Molecular orbitals VSEPR theory

Scientists choose the model that best helps them answer a particular question. If the question concerns molecular shape, chemists choose the VSEPR model, followed by hybrid-orbital analysis with VB theory. But VB theory does not adequately explain magnetic and spectral properties, and it understates the importance of electron delocalization. In order to deal with these phenomena, which involve molecular energy levels, chemists choose molecular orbital (MO) theory. [Pg.334]

Last, you have learned to predict the three-dimensional structure of molecules using the valence shell electron pair repulsion (VSEPR) model and molecular orbital (MO) theory. An ability to predict three-dimensional structure is critical to understanding the properties and reactivity of molecules. [Pg.49]

Organic chemists led the way in picturing molecular bonding. They relied on such concepts as radicals (which kept their identity through various reactions) and atoms with a fixed valence or combining power. Once the electron was discovered in the early part of the twentieth century, Lewis was able to explain some aspects of bonding on the basis of his electron-dot formulas and the octet mle. The valence-shell electron-pair repulsion (VSEPR), valence-bond (VB), and molecular orbital (MO) theories followed in the 1930s. [Pg.26]

The Cl—F and Cl—Cl bonds in the cation are then formed by the overlap of the half-filled sp3 hybrid orbitals of the central chlorine atom with the half-filled p-orbitals of the terminal Cl and F atoms. Thus, by using sp3 hybridization, we end up with the same bent molecular geometry for the ion as that predicted by VSEPR theory (when the lone pairs on the central atom are ignored)... [Pg.234]

The result here is quite satisfactory because XeF4 does in fact exhibit square planar geometry. It is worth noting, however, that a square planar shape for XeF4 is also predicted by VSEPR theory. Despite the fact that the molecular orbital method has made some inroads as of late, VSEPR is still the best approach available for rationalizing the molecular geometries of noble gas compounds. [Pg.572]

The VSEPR theory is only one way in which the molecular geometry of molecules may be determined. Another way involves the valence bond theory. The valence bond theory describes covalent bonding as the mixing of atomic orbitals to form a new kind of orbital, a hybrid orbital. Hybrid orbitals are atomic orbitals formed as a result of mixing the atomic orbitals of the atoms involved in the covalent bond. The number of hybrid orbitals formed is the same as the number of atomic orbitals mixed, and the type of hybrid orbital formed depends on the types of atomic orbital mixed. Figure 11.7 shows the hybrid orbitals resulting from the mixing of s, p, and d orbitals. [Pg.154]

The extension of molecular orbital theory to triatomic molecules is a major part of this chapter. It gives a very satisfactory description of the shapes and the bonding of molecules in general, and is consistent with observations of photoelectron and electronic absorption spectra. It is not possible for the VSEPR theory to explain these latter observations. [Pg.84]

The basis of the VSEPR theory is that the shape of a molecule (or the geometry around any particular atom connected to at least two other atoms) is assumed to be dependent upon the minimization of the repulsive forces operating between the pairs of sigma (a) valence electrons. This is an important restriction. Any pi (7t) or delta (8) pairs are discounted in arriving at a decision about the molecular shape. The terms sigma , pi and delta refer to the type of overlap undertaken by the contributory atomic orbitals in producing the molecular orbitals, and are referred to by their Greek-letter symbols in the remainder of the book. [Pg.84]

The exceptions to the octet rule described in the previous section, the xenon compounds and the tri-iodide ion, are dealt with by the VSEPR and valence bond theories by assuming that the lowest energy available d orbitals participate in the bonding. This occurs for all main group compounds in which the central atom forms more than four formal covalent bonds, and is collectively known as hypervalence, resulting from the expansion of the valence shell This is referred to in later sections of the book, and the molecular orbital approach is compared with the valence bond theory to show that d orbital participation is unnecessary in some cases. It is essential to note that d orbital participation in bonding of the central atom is dependent upon the symmetry properties of individual compounds and the d orbitals. [Pg.90]

Two major theories of the covalent bond are described in this book the main features of valence bond theory are treated in terms of the VSEPR theory of molecular shapes, and MO theory which is based on the symmetry properties of the contributing atomic orbitals. The latter theory is applied qualitatively with MO diagrams being constructed and used to interpret bond orders and bond angles. The problems associated with bond angles are best treated by using the highest symmetry possible for a molecule of a particular stoichiometry. [Pg.139]

Throughout the book, theoretical concepts and experimental evidence are integrated An introductory chapter summarizes the principles on which the Periodic Table is established and describes the periodicity of various atomic properties which are relevant to chemical bonding. Symmetry and group theory are introduced to serve as the basis of all molecular orbital treatments of molecules. This basis is then applied to a variety of covalent molecules with discussions of bond lengths and angles and hence molecular shapes. Extensive comparisons of valence bond theory and VSEPR theory with molecular orbital theory are included Metallic bonding is related to electrical conduction and semi-conduction. [Pg.184]

The perfectly octahedral species conform to the expectations based on the simple MO derivation given above. The nonoctahedral fluoride species do not, but this difficulty is a result of the oversimplifications in the method. There is no inherent necessity for delocalized MOs to be restricted to octahedral symmetry. Furthermore, it is possible to transform delocalized molecular orbitals into localized molecular orbitals. Although the VSEPR theory is often couched in valence bond terms, it depends basically on the repulsion of electrons of like spins, and if these are in localized orbitals the results should be comparable. [Pg.951]

The VSEPR approach is largely restricted to Main Group species (as is Lewis theory). It can be applied to compounds of the transition elements where the nd subshell is either empty or filled, but a partly-filled nd subshell exerts an influence on stereochemistry which can often be interpreted satisfactorily by means of crystal field theory. Even in Main Group chemistry, VSEPR is by no means infallible. It remains, however, the simplest means of rationalising molecular shapes. In the absence of experimental data, it makes a reasonably reliable prediction of molecular geometry, an essential preliminary to a detailed description of bonding within a more elaborate, quantum-mechanical model such as valence bond or molecular orbital theory. [Pg.12]

This chapter reviews molecular geometry and the two main theories of bonding. The model used to determine molecular geometry is the VSEPR (Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion) model. There are two theories of bonding the valence bond theory, which is based on VSEPR theory, and molecular orbital theory. A much greater amount of the chapter is based on valence bond theory, which uses hybridized orbitals, since this is the primary model addressed on the AP test. [Pg.127]

The VSEPR model works at its best in rationalizing ground state stereochemistry but does not attempt to indicate a more precise electron distribution. The molecular orbital theory based on 3s and 3p orbitals only is also compatible with a relative weakening of the axial bonds. Use of a simple Hiickel MO model, which considers only CT orbitals in the valence shell and totally neglects explicit electron repulsions can be invoked to interpret the same experimental results. It was demonstrated that the electron-rich three-center bonding model could explain the trends observed in five-coordinate speciesVarious MO models of electronic structure have been proposed to predict the shapes and other properties of non-transition element... [Pg.117]

Valence shell electron pair repulsion theory (VSEPR) provides a method for predicting the shape of molecules, based on the electron pair electrostatic repulsion. It was described by Sidgwick and Powell" in 1940 and further developed by Gillespie and Nyholm in 1957. In spite of this method s very simple approach, based on Lewis electron-dot structures, the VSEPR method predicts shapes that compare favorably with those determined experimentally. However, this approach at best provides approximate shapes for molecules, not a complete picture of bonding. The most common method of determining the actual stmctures is X-ray diffraction, although electron diffraction, neutron diffraction, and many types of spectroscopy are also used. In Chapter 5, we will provide some of the molecular orbital arguments for the shapes of simple molecules. [Pg.57]

Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...