Chemical Forums
Specialty Chemistry Forums => Nuclear Chemistry and Radiochemistry Forum => Topic started by: pranay29 on January 10, 2012, 09:00:14 AM
-
Why U(VI) exists as uranyl ion i.e. UO2+2, not as U+6?
-
I'm going to give a watered down answer. Not many metals (I can't think of one) can exist as a pure +6. Think about it, it would be so positive that it would tend to scrape electrons from anything near it due to Coulomb attraction.
-
So why does heptavalent Np & Pu exist as the XO53- complex?
-
So why does heptavalent Np & Pu exist as the XO53- complex?
Unfortunately, I neither have a watered down answer nor an advance answer to address that question.
-
I thought that U6+ existed, for example UF6 (Uranium Hexafluoride)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uranium_hexafluoride_crystals_sealed_in_an_ampoule.jpg
-
I thought that U6+ existed, for example UF6 (Uranium Hexafluoride)
Not in a water solution. I have a gut feeling UF6 is more covalent than ionic.
-
I thought that U6+ existed, for example UF6 (Uranium Hexafluoride)
Good point, I stand corrected. However, since the subllimation point is so low (56.5 °C) it would be better to consider it a covalent molecule and not as an ionic one. How many traditional ionic salts can melt at such a low temperature?
Although, the oxidation state for uranium is (VI), I think we have to be very careful in extrapolating this to uranium behaving as a cation (U6+).
-
So why does heptavalent Np & Pu exist as the XO53- complex?
Probably something related to ligand field preferred geometry. Heptavalent elements occur as XO4- (X=Cl, Br, I, Mn, Tc, Re), XO65- (X=I), I think I also forms some IO53- complexes. Not sure why Np and Pu prefer their specific geometry.