You probably learned some time ago that chemical bonds are what hold atoms together to form the more complicated aggregates that we know as molecules and extended solids. Chemists talk about bonds all the time, and draw pictures of them as lines joining atom symbols. Teachers often identify them as the little sticks that connect the spheres that represent atoms in a plastic molecular model. So it's not surprising that we sometimes tend to think of chemical bonds as “things”. But no one has ever seen a chemical bond, and there is no reason to believe that they really even exist as physical objects.
"SOMETIMES IT SEEMS to me that a bond between two atoms has become so real, so tangible, so friendly, that I can almost see it. Then I awake with a little shock, for a chemical bond is not a real thing. It does not exist. No one has ever seen one. No one ever can. It is a figment of our own imagination."
C.A. Coulson (1910-1974) was an English theoretical chemist who played a central role in the development of quantum theories of chemical bonding.
So although the "chemical bond" is no more than a convenient fiction, chemical bonding, which leads to the near-infinity of substances (31 million in mid-2007), lies at the very core of chemistry.
The forces that hold bonded atoms together are basically just the same kinds of electrostatic attractions that bind the electrons of an atom to its positively-charged nucleus;
This is the most important fact about chemical bonding that you should know, but it is not of itself a workable theory of bonding because it does not describe the conditions under which bonding occurs, nor does it make useful predictions about the properties of the bonded atoms.
Our views of what constitutes chemical bonding are still evolving, according to a 2007 article in Chemical and Engineering News(85 37-40). This "buckyball-and-mitt" synthesized in 2007 by Andrzej Sygula is a case in point. The buckyball C60 resides in the C60H28"buckybowl". There are no traditional "chemical bonds" here!
image from C&EN 85 (13) 2008
The “valence shell electron repulsion” model is not so much a model of chemical bonding as a scheme for explaining the shapes of molecules. It is based on the quantum mechanical view that bonds represent electron clouds— physical regions of negative electric charge that repel each other and thus try to stay as far apart as possible. We will explore this concept in much greater detail in a later unit.
These models of bonding take into account the fact that a particle as light as the electron cannot really be said to be in any single location. The best we can do is define a region of space in which the probability of finding the electron has some arbitrary value which will always be less than unity. The shape of this volume of space is called an orbital and is defined by a mathematical function that relates the probability to the (x,y,z) coordinates of the molecule.
Like other models of bonding, the quantum models attempt to show how more electrons can be simultaneously close to more nuclei. Instead of doing so through purely geometrical arguments, they attempt this by predicting the nature of the orbitals which the valence electrons occupy in joined atoms.
This was developed by Linus Pauling in 1931 and was the first quantum-based model of bonding. It is based on the premise that if the atomic s, p, and d orbitals occupied by the valence electrons of adjacent atoms are combined in a suitable way, the hybrid orbitals that result will have the character and directional properties that are consistent with the bonding pattern in the molecule. The rules for bringing about these combinations turn out to be remarkably simple, so once they were worked out it became possible to use this model to predict the bonding behavior in a wide variety of molecules. The hybrid orbital model is most usefully applied to the p-block elements in the first few rows of the periodic table, and is especially important in organic chemistry.
This model takes a more fundamental approach by regarding a molecule as a collection of valence electrons and positive cores. Just as the nature of atomic orbitals derives from the spherical symmetry of the atom, so will the properties of these new molecular orbitals be controlled by the interaction of the valence electrons with the multiple positive centers of these atomic cores.
These new orbitals, unlike those of the hybrid model, are delocalized; that is, they do not “belong” to any one atom but extend over the entire region of space that encompasses the bonded atoms. The available (valence) electrons then fill these orbitals from the lowest to the highest, very much as in the Aufbau principle that you learned for working out atomic electron configurations. For small molecules (which are the only ones we will consider here), there are simple rules that govern the way that atomic orbitals transform themselves into molecular orbitals as the separate atoms are brought together. The real power of molecular orbital theory, however, comes from its mathematical formulation which lends itself to detailed predictions of bond energies and other properties. This model is developed (and extended to metals) in a later section.
A common theme uniting all of the models we have discussed is that bonding depends on the fall in potential energy that occurs when opposite charges are brought together. In the case of covalent bonds, the shared electron pair acts as a kind of “electron glue” between the joined nuclei. In 1962, however, it was shown that this assumption is not strictly correct, and that instead of being concentrated in the space between the nuclei, the electron orbitals become even more concentrated around the bonded nuclei. At the same time however, they are free to “move” between the two nuclei by a process known as tunneling.
This refers to a well-known quantum mechanical effect that allows electrons (or other particles small enough to exhibit wavelike properties) to pass (“tunnel”) through a barrier separating two closely adjacent regions of low potential energy. One result of this is that the effective volume of space available to the electron is increased, and according to the uncertainty principle this will reduce the kinetic energy of the electron.
According to this model, the bonding electrons act as a kind of fluid that concentrates in the region of each nucleus (lowering the potential energy) and at the same time is able to freely flow between them (reducing the kinetic energy).
The Lewis electron-dot structures you have learned to draw have no geometrical significance other than depicting the order in which the various atoms are connected to one another. Nevertheless, a slight extension of the simple shared-electron pair concept is capable of rationalizing and predicting the geometry of the bonds around a given atom in a wide variety of situations.
The valence shell electron pair repulsion (VSEPR) model that we describe here focuses on the bonding and nonbonding electron pairs present in the outermost (“valence”) shell of an atom that connects with two or more other atoms. Like all electrons, these occupy regions of space which we can visualize as electron clouds— regions of negative electric charge, also known as orbitals— whose precise character can be left to more detailed theories.
The covalent model of chemical bonding assumes that the electron pairs responsible for bonding are concentrated into the region of apace between the bonded atoms. The fundamental idea of VSEPR thoery is that these regions of negative electric 
charge will repel each other, causing them (and thus the chemical bonds that they form) to stay as far apart as possible. Thus the two electron clouds contained in a simple triatomic molecule AX2 will extend out in opposite directions; an angular separation of 180° places the two bonding orbitals as far away from each other they can get. We therefore expect the two chemical bonds to extend in opposite directions, producing a linear molecule.
If the central atom also contains one or more pairs of nonbonding electrons, these additional regions of negative charge will behave very much like those associated with the bonded atoms. The orbitals containing the various bonding and nonbonding pairs in the valence shell will extend out from the central atom in directions that minimize their mutual repulsions.
If the central atom possesses partially occupied d-orbitals, it may be able to accommodate five or six electron pairs, forming what is sometimes called an “expanded octet”.
As we stated above, a simple triatomic molecule of the type AX2 has its two bonding orbitals 180° apart, producing a molecule that we describe as having linear geometry.
Examples of triatomic molecules for which VSEPR theory predicts a linear shape are BeCl2 (which, you will notice, doesn't possess enought electrons to conform to the octet rule) and CO2. If you write out the electron dot formula for carbon dioxide, you will see that the C-O bonds are double bonds. This makes no difference to VSEPR theory; the central carbon atom is still joined to two other atoms, and the electron clouds that connect the two oxygen atoms are 180° apart.
In an AX3 molecule such as BF3, there are three regions of electron density extending out from the central atom. The repulsion between these will be at a minimum when the angle between any two is (360° ÷ 3) = 120°. This requires that all four atoms be in the same plane; the resulting shape is called trigonal planar, or simply trigonal.
Methane, CH4, contains a carbon atom bonded to four hydrogens. What bond angle would lead to the greatest possible separation between the electron clouds associated with these bonds? In analogy with the preceding two cases, where the bond angles were 360°/2=180° and 360°/3=120°, you might guess 360°/4=90°; if so, you would be wrong. The latter calculation would be correct if all the atoms were constrained to be in the same plane (we will see cases where this happens later), but here there is no such restriction. Consequently, the four equivalent bonds will point in four geometrically equivalent directions in three dimensions corresponding to the four corners of a tetrahedron centered on the carbon atom. The angle between any two bonds will be 109.5°.
This is called tetrahedral coordination.
It is interesting to note that the tetrahedral coordination of carbon in most of its organic compounds was worked out in the nineteenth century on purely geometrical grounds and chemical evidence, long before direct methods of determining molecular shapes were developed.
For example, it was noted that there is only one dichloromethane, CH2Cl2.
If the coordination around the carbon were square, then there would have to be two isomers of CH2Cl2, as shown in the pair of structures here. The distances between the two chlorine atoms would be different, giving rise to differences in physical properties would allow the two isomers to be distinguished and separated.
The existence of only one kind of CH2Cl2 molecule means that all four positions surrounding the carbon atom are geometrically equivalent, which requires a tetrahedral coordination geometry. If you study the tetrahedral figure closely, you may be able to convince yourself that it represents the connectivity shown on both of the "square" structures at the top. A three-dimensional ball-and-stick mechanical model would illustrate this very clearly.
Carbon atoms are well known for their tendency to link together to form the millions of organic molecules that are known. We can work out the simpler hydrocarbon chains by looking at each central atom separately. Thus the hydrocarbon ethane is essentially two CH3 tetrahedra joined end-to-end. Similar alkane chains having the general formula H3C–(CH2)n–CH3 (or CnH2n+2) can be built up; a view of pentane, C5H12, is shown below.
Notice that these "straight chain hydrocarbons" (as they are often known) have a carbon "backbone" structure that is not really straight, as is illustrated by the zig-zag figure that is frequently used to denote hydrocarbon structures.
Coordination number refers to the number of electron pairs that surround a given atom; we often refer to this atom as the central atom even if this atom is not really located at the geometrical center of the molecule. If all of the electron pairs surrounding the central atom are shared with neighboring atoms, then the coordination geometry is the same as the molecular geometry. The application of VSEPR theory then reduces to the simple problem of naming (and visualizing) the geometric shapes associated with various numbers of points surrounding a central point (the central atom) at the greatest possible angles. Both classes of geometry are named after the shapes of the imaginary geometric figures (mostly regular solid polygons) that would be centered on the central atom and would have an electron pair at each vertex.
If one of more of the electron pairs surrounding the central atom is not shared with a neighboring atom (that is, if it is a lone pair), then the molecular geometry is simpler than the coordination geometry, and it can be worked out by inspecting a sketch of the coordination geometry figure.
In the examples we have discussed so far, the shape of the molecule is defined by the coordination geometry; thus the carbon in methane is tetrahedrally coordinated, and there is a hydrogen at each corner of the tetrahedron, so the molecular shape is also tetrahedral.
It is common practice to represent bonding patterns by "generic" formulas such as AX4, AX2E2, etc., in which "X" stands for bonding pairs and "E" denotes lone pairs. (This convention is known as the "AXE method")
The bonding geometry will not be tetrahedral when the valence shell of the central atom contains nonbonding electrons, however. The reason is that the nonbonding electrons are also in orbitals that occupy space and repel the other orbitals. This means that in figuring the coordination number around the central atom, we must count both the bonded atoms and the nonbonding pairs.
In the water molecule, the central atom is O, and the Lewis electron dot formula predicts that there will be two pairs of nonbonding electrons. The oxygen atom will therefore be tetrahedrally coordinated, meaning that it sits at the center of the tetrahedron as shown below. Two of the coordination positions are occupied by the shared electron-pairs that constitute the O–H bonds, and the other two by the non-bonding pairs. Thus although the oxygen atom is tetrahedrally coordinated, the bonding geometry (shape) of the H2O molecule is described as bent.
There is an important difference between bonding and non-bonding electron orbitals. Because a nonbonding orbital has no atomic nucleus at its far end to draw the electron cloud toward it, the charge in such an orbital will be concentrated closer to the central atom. As a consequence, nonbonding orbitals exert more repulsion on other orbitals than do bonding orbitals. Thus in H2O, the two nonbonding orbitals push the bonding orbitals closer together, making the H–O–H angle 104.5° instead of the tetrahedral angle of 109.5°.
Although the water molecule is electrically neutral, it is not electrically uniform; the non-bonding electrons create a higher concentration of negative charge (blue color) at the oxygen end, making the hydrogen side relatively positive (red).
This image was produced by a computer simulation based on the more complete molecular orbital model that we describe in the next lesson.
This charge unbalance gives rise to many of the so-called anomalous properties of water.
Computer-generated image of NH3 molecule showing electrostatic potential (red=+, blue=–.) [source]
The electron-dot structure of NH3 places one pair of nonbonding electrons in the valence shell of the nitrogen atom. This means that there are three bonded atoms and one lone pair, for a coordination number of four around the nitrogen, the same as occurs in H2O. We can therefore predict that the three hydrogen atom will lie at the corners of a tetrahedron centered on the nitrogen atom. The lone pair orbital will point toward the fourth corner of the tetrahedron, but since that position will be vacant, the NH3 molecule itself cannot be tetrahedral. Instead, it assumes a pyramidal shape. More precisely, the shape is that of a trigonal pyramid (i.e., a pyramid having a triangular base). The hydrogen atoms are all in the same plane, with the nitrogen above (or below, or to the side; molecules of course don’t know anything about “above” or “below”!) The fatter orbital containing the non-bonding electrons pushes the bonding orbitals together slightly, making the H–N–H bond angles about 107°.
Compounds of the type AX5 are formed by some of the elements in Group 15 of the periodic table; PCl5 and AsF5 are examples.
In what directions can five electron pairs arrange themselves in space so as to minimize their mutual repulsions? In the cases of coordination numbers 2, 3, 4, and 6, we could imagine that the electron pairs distributed themselves as far apart as possible on the surface of a sphere; for the two higher numbers, the resulting shapes correspond to the regular polyhedron having the same number of sides.
The problem with coordination number 5 is that there is no such thing as a regular polyhedron with five vertices.
In 1758, the great mathematian Euler proved that there are only five regular convex polyhedra, known as the platonic solids: tetrahedron (4 triangular faces), octahedron (6 triangular faces), icosahedron (20 triangular faces), cube (6 square faces), and dodecahedron (12 pentagonal faces). Chemical examples of all are known; the first icosahedral molecule, LaC60 (in which the La atom has 20 nearest C neighbors) was prepared in 1986.
Besides the five regular solids, there can be 15 semi-regular isogonal solids in which the faces have different shapes, but the vertex angles are all the same. These geometrical principles are quite important in modern structural chemistry.
The shape of PCl5 and similar molecules is a trigonal bipyramid. This consists simply of two triangular-base pyramids joined base-to-base. Three of the chlorine atoms are in the plane of the central phosphorus atom, while the other two atoms are above and below this plane.
Using this reasoning, we can predict that an AX5E molecule (that is, a molecule in which the central atom A is coordinated to five other atoms “X” and to one nonbonding electron pair) such as SF4 will have a “see-saw” shape; substitution of more nonbonding pairs for bonded atoms reduces the triangular bipyramid coordination to even simpler molecular shapes, as shown below.
Notice that in each of these examples, the non-bonding orbitals are located in the equatorial plane, thus minimizing the the number of 90° repulsions compared with those of 120°.
Just as four electron pairs experience the minimum repulsion when they are directed toward the corners of a tetrahedron, six electron pairs will try to point toward the corners of an octahedron. An octahedron is not as complex a shape as its name might imply; it is simply two square-based pyramids joined base to base. You should be able to sketch this shape as well as that of the tetrahedron.
The shaded plane shown in this octahedrally-coordinated molecule is only one of three equivalent planes defined by a four-fold symmetry axis. All the ligands are geometrically equivalent; there are no separate axial and equatorial positions in an AX5 molecule. Click here to see an image that shows the symmetry of the octahedron in more detail.
At first, you might think that a coordination number of six is highly unusual; it certainly violates the octet rule, and there are only a few molecules (SF6 is one) where the central atom is hexavalent. It turns out, however, that this is one of the most commonly encountered coordination numbers in inorganic chemistry. There are two main reasons for this:
There are well known examples of 6-coordinate central atoms with 1, 2, and 3 lone pairs. Thus all three of the molecules whose shapes are depicted below possess octahedral coordination around the central atom. Note also that the orientation of the shaded planes shown in the two rightmost images are arbitrary; since all six vertices of an octahedron are identical, the planes could just as well be drawn in any of the three possible vertical orientations.
 |  |
The VSEPR model is an extraordinarily powerful one, considering its great simplicity. Its application to predicting molecular structures can be summarized as follows:
1. Electron pairs surrounding a central atom repel each other; this repulsion will be minimized if the orbitals containing these electron pairs point as far away from each other as possible.
2. The coordination geometry around the central atom corresponds to the polyhedron whose number of vertices is equal to the number of surrounding electron pairs (coordination number). Except for the special case of 5, and the trivial cases of 2 and 3, the shape will be one of the regular polyhedra.
3. If some of the electron pairs are nonbonding, the shape of the molecule will be simpler than that of the coordination polyhedron.
4. Orbitals that contain nonbonding electrons are more concentrated near the central atom, and therefore offer more repulsion than bonding pairs to other orbitals.
While VSEPR theory is quite good at predicting the general shapes of most molecules, it cannot yield exact details. For example, it does not explain why the bond angle in H2O is 104.5°, but that in H2S is about 90°. This is not surprising, considering that the emphasis is on electronic repulsions, without regard to the detailed nature of the orbitals containing the electrons, and thus of the bonds themselves.
http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtext/chembond/cb05.html
k.NO.w chem
In retrospect, the definition of chemistry seems to invariably change per decade, as new discoveries and theories add to the functionality of the science. Shown below are some of the standard definitions used by various noted chemists:
profile.
archives.
March 2009 April 2009 May 2009
friends.
alien
alien
alien
alien
alien
alien
alien
alien
alien
alien
alien
credits.
image; threadless
fonts; dafont
I II III