4

Suppose, my hypothetical element is $\ce X$, whose first ionization energy is $\pu{200kJ/mol}$. An atom of this element will react with an atom of chlorine (assume that I've already dissociated a chlorine atom from a $\ce{Cl2}$ molecule). The first electron affinity of chlorine is approximately $\pu{349kJ/mol}$.

We take those two atoms inside a non-reactive box in a controlled room. Inside the box is vacuum. I intend to make the following reaction happen:

$$\ce{X(g) + Cl(g)-> XCl(s)}$$

Now, I'm curious as to the course of events.

Hypothesis 1:

One hypothesis is that the reaction will not proceed even if you get the atoms really close together. For the reaction to proceed, you must provide the required ionization energy to $\ce X$ first. Then the removed electron from X will be acquired by Cl promptly. Energy will be released in this process. The energy released in this process will be greater than the ionization energy that was provided to $\ce X$ previously. In the final step, $\ce {X^+}$ and $\ce {Cl^-}$ will get stuck together due to the electrostatic force between them. In conclusion, the reaction will process in the following steps (in order):

$$\ce{X(g) -> X+ + e-}\tag{1}$$

$$\ce{Cl(g) + e- -> Cl^{-}(g)}\tag{2}$$

$$\ce{X+(g) +Cl^{-}(g) -> XCl(s)}\tag{3}$$

In this hypothesis, the reaction isn't fully spontaneous since heat/energy needs to be added in the beginning for the reaction to proceed.

Hypothesis 2:

Another hypothesis is that once you take the two atoms close together, electron transfer will take place i.e. the reaction will proceed even if you don't add any heat. In other words, in this hypothesis, heat/energy does not need to be added for the reaction to proceed: the reaction is fully spontaneous. Ionization energy will not need to be provided to $\ce X$ as the reaction is energetically favourable. The reaction will take place in the following steps:

$$\ce{X(g) -> X+ + e-}\tag{4}$$

$$\ce{Cl(g) + e- -> Cl^{-}(g)}\tag{5}$$

$$\ce{X+(g) +Cl^{-}(g) -> XCl(s)}\tag{6}$$

The commonality between hypothesis 1 and 2 is that there will be a net release of energy after $(1)$ & $(2)$ and $(4)$ & $(5)$. The net release of energy after $(1)$ & $(2)$ will be equal to the net release of energy after $(4)$ & $(5)$. $(3)$ and $(6)$ will be the same in both hypotheses. However, unlike hypothesis 1, $(4)$ and $(5)$ take place simultaneously while in hypothesis 1, $(1)$ takes place first and $(2)$ takes place second.

In this hypothesis, the reaction is fully spontaneous since heat/energy doesn not need to be added in the beginning for the reaction to proceed.

My question:

  1. Which hypothesis is correct?
  • 5
    In context of this question, one should distinguish thermodynamical and kinetical spontaneity. It can be thermodynamically spontaneous even if there is needed such a high activation energy the process is never observed. Like some isotopes are thermodynamically radioactive with thermodynamically spontaneous decays, but kinetically stable. – Poutnik Apr 14 '22 at 08:30
  • 5
    Both hypotheses are conditionally correct, as each describes a different possible scenario. I assume hypothesis 2 would still have some activation energy, but much lower than X ionization energy. – Poutnik Apr 14 '22 at 08:35
  • Reaction's simply $$\ce{X(g) + Cl(g)-> XCl(g)}$$ That's it! No magical ionisation, no flying electrons, no ions. – Mithoron Apr 14 '22 at 13:05
  • 1
    @Mithoron "That's it! No magical ionisation, no flying electrons, no ions."- I'm not confident about the ionization and flying electrons part, but I'm positive about the formation of ions: in the formation of NaCl, Na+ and Cl- ions are definitely formed and they get stuck together. –  Apr 14 '22 at 13:13
  • Answer you linked is incorrect. https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/14174/what-is-sodium-chloride-like-in-gas-state https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/2511/will-gaseous-ionic-compounds-be-free-moving-ions – Mithoron Apr 14 '22 at 13:35
  • 1
    @Mithoron Sir, AmritanshSinghal used the Born-Haber cycle in his answer. –  Apr 14 '22 at 23:38
  • @Mithoron It is correct I think (pic found in chemlibretexts). I'm having difficulty understanding why you think otherwise. Could you please explain it to me kindly? –  Apr 14 '22 at 23:41
  • Born-Haber cycle has hardly anything to do with mechanisms. Atoms of Cl and Na hit each other and NaCl molecule is created (and surplus energy needs to be released, but that's besides point). Bond it this molecule may have more ionic than covalent component, though. – Mithoron Apr 15 '22 at 18:31
  • @Mithoron, Sir, just to understand your position better, do you think this answer is incorrect as it wrongly presents the Born-Haber cycle as the reaction mechanism of $$\ce{Na(s) + Cl_2(g)->NaCl(s)}$$? –  Apr 17 '22 at 05:29
  • Well, it only says "following steps are involved in the formation" not exactly "mechanism", but that's still incorrect. – Mithoron Apr 17 '22 at 14:54
  • @Mithoron According to wikipedia, "In chemistry, a reaction mechanism is the step by step sequence of elementary reactions by which overall chemical change occurs." So, I think that AmritanshSinghal is describing the reaction mechanism as reaction mechanism just means a step by step sequence of elementary reactions, and AmritanshSinghal presented a step by step sequence of elementary reactions. Thoughts? –  Apr 18 '22 at 11:44
  • In this hypothetical case, formation of free ions is exothermic, in contrary to real endothermic cases. As consequence, X(g) +Cl(g) -> X+(g) + Cl-(g). – Poutnik Apr 21 '22 at 04:40
  • @Poutnik So, ionization energy will not need to be provided? –  Apr 21 '22 at 04:57
  • 1
    At contact of both atoms - no, it need not, as it is a different system than 2 separate atoms. Thete will be some activation energy, but lower than X ionization energy. Similarly as a planet could eventually escape a star easier, if some other star would incidentally come close to the first star. – Poutnik Apr 21 '22 at 05:42
  • @Poutnik What is the difference between when two atoms are in contact and when they are separate? –  Apr 21 '22 at 06:05
  • 1
    I agree with @Poutnik. It depends on the shape of the potential energy surface. If you get the atoms close together, you actually add energy to the system. Imagine you have to go from one valley to another one through a saddle point among two mountains and the two valleys. The ionisation energy moves you to the saddle and then you do not need energy to go downhill. If you put the atoms together, you just move closer to the saddle and the height you have to overcome is lower. This makes really high probability of quantum tunelling to the other side of the saddle and then downhill again. – VDVH Apr 21 '22 at 07:24
  • 1
    @TomHardy What is the difference if there is another star near the Sun at the distance of the planet Neptun or not ? There is different electrostatic field for atom case and different classical gravitational field in the star case. // By other words, atoms at contact are not like billiard balls at contact. They are different and behave different. – Poutnik Apr 21 '22 at 07:27
  • 1
    When an electron moves from one atom to another -- at the contact -- to form a ion pair, it is not a free electron like in the IE context, but it is a bound electron all the time, with the energy lower than a free electron would have. – Poutnik Apr 21 '22 at 07:54
  • 1
    With respect to the Born-Haber cycle answer, the wonderful thing about state functions like enthalpy is that they are path independent, so we can use any steps we want in a calculation as long as the end points are the same. That is the fundamental logic behind the Born-Haber cycle - the calculation is not intended to represent the actual reaction steps but rather is a path comprised of steps whose energies are available. – Andrew Apr 26 '22 at 13:04
  • Poutnik and Mithoron are disagreeing, so I'm not sure who is correct (point 1). Moreover, Mithoron disagrees with the answer I linked too (point 2). Light shed on both point 1 and point 2 would be much appreciated. (...) –  Apr 27 '22 at 04:06
  • (...) Moreover, I think that hypothesis 1 might be the correct one. This is because my book said, "The ionization energy necessary to remove one or two or three electrons from metal atoms is available in the environment, but to remove 4 electrons from atoms much more ionization energy is required, which is not readily available in the environment, so atoms of many elements fulfill their octet by sharing electrons. These bonds are called covalent bonds." My book seems to imply that ionization energy is non-negotiable.(...) –  Apr 27 '22 at 04:06
  • (...) For ionic bonds to form through electron transfer, one must provide the requisite ionization energy, without which the reaction will not proceed at all! Hypothesis 1 seems to be consistent with this idea, so probably hypothesis 1 is correct. I might be wrong. –  Apr 27 '22 at 04:06
  • @Poutnik If the ionization energy of X would've been greater than the electron affinity of Cl, would the provision of ionization energy then for the reaction to proceed be non-negotiable? [Assume that the two atoms are not in contact and are a measurable distance apart] –  Apr 27 '22 at 04:14
  • Should this be crossposted in Physics SE? –  Apr 27 '22 at 04:16
  • In such a case there are 2 separate operations, with the first ionization independent on eventually following electron capture // Crossposting is frown upon on SE network. – Poutnik Apr 27 '22 at 05:35

2 Answers2

1

This thought experiment needs more thinking. Both scenarios are essentially Born-Haber cycles not possible mechanisms. Forming a positive ion always requires energy so that makes equations 4,5,6 not relevant to the second concerted mechanism. In the case of the concerted mechanism the X and Cl atoms must have sufficient KE to overcome electron repulsions as they approach and to continue to distort the atomic orbitals to form a molecular orbital. Ionic bonding requires a lattice energy to complete the cycle and two atoms will not suffice. Finally there must be a mechanism to remove the bond energy from the incipient bond. Radiation is a possibility.

The first proposal is not mechanistically reasonable. It requires external energy sources and the energy loss from the electron affinity is just lost and does not contribute to the overall reaction and the same applies to the final bond formation. Considering an initiated reaction such as a free radical chlorination where final lattice heat provides energy to maintain the reaction is probable but such a mechanism would not necessarily involve free chloride ions.

jimchmst
  • 2,170
  • 4
  • 9
0

There is a flaw in hypothesis 1 - getting the atoms "really close" will provide activation energy.

At sufficiently close distance the combined electron Pauli repulsion and nuclear core electrostatic repulsion will add significant energy. For example, $2$ protons $7$ angstroms apart have about $200$ kJ mol$^{-1}$ of electrostatic repulsion between them.

Also, $200$ kJ mol$^{-1}$ ionization energy is the absolute maximum activation energy required. As the two potential wells - the $\ce{X}$ nucleus and the $\ce{Cl}$ nucleus - approach, eventually the wells are close enough that an electron can tunnel from a $\ce{X}$ to a $\ce{X}$ to form $\ce{X+}$ and $\ce{Cl-}$ ions.

Alternatively, other bound electronic states across both atoms (essential a covalent bond) will form at much lower energies than $200$ kJ mol$^{-1}$ above the separated states.

Before that even, at much larger distances very weak dispersion interactions will draw neutral atoms towards one each over. The long-range potential is attractive and the first minimum is likely close enough to transfer an electron. The reaction is very likely to have no activation energy.

So diffusion will dominate to create dimers. Depending on the temperature I would expect it to look like hypothesis 2.

These dimers will essentially be entirely ionic - pulled as close together as possible until the Pauli repulsion of the electrons stabilises the electrostatic attractions.

As the ions are more thermodynamically stable, the balance of the depth of the attractive potential against entropy will determine the size of aggregate species - from free ions (high temperature plasma) to dimers (NaCl gas) to larger oligomers or condensation/sublimation.

user213305
  • 1,929
  • 11
  • 24
  • If the ionization energy of X would've been greater than the electron affinity of Cl, would the provision of ionization energy then for the reaction to proceed be non-negotiable? [Assume that the two atoms are not in contact and are a measurable distance apart] –  Apr 27 '22 at 04:10
  • If the atoms are very (infinitely) far apart and the ionization of X was greater (as is the case with all real elements), then the thermodynamically stable configuration is 2 neutral atoms. They have to be close enough for tunneling, or for some activation energy to be added as I mention - then the situation is only stabilised by the electrostatic attraction between the two charged ions. – user213305 Apr 27 '22 at 09:10