What is the Correct Electronic Configuration of Fe+?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the electronic configuration of the iron ion Fe+, with participants exploring different interpretations and rules regarding electron filling in atomic orbitals. The scope includes theoretical considerations of electron configurations in chemistry.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the electronic configuration of Fe+ is [Ar]4s03d7, suggesting that in a chemical environment, the d orbital is lower in energy than the s orbital, leading to this configuration.
  • Others argue that the initial assumption of [Ar]4s13d6 for Fe+ is also valid, highlighting that blindly applying rules can lead to incorrect configurations, as seen in the case of Fe(0).
  • A participant notes that while there are rules of thumb for predicting configurations, these can fail in specific cases, and exact calculations may contradict general rules.
  • There is mention of low spin and high spin configurations affecting the energetics of electron filling, but this is presented as a less reliable predictive tool.
  • One participant clarifies that for isolated species without formal charge, the normal rules of electron configuration apply.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct electronic configuration for Fe+. Multiple competing views remain, with some supporting [Ar]4s03d7 and others defending [Ar]4s13d6.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the application of rules for electron configurations, noting that these rules may not hold in all cases, particularly for ions versus isolated species.

AGNuke
Gold Member
Messages
455
Reaction score
9
Previously I had been asked the configuration for Fe+ as an ordinary question from Periodic Table. I know Fe2+ and Fe3+ but I have no idea for Fe+


I know the configuration of Fe : [Ar]4s23d6

So I accordingly wrote Fe+ as [Ar]4s13d6

But they say that Fe+ is [Ar]4s03d7


I just want to confirm that is this electronic configuration correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AGNuke said:
Previously I had been asked the configuration for Fe+ as an ordinary question from Periodic Table. I know Fe2+ and Fe3+ but I have no idea for Fe+


I know the configuration of Fe : [Ar]4s23d6

So I accordingly wrote Fe+ as [Ar]4s13d6

But they say that Fe+ is [Ar]4s03d7


I just want to confirm that is this electronic configuration correct?

Yes what they say is correct that's because in a chemical environment the d orbital is lower in energy than the s so is filled before the s orbital( I'm not sure if you would have been taught this yet, i got taught it first year undergrad).
 
baldywaldy said:
Yes what they say is correct that's because in a chemical environment the d orbital is lower in energy than the s so is filled before the s orbital( I'm not sure if you would have been taught this yet, i got taught it first year undergrad).

It doesn't want to be that easy. Blindly using this rule you will get d8s0 instead of d6s2 for the ground state of Fe(0), so it is obviously wrong in general.

Unfortunately I don't know answer to the original question, other then "because that's the way it is" (assuming that's the way it is). When it comes to configurations there are rules of thumb that work in most cases, and there are exact calculations/measurements that sometimes falsify the rules. Once you know rule of thumb fails for a particular case you can make any kind of handwawy argument like "in this case low spin/high spin configuration is energetically favored", but IMHO it doesn't give you any more reliable tool to predict the configurations in other cases.
 
Borek said:
It doesn't want to be that easy. Blindly using this rule you will get d8s0 instead of d6s2 for the ground state of Fe(0), so it is obviously wrong in general.

Unfortunately I don't know answer to the original question, other then "because that's the way it is" (assuming that's the way it is). When it comes to configurations there are rules of thumb that work in most cases, and there are exact calculations/measurements that sometimes falsify the rules. Once you know rule of thumb fails for a particular case you can make any kind of handwawy argument like "in this case low spin/high spin configuration is energetically favored", but IMHO it doesn't give you any more reliable tool to predict the configurations in other cases.

I meant for ions , for isolated species(with no formal charge) then it does obey the normal rule
 
OK... This is the tricky one, but solved! :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K