Problem about lattice structure proof

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical justification for the intervals of cation-anion ratios in cubic, octahedral, and tetrahedral arrangements. The minimum values are established as cubic: 0.732, octahedral: 0.414, and tetrahedral: 0.225. The intervals are defined as cubic: 0.732 to 0.999, octahedral: 0.414 to 0.732, and tetrahedral: 0.225 to 0.414. The rationale behind these intervals is based on geometric and chemical assumptions, particularly the stability of arrangements as the ratios approach upper limits, which are influenced by atomic size and electron cloud considerations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of cation-anion ratios in crystal structures
  • Familiarity with cubic, octahedral, and tetrahedral arrangements
  • Basic knowledge of geometric principles in chemistry
  • Awareness of atomic radii and their implications on stability
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical derivation of cation-anion ratios in crystal structures
  • Study the stability criteria for cubic, octahedral, and tetrahedral arrangements
  • Explore the impact of atomic size on crystal structure stability
  • Investigate real-life exceptions to theoretical models in inorganic chemistry
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, researchers in inorganic chemistry, and professionals studying crystal structures and material properties will benefit from this discussion.

fisher garry
Messages
63
Reaction score
1
I have looked at the cation anion ratio of cubic, octahedral and tetrahedral arrangments on an internet site. By a mathematical derivation they find the minimum value for the cation anion ratios for cubic, octahedral and tetrahedral arrangments. My problem is that even though I get the mathematics I don't get why the derivations show that there is an interval of values that the cation anion ratios for the cubic, octahedral and tetrahedral arrangments can have. I only get that they can have the values that they derive which is

cubic: 0.732
octahedral: 0.414
tetrahedral: 0.225

I need a mathematical justification on why it is an interval of values for the arrangments that in fact are

cubic: 0.732 to 0.999
octahedral: 0.414 to 0.732
tetrahedral: 0.225 to 0.414

I have uploaded a derivation online that says mathematically how the minimum values are found. In addition the question about how the intervals are found are posed there as well The answer is not mathematical. Can anyone help me in finding a mathematical answer to the intervals? The intervals are also in the attachment from an inorganic chemistry book.
 

Attachments

Chemistry news on Phys.org
I have done "small bit" of studying on this concept, I have not yet come across a mathematical answer that shows this "interval". It can only be understood physically, but expressed mathematically. I'm not saying that it's not possible (I can have an "interesting" math imagination), but I have yet come across mathematical "proof", so to speak. Assumptions (i.e. cation barely touches anion) allow us to mathematically determine the minimum ratios. (It's only considered minimum-ratio based on the chemical assumptions, other than that we're just doing geometry).

These ratios have upper limits because theoretically, a tetrahedral formation cannot have a stable radius ratio of 0.42. Because if this is the case, the theoretical most stable arrangement is now octahedral. Same goes for the octahedral arrangement. After 0.732, the theoretically most stable arrangement is the cubic - which goes up to 0.999. If there is a ratio greater than 0.999, it means that the cation is much bigger than the anion, which is usually not common considering that the electron cloud is much bigger than anions.

Furthermore (in case of your interest or maybe to further explain the concept)
Ratios can have values between 0.225 and 0.41. These are possible when the "type" of atoms are considered. For example, you can use actual radii values to determine its "actual" cation-anion radius ratio. If it falls within this interval, the simple model predicts the structure to have that particular arrangement. When the structure doesn't follow the model (i.e. real life), it gives researchers something to figure out about exceptions! lol

I hope this helps... Let me know if you have questions. Good luck!
 
Thanks for the great reply. I get the issue more now:)
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
44K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
14K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K