Optical Isomerism of [Fe(H2O)6] Complex

  • Thread starter Thread starter broegger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Isomerism Optical
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the optical isomerism of the complex [Fe(H2O)6]. It is concluded that the complex does not give rise to any isomers due to the symmetrical arrangement of six identical H2O molecules in an octahedral geometry, leading to the assertion that it is optically inactive. Some participants express uncertainty about potential interactions between ligands, such as hydrogen bonding, which could theoretically induce optical activity, but this is deemed unlikely. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding bonding and geometry in coordination complexes, particularly for those in introductory chemistry courses. Overall, the consensus is that [Fe(H2O)6] does not exhibit optical isomerism.
broegger
Messages
257
Reaction score
0
Hi. I'm asked the following question:

What isomers does the complex [\text{Fe}(\text{H}_2\text{O})_6] give rise to? Is it optically active?

My answer to the first question would be 'none': The 6 identical H2O molecules are arranged in an octahedral fashion around the central Fe-atom, so there are no asymmetries that could give rise to isomers. Is this correct? It seems to me that this question is phrased as if some isomers do exist (I'm not asked whether they exist or not).

The answer to the second question would of course be 'no', since there are also no optical isomerism.

Am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your argument is insufficient. You could use essentially use the same argument to "prove" the optical inactivity of [Co(en)_3]^3+, but that would be wrong...wouldn't it?

While I'd still be inclined to agree with your result, I have never happened upon the bonding/geometry of aquo complexes myself, to say anything definitive. If there is some kind of hydrogen bonding between neighboring H2O ligands (which I think is unlikely), that might induce optical activity.
 
I see your point. If we assume that every H2O molecule occupies one ligand space and does not interact with it's neighbors -- would I then be correct? It's an introductory course, so I assume there's no pitfalls.
 
broegger said:
I see your point. If we assume that every H2O molecule occupies one ligand space and does not interact with it's neighbors -- would I then be correct? It's an introductory course, so I assume there's no pitfalls.
I'm inclined to say yes, but I'd rather someone who's formally trained in this area weigh in. There may just happen to be some standard result (or exception to the rule) which is completely unobvious to deduce.

Do you have a link to a website talking about bonding/geometry in hexaquo complexes?
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
16K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
11K
Replies
3
Views
628
Back
Top