Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe Cs Ba La Hf The radius of an atom is described as the distance from its nucleus to its outermost electrons. Although it is impossible to know the exact position of these electrons, a very close approximation of the radius of an atom can still be determined by measuring the distance from its nucleus to that of another atom it is bonded with. In a covalent bond -- formed by shared electrons -- the two atoms are assumed to be the same size, and the distance between the nuclei of the two atoms can be divided in half to find their radius.
In the case of ionic bonds, one atom is larger than the other, and the radius of one of the atoms must be known in order to determine the radius of the other. Not at all - you have just added a whole extra layer of electrons. Notice that, within the series of positive ions, and the series of negative ions, that the ionic radii fall as you go across the period.
We need to look at the positive and negative ions separately. In each case, the ions have exactly the same electronic structure - they are said to be isoelectronic. However, the number of protons in the nucleus of the ions is increasing.
That will tend to pull the electrons more and more towards the centre of the ion - causing the ionic radii to fall. That is pretty obvious! Exactly the same thing is happening here, except that you have an extra layer of electrons. What needs commenting on, though is how similar in size the sulphide ion and the chloride ion are.
The additional proton here is making hardly any difference. The difference between the size of similar pairs of ions actually gets even smaller as you go down Groups 6 and 7. For example, the Te 2- ion is only 0. As far as I am aware there is no simple explanation for this - certainly not one which can be used at this level. This is a good illustration of what I said earlier - explaining things involving ionic radii in detail is sometimes very difficult.
This is only really a variation on what we have just been talking about, but fits negative and positive isoelectronic ions into the same series of results. Remember that isoelectronic ions all have exactly the same electron arrangement. Note: The nitride ion value is in brackets because it came from a different source, and I don't know for certain whether it relates to the same 6-co-ordination as the rest of the ions.
This matters. My main source only gave a 4-co-ordinated value for the nitride ion, and that was 0. You might also be curious as to how the neutral neon atom fits into this sequence.
Its van der Waals radius is 0. You can't really sensibly compare a van der Waals radius with the radius of a bonded atom or ion. You can see that as the number of protons in the nucleus of the ion increases, the electrons get pulled in more closely to the nucleus. The radii of the isoelectronic ions therefore fall across this series. If this is the first set of questions you have done, please read the introductory page before you start.
You probably won't have noticed, but nowhere in what you have read so far has there been any need to talk about the relative sizes of the ions and the atoms they have come from. Neither as far as I can tell from the syllabuses do any of the current UK-based exams for 16 - 18 year olds ask for this specifically in their syllabuses.
However, it is very common to find statements about the relative sizes of ions and atoms. I am fairly convinced that these statements are faulty, and I would like to attack the problem head-on rather than just ignoring it. For 10 years, until I rewrote this ionic radius section in August , I included what is in the box below. You will find this same information and explanation in all sorts of books and on any number of websites aimed at this level.
At least one non-UK A level syllabus has a statement which specifically asks for this. Ions aren't the same size as the atoms they come from. Compare the sizes of sodium and chloride ions with the sizes of sodium and chlorine atoms.
Positive ions are smaller than the atoms they come from. You've lost a whole layer of electrons, and the remaining 10 electrons are being pulled in by the full force of 11 protons. Negative ions are bigger than the atoms they come from.
Chlorine is 2,8,7; Cl - is 2,8,8. Although the electrons are still all in the 3-level, the extra repulsion produced by the incoming electron causes the atom to expand. There are still only 17 protons, but they are now having to hold 18 electrons. However, I was challenged by an experienced teacher about the negative ion explanation, and that forced me to think about it carefully for the first time.
I am now convinced that the facts and the explanation relating to negative ions are simply illogical. As far as I can tell, no UK-based syllabus mentions the relative sizes of atoms and ions as of August , but you should check past papers and mark schemes to see whether questions have sneaked in. The periodic table greatly assists in determining atomic radius and presents a number of trends. In simpler terms, it can be defined as something similar to the radius of a circle, where the center of the circle is the nucleus and the outer edge of the circle is the outermost orbital of electron.
As you begin to move across or down the periodic table, trends emerge that help explain how atomic radii change. Some positive charge is shielded by the core electrons therefore the total positive charge is not felt by the valence electron. A detailed description of shielding and effective nuclear charge can be found here.
Determining the atomic radii is rather difficult because there is an uncertainty in the position of the outermost electron — we do not know exactly where the electron is.
This phenomenon can be explained by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. To get a precise measurement of the radius, but still not an entirely correct measurement, we determine the radius based on the distance between the nuclei of two bonded atoms.
The radii of atoms are therefore determined by the bonds they form. An atom will have different radii depending on the bond it forms; so there is no fixed radius of an atom. When a covalent bond is present between two atoms, the covalent radius can be determined. When two atoms of the same element are covalently bonded, the radius of each atom will be half the distance between the two nuclei because they equally attract the electrons.
The distance between two nuclei will give the diameter of an atom, but you want the radius which is half the diameter. Covalent radii will increase in the same pattern as atomic radii. The reason for this trend is that the bigger the radii, the further the distance between the two nuclei.
0コメント