Metallradien, Ionenradien und Wertigkeiten fester metallischer Elemente / Metallradien, Ionenradien und Wertigkeiten fester metallischer Elemente

2000 ◽  
Vol 55 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 243-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Trömel

Abstract Metallic radii rm are correlated with the ionic radii ri by linear relationships. For groups 1 up to 7 as well as for AI, Ga, In, Tl, Sn, and Pb the ionic radii refer to the maximum valences (oxidation states) as known from compounds according to rm ≈ 1.16 • (ri + 0.64) [Å], For groups 8 up to 12, rm ≈ 0.48 · (ri + 2.26) [Å] with valences W = 14 -G (G = group number). These valences are considered regular (Wr). For groups 1 up to 12, they obey the equation Wr = 7 -[G -71]. According to this equation all outer s electrons and the unpaired d electrons should be involved in chemical bonding, i.e. in the cohesion of the element in the solid state. From the melting temperatures and the atomic volumes it is concluded, however, that only 19 out of the 30 d-block elements have regular valences, namely the elements of groups 3, 5, 6, 10, 11 as well as Os, Ir, Zn, Cd, and possibly Ru. All of the non-regular valences are lower than the regular ones. Four of them are integers: Mn 3; Fe, Co 4; Re 6.

Author(s):  
Martin Trömel ◽  
Sven Hübner

Metallic radii and ionic radii are correlated by two linear relationships one of which comprises the main group elements and the transition elements of groups 3 up to 7. The other one refers to the elements of groups 8 up to 12. The valences (oxidation states) of the ions involved equal the group numbers of the main group elements of groups 1 up to 4, and 3 in the case of P, As, Sb, and Bi. The apparent valences W of the transition metals obey the rule W = 7 − |G−7| with


Author(s):  
John A. Tossell ◽  
David J. Vaughan

The early descriptions of chemical bonding in minerals and geological materials utilized purely ionic models. Crystals were regarded as being made up of charged atoms or ions that could be represented by spheres of a particular radius. Based on interatomic distances obtained from the early work on crystal structures, ionic radii were calculated for the alkali halides (Wasastjerna, 1923) and then for many elements of geochemical interest by Goldschmidt (1926). Modifications to these radius values by Pauling (1927), and others took account of such factors as different coordination numbers and their effects on radii. The widespread adoption of ionic models by geochemists resulted both from the simplicity and ease of application of these models and from the success of rules based upon them. Pauling’s rules (1929) enabled the complex crystal structures of mineral groups such as the silicates to be understood and to a limited extent be predicted; Goldschmidt’s rules (1937) to some degree enabled the distribution of elements between mineral phases or mineral and melt to be understood and predicted. Such rules are further discussed in later chapters. Ionic approaches have also been used more recently in attempts to simulate the structures of complex solids, a topic discussed in detail in Chapter 3. Chemical bonding theory has, of course, been an important component of geochemistry and mineralogy since their inception. Any field with a base of experimental data as broad as that of mineralogy is critically dependent upon theory to give order to the data and to suggest priorities for the accumulation of new data. Just as the bond with predominantly ionic character was the first to be quantitatively understood within solidstate science, the ionic bonding model was the first used to interpret mineral properties. Indeed, modern studies described herein indicate that structural and energetic properties of some minerals may be adequately understood using this model. However, there are numerous indications that an ionic model is inadequate to explain many mineral properties. It also appears that some properties that may be rationalized within an ionic model may also be rationalized assuming other limiting bond types.


ChemInform ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (24) ◽  
pp. no-no
Author(s):  
Thorsten Langer ◽  
Sven Dupke ◽  
Hellmut Eckert ◽  
Samir F. Matar ◽  
Martin Winter ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 423-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. B. Mikheev ◽  
S. A. Kulyukhin ◽  
A. N. Kamenskaya ◽  
N. A. Konovalova ◽  
I. A. Rumer

CrystEngComm ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (38) ◽  
pp. 6385-6397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yun Zhang ◽  
Xiaojie Xu

The GPR model (M2) is developed to elucidate the statistical relationship among ionic radii, electronegativities, oxidation states, and lattice constants for cubic A22+BB′O6 perovskites. The model demonstrates a high degree of accuracy and stability.


1992 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-6) ◽  
pp. 378-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Demazeau ◽  
F. Tresse ◽  
S. H. Byeon ◽  
S. Darracq ◽  
C. Cros

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document