Understanding Ligand Strength: [Cu(H2O)6]2+ to [CuCl4]2-

  • Thread starter Thread starter AryaUnderfoot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ligands Strength
AI Thread Summary
The reaction between [Cu(H2O)6]2+ and Cl- ions leads to the formation of [CuCl4]2- through ligand substitution, despite chloro being a weaker ligand than aqua. The high concentration of Cl- ions drives the equilibrium to the right, as explained by Le Chatelier's principle. Additionally, the change in geometry during the substitution process is a crucial factor that influences the reaction. The terms "aqua" and "water" can be used interchangeably, but "aqua ligand" is more precise when referring to H2O in coordination chemistry. Understanding these dynamics is essential for grasping ligand strength and substitution reactions.
AryaUnderfoot
Messages
17
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


From what I've read, [Cu(H2O)6]2+ when reacts with concentrated hydrochloric acid, the chloro ligand will displace the aqua ligand and form [CuCl4]2-

Homework Equations


[Cu(H2O)6]2+ + 4Cl- <--> [CuCl4]2- + 6H2O
( <---> means reversible reaction, I don't know how to type it out, sorry)

The Attempt at a Solution


But chloro is a weaker ligand than aqua, how can the ligand substitution reaction happen?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I suspect the high concentration of the Cl- ions is sufficient to shift the equilibrium over to the right (Le Chatelier's principle) enough to cause a majority of the complex ions to undergo the ligand substitution.
 
  • Like
Likes AryaUnderfoot
Water concentration is (almost) always much higher.

It is not just about the ligands, you are ignoring change of the geometry. Not that I know it is the answer here - I just see you are not taking it into account.
 
I also like to ask, since no one comment about that, is water a ligand or aqua? I know that both refer to H2O, but if I want to mention a ligand, which one of them, aqua/aqua ligand/water/water ligand, is more appropriate?
 
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