Water O-H Bond Length: Evidence & Measurement

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter zincshow
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bond Length Water
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the measurement and understanding of O-H bond lengths in water, particularly focusing on the differences between intramolecular and intermolecular bond lengths in various phases of water. Participants explore evidence from x-ray data and diffraction studies, questioning the commonly accepted bond lengths in liquid water.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the O-H bond length in H2O is typically cited as 0.942 Å, but x-ray data suggests O···H peaks at 1.85 Å and 3.3 Å, indicating that shorter bond lengths may not be observed in liquid water.
  • It is proposed that intramolecular H-O bond lengths are around 0.9 - 1.0 Å in liquid water at 25°C, while intermolecular hydrogen bond lengths are significantly longer, possibly around 1.8 Å.
  • One participant questions why x-ray data does not show any O···H peaks under 1 Å, despite the common belief in shorter intramolecular bond lengths.
  • Another participant mentions that radial distribution functions are often used to study the surrounding structure, and intramolecular bonds may be excluded from analysis since they do not provide additional insight.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the commonly accepted bond lengths and the interpretation of x-ray data. There is no consensus on the reasons for the absence of shorter O···H peaks in the data.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of measuring bond lengths in water and the influence of different phases and conditions on these measurements. There are unresolved questions regarding the interpretation of diffraction data and the significance of intramolecular versus intermolecular bonds.

zincshow
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
Not sure where this goes, but here goes:

Water O-H bond is usually thought of as 0.942 angstrom when looked at as H2O molecules.

This very nice site on water http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/evidnc.html suggests that x-ray data O···H peaks at 1.85 Å and 3.3 Å with no peak less then 1.85, suggesting there are not 0.942 H-O bond lengths in liquid water. Does this sound correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Intramolecular H-O bond lengths are approximately 0.9 - 1.0 Angstroms in liquid water at 25 C; intermolecular (hydrogen) bond lengths are much longer, quite possibly around 1.8 Angstroms as your source claims. Of course, all that changes for various phases at different temperatures. Crystal formation in ice should lead to H-O bond length changes to accommodate for hexagonal crystal packing, for example.
 
jthechemist said:
Intramolecular H-O bond lengths are approximately 0.9 - 1.0 Angstroms in liquid water at 25 C; intermolecular (hydrogen) bond lengths are much longer, quite possibly around 1.8 Angstroms as your source claims. Of course, all that changes for various phases at different temperatures. Crystal formation in ice should lead to H-O bond length changes to accommodate for hexagonal crystal packing, for example.

I agree, but from searching defraction data for liquid water it seems to agree with their statement:

"However the model gives H···H peaks at 2.35 Å, 3.9 Å and 4.6 Å with a small peak at 2.9 Å and O···H peaks at 1.85 Å and 3.3 Å with smaller peaks at 4.55 Å and 5.25 Å similar to published data [17, 35, 37]."

Which makes me wonder why do they not see any O...H peaks under 1 Angstrom? Why do people think there are "Intramolecular H-O bond lengths are approximately 0.9 - 1.0 Angstroms in liquid water at 25 C"?
 
Radial distribution functions are useful for studying surrounding structure; the intramolecular OH bonds are *always* there and thus do not contribute any key insight. Thus the peaks arising from intramolecular bonds are often removed. See point (c) on the website you referenced: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/evidnc.html#c
 
Thank you. My mistake.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
60K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K