Trichloroacetic acid: electron density and stability

AI Thread Summary
Trichloroacetic acid's strong acidity is attributed to the inductive effect of its three chlorine atoms, which withdraw electron density from the carboxylate group, stabilizing the resulting trichloroacetate anion. Although oxygen is more electronegative than chlorine, the presence of multiple chlorine atoms significantly influences electron distribution, leading to a stabilization of the molecule. The term "stabilized" refers to the lower energy state of the molecule due to this electron delocalization, which enhances the stability of the carboxylic group. Without the chlorines, the electron density would be more localized around the oxygen, resulting in a higher energy and less stable configuration. Overall, the discussion clarifies the role of electronegativity and resonance in the stability of trichloroacetic acid.
nobahar
Messages
482
Reaction score
2
"The rather strong acidity of trichloroacetic acid is usually ascribed to the inductive effect of the three chlorine atoms attached to the end of the molecle opposite the acidic proton. Electron density is withdrawn away from the carboxylate group so that the trichloroacetate anion that is formed when the acid dissociates is stabilized." (Skoog, West, Holler & Crouch, 2003)

Isn't oxygen more electronegative than chlorine? So why does the electron density shift in favour of the chlorine atoms? Is it because they outnumber the oxygen atoms, or is it a consequence of the structure (shape) of the molecule?
Also, what is the meaning of the term "stabilized" as used here?
Any input appreciated. I will also continue to search elsewhere; so far it's been to no avail.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The chlorine atoms are replacing hydrogen atoms and chlorine is certainly more electronegative than hydrogen. So, while the chlorine atoms are not going to pull all or most of the electron density away from the oxygen, they will pull some electron density away and the oxygen atom will have less electron density than if the chlorines had not been present.
 
Stabilization most likely refers to the carboxylic group.

--
methods
 
Thanks Yggdrasil and Borek. For some reason I took it to mean a change after the proton had departed, but as your explanation makes clear its disucussing the molecule as it stands.

Borek said:
Stabilization most likely refers to the carboxylic group.
What does it mean by stable in this usage? If it was unstable, or less stable, what would this mean?
 
Think resonance.

--
methods
 
Thanks Borek.
I think I understand:
The electronegativity of the chlorine atoms draws the electrons, to a small extent, as pointed out above, towards themselves. This 'slight' (?) delocalization of the electrons lowers the overall energy of the molecule; whereas, without the chlorine atoms, the electrons would generally reside in a much smaller area (around the oxygen atoms), and therefore the overall energy of the molecule would be higher, and therefore the molecule would be less stable.
Have I understood resonance correctly? And if so, have I understood it's application here?
Thanks!
 
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