What is the role of hydrogen bonds in holding water molecules together?

AI Thread Summary
Hydrogen bonds play a crucial role in the interactions between water molecules, but they are distinct from the polar covalent bonds that hold hydrogen and oxygen atoms together within a single water molecule. Polar covalent bonds are responsible for the intramolecular connections, while hydrogen bonds are classified as intermolecular forces occurring between different molecules. The discussion highlights that hydrogen bonds can also be intramolecular in larger molecules, such as proteins, where hydrogen atoms interact with electronegative atoms within the same molecule. The distinction between intramolecular and intermolecular forces is essential for understanding the behavior of water and other compounds. Overall, clarifying these concepts helps in grasping the nature of molecular interactions.
Qube
Gold Member
Messages
461
Reaction score
1
I'm a little confused on hydrogen bonds. Here's a sample question and answer I'm having trouble with:1) In a single molecule of water, two hydrogen atoms are bonded to a single oxygen atom by
A) hydrogen bonds.
B) nonpolar covalent bonds.
C) polar covalent bonds.
D) ionic bonds.
E) van der Waals interactions.
Answer: C

OK - polar covalent bonds are holding the hydrogen atoms to the oxygen atom. That I can understand.

But couldn't the interaction between the hydrogen and the oxygen also be classified as a hydrogen bond? Hydrogen bond, as I was taught in Chem, is simply the interaction between H and F, O, or N. So couldn't the answer also be A?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hydrogen bonding is the interaction of a hydrogen atom with an electronegative atom that comes from a different molecule (or functional group if you're dealing with a large molecule). There's (typically) a clear cut donor and acceptor - for example, in liquid water, the intramolecular OH bond length is one-half the typical hydrogen bond length between water molecules. But if they're both hydrogen bonding - to go with your proposed redefinition - why are they so different, then?
 
No because Hydrogen bonding is a form of intermolecular force - forces which occur between molecules. The bonding of hydrogen and oxygen in water is an example of intramolecular force - the force within a molecule.
 
Hydrogen bonds, according to the IUPAC Gold Book, can be an intramolecular force.

http://goldbook.iupac.org/H02899.html

IUPAC Gold Book said:
Hydrogen bonds may be inter-molecular or intramolecular.
 
That is what I was attempting to (imperfectly, it seems) convey - for example, if you have a very large molecule such as a protein, the amide proton of residue i can hydrogen bond to to the carbonyl oxygen of residue i-4. However, that hydrogen is going to be - on average - closer to one of the atoms than the other.

If you need further clarification, just ask. But I think the protein example is the best way to understand what is meant by an intramolecular hydrogen bond.

P.S. - When I said "intramolecular OH bond length," I was referring to the bond lengths *within* the water molecule, not the distances between hydrogen bonded atoms. Perhaps that wasn't clear - sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
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...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
34
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
22K
Back
Top