Theoretical Lattice Energy for MgF2

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The theoretical lattice energy for MgF2 can be calculated using the Born-Landé equation, which incorporates ionic radii, the Madelung constant, and the Born exponent. The ionic radius for Mg2+ is 86 pm, while for F- it is 116 pm, leading to a calculated value that diverges from the experimental lattice enthalpy of -2962 kJ/mol. The discrepancy arises due to the covalent character of the bonds in MgF2, influenced by the small size and high charge of Mg2+, which increases covalency according to Fajan's rules.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Born-Landé equation for lattice energy calculations
  • Knowledge of ionic radii and their significance in ionic compounds
  • Familiarity with the concept of covalency in ionic solids
  • Basic proficiency in LaTeX for mathematical expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Born-Landé equation and its applications in calculating lattice energies
  • Study the effects of ionic radius on lattice energy and stability of ionic compounds
  • Explore Fajan's rules and their implications for covalent character in ionic bonds
  • Learn how to effectively use LaTeX for formatting chemical equations in discussions
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, particularly those studying solid-state chemistry, materials science, and anyone interested in the theoretical aspects of ionic compounds and lattice energy calculations.

pollycampos
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Calculate the theoretical lattice energy for MgF2 (Born-Landé equation)

Ionic radius Mg+2 (coordination number 6) = 86 pm
Ionic radius F- (coordination number 3) = 116 pm
Madelung constant = 2.408
n = 7

Homework Equations


b0dedee27d206a607aa2c0343ad9608a.png



The Attempt at a Solution


I'm having problems with this equation, because its result is very different from the experimental lattice enthalpy of MgF2 (-2962 kJ/mol), and it must be similar.
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4670/quiqui.jpg
What's wrong? Maybe the sum of ionic radius? (I added the Mg ionic radius plus 2 times F radius).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi pollycampos! :smile:

pollycampos said:
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4670/quiqui.jpg
What's wrong? Maybe the sum of ionic radius? (I added the Mg ionic radius plus 2 times F radius).

Why add twice the fluorine radius? You need the nearest distance to the neighboring ion. What would you get, then?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I added 86 + 116 = 202, and the result is:
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/1336/quinooo.jpg
It's still kind of far away from the experimental result (-2962 kJ/mol), no? Or is this result right?
Thank you in advance, Infinitum :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pollycampos said:
So I added 86 + 116 = 202, and the result is:
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/1336/quinooo.jpg
It's still kind of far away from the experimental result (-2962 kJ/mol), no? Or is this result right?
Thank you in advance, Infinitum :biggrin:

Based on the given information, this answer looks correct. There might be errors in measuring the values that were given, and hence the discrepancy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you a lot, Infinitum :smile: The radius information was given by my teacher's book, so I guess it isn't wrong...:rolleyes: I thought the results should be very close, because MgF2 is a very ionic solid, no?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born–Landé_equation#Calculated_lattice_energies

The equation gives approximately equal values to the actual lattice energies. Usually less. This is because the ionic crystals, however 'ionic' you might think of them, do have a degree of covalency. You can never have a perfectly ionic solid.

Edit : In MgF2, Mg has a +2 charge, which by Fajan's rules creates a greater degree of covalency. It also is quite small, even smaller than sodium so that leads to a greater deviation from ionic behavior.
 
Oh yes, I think I should write that in my homework :-p Is there another reason for the experimental value be different from the theoretical? I have to write 2 reasons.
 
pollycampos said:
Oh yes, I think I should write that in my homework :-p Is there another reason for the experimental value be different from the theoretical? I have to write 2 reasons.

Ruh-roh! I wouldn't have explained it that way if I knew you had to write reasons :-p
 
  • #10
Please note it is much easier to use LaTeX built into forums for such equations than to input them as images.

E=-\frac{N_A M z^+ z^- e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r_0}(1-\frac 1 n)
 
  • #11
Thank you, I didn't know how to use the LaTeX :-p
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
18K
Replies
4
Views
14K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K