avi_R said:
Thanks for the answer, but speaking strictly based on structure, how would we determine this?
I don't think it's possible, at least AFAIK.
 
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