70

Why does $\ce{F}$ replace an axial bond in $\ce{PCl5}$? I realize that it would be more stable there than at equatorial bond, but what is the reason of its stability? Similarly in $\ce{AB4}$ type of molecules with $\ce{sp^3d}$ hybridization (4 bond pairs and 1 lone pair) why is the geometry of the molecule that of a see-saw, where the lone pair is at equatorial position rather than at axial one?

My book states the reason to be "due to Bent's rule" but I have difficulty linking these two.
Also Bent's rule states that the hybridized orbitals of equivalent energy of central atom tend to give more %s character to the electropositive atom attached to it rather than the electronegative one. (e.g. - in $\ce{CH3F}$) Am I right? What else is more to this rule?

orthocresol
  • 71,033
  • 11
  • 239
  • 410
Shubham
  • 1,545
  • 3
  • 13
  • 12
  • 7
    Just as a very general remark on the topic: The involvement of d-orbitals is marginal (usually below 1%), hence hybridisation involving these orbitals is not very likely. – Martin - マーチン Oct 14 '14 at 09:29
  • Im not sure if I get you. How involvement of d-orbital is marginal? Im aware that $\ce{PCl5}$ exists as $\ce{[PCl4]+ [PCl6]-}$ Does it have to do with this? – Shubham Oct 14 '14 at 09:41
  • 5
    It is not what I meant. The hypothesis of a $\ce{sp^3d}$ orbital has been disproven. Hypercoordination can and should be explained different. – Martin - マーチン Oct 14 '14 at 09:44
  • 5
    Ohh! I am aware that VBT (& MOT) is a basic theory and isn't fully applicable to all cases and many of its concepts have become obsolete but I have only these two in my curriculum so an answer within the context of these will be more helpful than using other complex theories. Thanks for mentioning though! :) – Shubham Oct 14 '14 at 10:07
  • 5
    Oh on the contrary, Valence Bond Theory and of course Molecular Orbital theory are not basic theories. They are the foundation of modern quantum chemistry and most molecules can be sufficiently explained by these theories. Just the assumption of the involvement of d orbitals is wrong. (I do unfortunately not have the time to write up an answer myself at the moment, but I am confident that someone else will do it.) – Martin - マーチン Oct 14 '14 at 10:10
  • 1
  • Lone pair behaves is a very big ligand, and chlorine is bigger than fluorine. Angles to neigbors in axial position are ~90, while in equatorial ~120, so larger ligands tend to occupy equatorial positions. 2) Also, axial bonds are actually ~ 1/2 order with more significant negative charge on ligands, so more electronegative atoms should go there. 3) +1 to martin, d-orbitals are not involved, see here http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/15172/how-does-chlorine-form-more-than-1-bond/15181#15181
  • – permeakra Oct 17 '14 at 07:48