Electronegativity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electrostatic potential map of a water molecule, where the oxygen atom has a more negative charge (red) than the positive (blue) hydrogen atoms

 

Electronegativity, symbol χ, is a chemical property that describes the tendency of an atom to attract a shared pair of electrons (or electron density) towards itself. An atom's electronegativity is affected by both its atomic number and the distance at which its valence electrons reside from the charged nucleus. The higher the associated electronegativity number, the more an atom or a substituent group attracts electrons towards itself. 

On the most basic level, electronegativity is determined by factors like the nuclear charge (the more protons an atom has, the more "pull" it will have on electrons) and the number/location of other electrons present in the atomic shells (the more electrons an atom has, the farther from the nucleus the valence electrons will be, and as a result the less positive charge they will experience—both because of their increased distance from the nucleus, and because the other electrons in the lower energy core orbitals will act to shield the valence electrons from the positively charged nucleus). 

The opposite of electronegativity is electropositivity: a measure of an element's ability to donate electrons.

The term "electronegativity" was introduced by Jöns Jacob Berzelius in 1811, though the concept was known even before that and was studied by many chemists including Avogadro. In spite of its long history, an accurate scale of electronegativity was not developed until 1932, when Linus Pauling proposed an electronegativity scale, which depends on bond energies, as a development of valence bond theory. It has been shown to correlate with a number of other chemical properties. Electronegativity cannot be directly measured and must be calculated from other atomic or molecular properties. Several methods of calculation have been proposed, and although there may be small differences in the numerical values of the electronegativity, all methods show the same periodic trends between elements. 

The most commonly used method of calculation is that originally proposed by Linus Pauling. This gives a dimensionless quantity, commonly referred to as the Pauling scale (χ_r), on a relative scale running from 0.79 to 3.98 (hydrogen = 2.20). When other methods of calculation are used, it is conventional (although not obligatory) to quote the results on a scale that covers the same range of numerical values: this is known as an electronegativity in Pauling units. 

As it is usually calculated, electronegativity is not a property of an atom alone, but rather a property of an atom in a molecule. Properties of a free atom include ionization energy and electron affinity. It is to be expected that the electronegativity of an element will vary with its chemical environment, but it is usually considered to be a transferable property, that is to say that similar values will be valid in a variety of situations. 

Caesium is the least electronegative element in the periodic table (=0.79), while fluorine is most electronegative (=3.98). Francium and caesium were originally both assigned 0.7; caesium's value was later refined to 0.79, but no experimental data allows a similar refinement for francium. However, francium's ionization energy is known to be slightly higher than caesium's, in accordance with the relativistic stabilization of the 7s orbital, and this in turn implies that francium is in fact more electronegative than caesium.

Electronegativities of the elements

Methods of calculation

Pauling electronegativity

Pauling first proposed the concept of electronegativity in 1932 as an explanation of the fact that the covalent bond between two different atoms (A–B) is stronger than would be expected by taking the average of the strengths of the A–A and B–B bonds. According to valence bond theory, of which Pauling was a notable proponent, this "additional stabilization" of the heteronuclear bond is due to the contribution of ionic canonical forms to the bonding.

The difference in electronegativity between atoms A and B is given by:

${\displaystyle |\chi _{\rm {A}}-\chi _{\rm {B}}|=({\rm {eV}})^{-1/2}{\sqrt {E_{\rm {d}}({\rm {AB}})-{\frac {E_{\rm {d}}({\rm {AA}})+E_{\rm {d}}({\rm {BB}})}{2}}}}}$

where the dissociation energies, E_d, of the A–B, A–A and B–B bonds are expressed in electronvolts, the factor (eV)^{−​1⁄₂} being included to ensure a dimensionless result. Hence, the difference in Pauling electronegativity between hydrogen and bromine is 0.73 (dissociation energies: H–Br, 3.79 eV; H–H, 4.52 eV; Br–Br 2.00 eV).

As only differences in electronegativity are defined, it is necessary to choose an arbitrary reference point in order to construct a scale. Hydrogen was chosen as the reference, as it forms covalent bonds with a large variety of elements: its electronegativity was fixed first at 2.1, later revised to 2.20. It is also necessary to decide which of the two elements is the more electronegative (equivalent to choosing one of the two possible signs for the square root). This is usually done using "chemical intuition": in the above example, hydrogen bromide dissolves in water to form H⁺ and Br⁻ ions, so it may be assumed that bromine is more electronegative than hydrogen. However, in principle, since the same electronegativities should be obtained for any two bonding compounds, the data are in fact overdetermined, and the signs are unique once a reference point is fixed (usually, for H or F).

To calculate Pauling electronegativity for an element, it is necessary to have data on the dissociation energies of at least two types of covalent bond formed by that element. A. L. Allred updated Pauling's original values in 1961 to take account of the greater availability of thermodynamic data, and it is these "revised Pauling" values of the electronegativity that are most often used.

The essential point of Pauling electronegativity is that there is an underlying, quite accurate, semi-empirical formula for dissociation energies, namely:

${\displaystyle E_{\rm {d}}({\rm {AB}})={\frac {E_{\rm {d}}({\rm {AA}})+E_{\rm {d}}({\rm {BB}})}{2}}+(\chi _{\rm {A}}-\chi _{\rm {B}})^{2}{\rm {eV}}}$

or sometimes, a more accurate fit

${\displaystyle E_{\rm {d}}({\rm {AB}})={\sqrt {E_{\rm {d}}({\rm {AA}})E_{\rm {d}}({\rm {BB}})}}+1.3(\chi _{\rm {A}}-\chi _{\rm {B}})^{2}{\rm {eV}}}$

This is an approximate equation, but holds with good accuracy. Pauling obtained it by noting that a bond can be approximately represented as a quantum mechanical superposition of a covalent bond and two ionic bond-states. The covalent energy of a bond is approximately, by quantum mechanical calculations, the geometric mean of the two energies of covalent bonds of the same molecules, and there is an additional energy that comes from ionic factors, i.e. polar character of the bond.

The geometric mean is approximately equal to the arithmetic mean - which is applied in the first formula above - when the energies are of the similar value, e.g., except for the highly electropositive elements, where there is a larger difference of two dissociation energies; the geometric mean is more accurate and almost always gives a positive excess energy, due to ionic bonding. The square root of this excess energy, Pauling notes, is approximately additive, and hence one can introduce the electronegativity. Thus, it is this semi-empirical formula for bond energy that underlies Pauling electronegativity concept.

The formulas are approximate, but this rough approximation is in fact relatively good and gives the right intuition, with the notion of polarity of the bond and some theoretical grounding in quantum mechanics. The electronegativities are then determined to best fit the data.

In more complex compounds, there is additional error since electronegativity depends on the molecular environment of an atom. Also, the energy estimate can be only used for single, not for multiple bonds. The energy of formation of a molecule containing only single bonds then can be approximated from an electronegativity table, and depends on the constituents and sum of squares of differences of electronegativities of all pairs of bonded atoms. Such a formula for estimating energy typically has relative error of order of 10%, but can be used to get a rough qualitative idea and understanding of a molecule.

Mulliken electronegativity

The correlation between Mulliken electronegativities (x-axis, in kJ/mol) and Pauling electronegativities (y-axis).

 

Robert S. Mulliken proposed that the arithmetic mean of the first ionization energy (E_i) and the electron affinity (E_ea) should be a measure of the tendency of an atom to attract electrons. As this definition is not dependent on an arbitrary relative scale, it has also been termed absolute electronegativity, with the units of kilojoules per mole or electronvolts.

${\displaystyle \chi ={\frac {E_{\rm {i}}+E_{\rm {ea}}}{2}}\,}$

However, it is more usual to use a linear transformation to transform these absolute values into values that resemble the more familiar Pauling values. For ionization energies and electron affinities in electronvolts,

${\displaystyle \chi =0.187(E_{\rm {i}}+E_{\rm {ea}})+0.17\,}$

and for energies in kilojoules per mole,

${\displaystyle \chi =(1.97\times 10^{-3})(E_{\rm {i}}+E_{\rm {ea}})+0.19.}$

The Mulliken electronegativity can only be calculated for an element for which the electron affinity is known, fifty-seven elements as of 2006. The Mulliken electronegativity of an atom is sometimes said to be the negative of the chemical potential. By inserting the energetic definitions of the ionization potential and electron affinity into the Mulliken electronegativity, it is possible to show that the Mulliken chemical potential is a finite difference approximation of the electronic energy with respect to the number of electrons., i.e.,

${\displaystyle \mu ({\rm {Mulliken)=-\chi ({\rm {Mulliken)={}-{\frac {E_{\rm {i}}+E_{\rm {ea}}}{2}}\,}}}}}$

Allred–Rochow electronegativity

The correlation between Allred–Rochow electronegativities (x-axis, in Å⁻²) and Pauling electronegativities (y-axis).

 

A. Louis Allred and Eugene G. Rochow considered that electronegativity should be related to the charge experienced by an electron on the "surface" of an atom: The higher the charge per unit area of atomic surface the greater the tendency of that atom to attract electrons. The effective nuclear charge, Z_eff, experienced by valence electrons can be estimated using Slater's rules, while the surface area of an atom in a molecule can be taken to be proportional to the square of the covalent radius, r_cov. When r_cov is expressed in picometres,

${\displaystyle \chi =3590{{Z_{\rm {eff}}} \over {r_{\rm {cov}}^{2}}}+0.744}$

Sanderson electronegativity equalization

The correlation between Sanderson electronegativities (x-axis, arbitrary units) and Pauling electronegativities (y-axis).

 

R.T. Sanderson has also noted the relationship between Mulliken electronegativity and atomic size, and has proposed a method of calculation based on the reciprocal of the atomic volume. With a knowledge of bond lengths, Sanderson's model allows the estimation of bond energies in a wide range of compounds. Sanderson's model has also been used to calculate molecular geometry, s-electrons energy, NMR spin-spin constants and other parameters for organic compounds. This work underlies the concept of electronegativity equalization, which suggests that electrons distribute themselves around a molecule to minimize or to equalize the Mulliken electronegativity. This behavior is analogous to the equalization of chemical potential in macroscopic thermodynamics.

Allen electronegativity

The correlation between Allen electronegativities (x-axis, in kJ/mol) and Pauling electronegativities (y-axis).

 

Perhaps the simplest definition of electronegativity is that of Leland C. Allen, who has proposed that it is related to the average energy of the valence electrons in a free atom,

${\displaystyle \chi ={n_{\rm {s}}\varepsilon _{\rm {s}}+n_{\rm {p}}\varepsilon _{\rm {p}} \over n_{\rm {s}}+n_{\rm {p}}}}$

where ε_s,p are the one-electron energies of s- and p-electrons in the free atom and n_s,p are the number of s- and p-electrons in the valence shell. It is usual to apply a scaling factor, 1.75×10⁻³ for energies expressed in kilojoules per mole or 0.169 for energies measured in electronvolts, to give values that are numerically similar to Pauling electronegativities.

The one-electron energies can be determined directly from spectroscopic data, and so electronegativities calculated by this method are sometimes referred to as spectroscopic electronegativities. The necessary data are available for almost all elements, and this method allows the estimation of electronegativities for elements that cannot be treated by the other methods, e.g. francium, which has an Allen electronegativity of 0.67. However, it is not clear what should be considered to be valence electrons for the d- and f-block elements, which leads to an ambiguity for their electronegativities calculated by the Allen method.

Correlation of electronegativity with other properties

The variation of the isomer shift (y-axis, in mm/s) of [SnX₆]²⁻ anions, as measured by ¹¹⁹Sn Mössbauer spectroscopy, against the sum of the Pauling electronegativities of the halide substituents (x-axis).

 

The wide variety of methods of calculation of electronegativities, which all give results that correlate well with one another, is one indication of the number of chemical properties which might be affected by electronegativity. The most obvious application of electronegativities is in the discussion of bond polarity, for which the concept was introduced by Pauling. In general, the greater the difference in electronegativity between two atoms the more polar the bond that will be formed between them, with the atom having the higher electronegativity being at the negative end of the dipole. Pauling proposed an equation to relate "ionic character" of a bond to the difference in electronegativity of the two atoms, although this has fallen somewhat into disuse.

Several correlations have been shown between infrared stretching frequencies of certain bonds and the electronegativities of the atoms involved: however, this is not surprising as such stretching frequencies depend in part on bond strength, which enters into the calculation of Pauling electronegativities. More convincing are the correlations between electronegativity and chemical shifts in NMR spectroscopy or isomer shifts in Mössbauer spectroscopy. Both these measurements depend on the s-electron density at the nucleus, and so are a good indication that the different measures of electronegativity really are describing "the ability of an atom in a molecule to attract electrons to itself".

Trends in electronegativity

Periodic trends

The variation of Pauling electronegativity (y-axis) as one descends the main groups of the periodic table from the second period to the sixth period

 

In general, electronegativity increases on passing from left to right along a period, and decreases on descending a group. Hence, fluorine is the most electronegative of the elements (not counting noble gases), whereas caesium is the least electronegative, at least of those elements for which substantial data is available. This would lead one to believe that caesium fluoride is the compound whose bonding features the most ionic character.

There are some exceptions to this general rule. Gallium and germanium have higher electronegativities than aluminium and silicon, respectively, because of the d-block contraction. Elements of the fourth period immediately after the first row of the transition metals have unusually small atomic radii because the 3d-electrons are not effective at shielding the increased nuclear charge, and smaller atomic size correlates with higher electronegativity. The anomalously high electronegativity of lead, in particular when compared to thallium and bismuth, appears to be an artifact of data selection (and data availability)—methods of calculation other than the Pauling method show the normal periodic trends for these elements.

Variation of electronegativity with oxidation number

In inorganic chemistry it is common to consider a single value of the electronegativity to be valid for most "normal" situations. While this approach has the advantage of simplicity, it is clear that the electronegativity of an element is not an invariable atomic property and, in particular, increases with the oxidation state of the element.

Allred used the Pauling method to calculate separate electronegativities for different oxidation states of the handful of elements (including tin and lead) for which sufficient data was available. However, for most elements, there are not enough different covalent compounds for which bond dissociation energies are known to make this approach feasible. This is particularly true of the transition elements, where quoted electronegativity values are usually, of necessity, averages over several different oxidation states and where trends in electronegativity are harder to see as a result.

Acid	Formula	Chlorine oxidation state	pKa
Hypochlorous acid	HClO	+1	+7.5
Chlorous acid	HClO2	+3	+2.0
Chloric acid	HClO3	+5	–1.0
Perchloric acid	HClO4	+7	–10

The chemical effects of this increase in electronegativity can be seen both in the structures of oxides and halides and in the acidity of oxides and oxoacids. Hence CrO₃ and Mn₂O₇ are acidic oxides with low melting points, while Cr₂O₃ is amphoteric and Mn₂O₃ is a completely basic oxide.

The effect can also be clearly seen in the dissociation constants of the oxoacids of chlorine. The effect is much larger than could be explained by the negative charge being shared among a larger number of oxygen atoms, which would lead to a difference in pK_a of log₁₀(​¹⁄₄) = –0.6 between hypochlorous acid and perchloric acid. As the oxidation state of the central chlorine atom increases, more electron density is drawn from the oxygen atoms onto the chlorine, reducing the partial negative charge on the oxygen atoms and increasing the acidity.

Electronegativity and hybridization scheme

The electronegativity of an atom changes depending on the hybridization of the orbital employed in bonding. Electrons in s orbitals are held more tightly than electrons in p orbitals. Hence, a bond to an atom that employs an sp^x hybrid orbital for bonding will be more heavily polarized to that atom when the hybrid orbital has more s character. That is, when electronegativities are compared for different hybridization schemes of a given element, the order χ(sp³) < χ(sp²) < χ(sp) holds (the trend should apply to non-integer hybridization indices as well). While this holds true in principle for any main-group element, values for the hybridization-specific electronegativity are most frequently cited for carbon. In organic chemistry, these electronegativities are frequently invoked to predict or rationalize bond polarities in organic compounds containing double and triple bonds to carbon.

Hybridization	χ (Pauling)
C(sp3)	2.3
C(sp2)	2.6
C(sp)	3.1
'generic' C	2.5

Group electronegativity

In organic chemistry, electronegativity is associated more with different functional groups than with individual atoms. The terms group electronegativity and substituent electronegativity are used synonymously. However, it is common to distinguish between the inductive effect and the resonance effect, which might be described as σ- and π-electronegativities, respectively. There are a number of linear free-energy relationships that have been used to quantify these effects, of which the Hammett equation is the best known. Kabachnik parameters are group electronegativities for use in organophosphorus chemistry.

Electropositivity

Electropositivity is a measure of an element's ability to donate electrons, and therefore form positive ions; thus, it is opposed to electronegativity.

Mainly, this is an attribute of metals, meaning that, in general, the greater the metallic character of an element the greater the electropositivity. Therefore, the alkali metals are most electropositive of all. This is because they have a single electron in their outer shell and, as this is relatively far from the nucleus of the atom, it is easily lost; in other words, these metals have low ionization energies.

While electronegativity increases along periods in the periodic table, and decreases down groups, electropositivity decreases along periods (from left to right) and increases down groups.

Oxidation state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The oxidation state, sometimes referred to as oxidation number, describes the degree of oxidation (loss of electrons) of an atom in a chemical compound. Conceptually, the oxidation state, which may be positive, negative or zero, is the hypothetical charge that an atom would have if all bonds to atoms of different elements were 100% ionic, with no covalent component. This is never exactly true for real bonds.

 

The term oxidation was first used by Antoine Lavoisier to signify reaction of a substance with oxygen. Much later, it was realized that the substance, upon being oxidized, loses electrons, and the meaning was extended to include other reactions in which electrons are lost, regardless of whether oxygen was involved.

Oxidation states are typically represented by integers which may be positive, zero, or negative. In some cases, the average oxidation state of an element is a fraction, such as +8/3 for iron in magnetite (Fe
₃O
₄). The highest known oxidation state is reported to be +9 in the tetroxoiridium(IX) cation (IrO⁺
₄). It is predicted that even a +10 oxidation state may be achievable by platinum in the tetroxoplatinum(X) cation (PtO²⁺
₄). The lowest oxidation state is −4, as for carbon in methane or for chromium in [Cr(CO)₄]⁴⁻.

The increase in oxidation state of an atom, through a chemical reaction, is known as an oxidation; a decrease in oxidation state is known as a reduction. Such reactions involve the formal transfer of electrons: a net gain in electrons being a reduction, and a net loss of electrons being an oxidation. For pure elements, the oxidation state is zero.

The oxidation state of an atom does not represent the "real" charge on that atom, or any other actual atomic property. This is particularly true of high oxidation states, where the ionization energy required to produce a multiply positive ion is far greater than the energies available in chemical reactions. Additionally, oxidation states of atoms in a given compound may vary depending on the choice of electronegativity scale used in their calculation. Thus, the oxidation state of an atom in a compound is purely a formalism. It is nevertheless important in understanding the nomenclature conventions of inorganic compounds. Also, a number of observations pertaining to chemical reactions may be explained at a basic level in terms of oxidation states.

In inorganic nomenclature, the oxidation state is represented by a Roman numeral placed after the element name inside a parenthesis or as a superscript after the element symbol.

IUPAC definition

IUPAC has published a "Comprehensive definition of the term oxidation state (IUPAC Recommendations 2016)". It is a distillation of an IUPAC technical report "Toward a comprehensive definition of oxidation state" from 2014. The current IUPAC Gold Book definition of oxidation state is:

Oxidation state of an atom is the charge of this atom after ionic approximation of its heteronuclear bonds...

— IUPAC

and the term oxidation number is nearly synonymous.

The underlying principle is that the ionic signs for two atoms that are bonded are deduced from the electron distribution in a LCAO–MO model. In a bond between two different elements, the bond's electrons are assigned to its main atomic contributor; in a bond between two atoms of the same element, the electrons are divided equally. In practical use, the sign of the ionic approximation follows Allen electronegativities.

Determination

While introductory levels of chemistry teaching use postulated oxidation states, the IUPAC recommendation and the Gold Book entry list two entirely general algorithms for the calculation of the oxidation states of elements in chemical compounds.

Simple approach without bonding considerations

Introductory chemistry uses postulates: the oxidation state for an element in a chemical formula is calculated from the overall charge and postulated oxidation states for all the other atoms. 

A simple example is based on two postulates,

1. OS = +1 for hydrogen
2. OS = −2 for oxygen

where OS stands for oxidation state. This approach yields correct oxidation states in oxides and hydroxides of any single element, and in acids such as H₂SO₄ or H₂Cr₂O₇. Its coverage can be extended either by a list of exceptions or by assigning priority to the postulates. The latter works for H₂O₂ where the priority of rule 1 leaves both oxygens with oxidation state −1.

Additional postulates and their ranking may expand the range of compounds to fit a textbook’s scope. As an example, one postulatory algorithm from many possible; in a sequence of decreasing priority:

1. An element in a free form has OS = 0.
2. In a compound or ion, the oxidation states' sum equals the total charge of the compound or ion.
3. Fluorine in compounds has OS = −1; this extends to chlorine and bromine only when not bonded to a lighter halogen, oxygen or nitrogen.
4. Group 1 and group 2 metals in compounds have OS = +1 and +2, respectively.
5. Hydrogen has OS = +1, but adopts −1 when bonded as a hydride to metals or metalloids.
6. Oxygen in compounds has OS = −2.

This set of postulates covers oxidation states of fluorides, chlorides, bromides, oxides, hydroxides and hydrides of any single element. It covers all oxoacids of any central atom (and all their fluoro-, chloro- and bromo-relatives), as well as salts of such acids with group 1 and 2 metals. It also covers iodides, sulfides and similar simple salts of these metals.

Algorithm of assigning bonds

This algorithm is performed on a Lewis structure (a formula that shows all valence electrons). Oxidation state equals the charge of an atom after its heteronuclear bonds have been assigned to the more electronegative partner (except when that partner is a reversibly bonded Lewis-acid ligand) and homonuclear bonds have been divided equally: 

where "—" is an electron pair, and OS is the oxidation state as a numerical variable. 

After the electrons have been assigned according to the vertical red lines on the formula, the total number of valence electrons that now "belong" to each atom are subtracted from the number N of valence electrons of the neutral atom (such as 5 for nitrogen in group 15) to yield that atom's oxidation state. 

This example shows the importance of describing the bonding. Its summary formula, HNO₃, corresponds to two structural isomers; the peroxynitrous acid in the above figure and the more stable nitric acid. With the formula HNO₃, the simple approach without bonding considerations yields −2 for all three oxygens and +5 for nitrogen, which is correct for nitric acid. For the peroxynitrous acid, however, the two oxygens in the O–O bond each have OS = −1 and the nitrogen has OS = +3, which requires a structure to understand.

Organic compounds are treated in a similar manner; exemplified here on functional groups occurring in between CH₄ and CO₂: 

Analogously for transition-metal compounds; CrO(O₂)₂ on the left has a total of 36 valence electrons (18 pairs to be distributed), and Cr(CO)₆ on the right has 66 valence electrons (33 pairs): 

A key step is drawing the Lewis structure of the molecule (neutral, cationic, anionic): atom symbols are arranged so that pairs of atoms can be joined by single two-electron bonds as in the molecule (a sort of "skeletal" structure), and the remaining valence electrons are distributed such that sp atoms obtain an octet (duet for hydrogen) with priority that increases with electronegativity. In some cases, this leads to alternative formulae that differ in bond orders (the full set of which is called the resonance formulas). Consider the sulfate anion (SO²⁻
₄ with 32 valence electrons; 24 from oxygens, 6 from sulfur, 2 of the anion charge obtained from the implied cation). The bond orders to the terminal oxygens have no effect on the oxidation state so long as the oxygens have octets. Already the skeletal structure, top left, yields the correct oxidation states, as does the Lewis structure, top right (one of the resonance formulas):

The bond-order formula at bottom is closest to the reality of four equivalent oxygens each having a total bond order of 2. That total includes the bond of order 1/2 to the implied cation and follows the 8 − N rule requiring that the main-group atom’s bond order equals 8 minus N valence electrons of the neutral atom, enforced with priority that increases with electronegativity. 

This algorithm works equally for molecular cations composed of several atoms. An example is the ammonium cation of 8 valence electrons (5 from nitrogen, 4 from hydrogens, minus 1 electron for the cation’s positive charge): 

Drawing Lewis structures with electron pairs as dashes emphasizes the essential equivalence of bond pairs and lone pairs when counting electrons and moving bonds onto atoms. Structures drawn with electron dot pairs are of course identical in every way:

The algorithm's caveat

The algorithm contains a caveat, which concerns rare cases of transition-metal complexes with a type of ligand that is reversibly bonded as a Lewis acid (as an acceptor of the electron pair from the transition metal); termed a "Z-type" ligand in Green’s covalent bond classification method. The caveat originates from the simplifying use of electronegativity instead of the MO-based electron allegiance to decide the ionic sign. One early example is the O₂S−RhCl(CO)(PPh₃)₂ complex with SO₂ as the reversibly-bonded acceptor ligand (released upon heating). The Rh−S bond is therefore extrapolated ionic against Allen electronegativities of rhodium and sulfur, yielding oxidation state +1 for rhodium:

Algorithm of summing bond orders

This algorithm works on Lewis structures and on bond graphs of extended (non-molecular) solids:

Oxidation state is obtained by summing the heteronuclear-bond orders at the atom as positive if that atom is the electropositive partner in a particular bond and as negative if not, and the atom’s formal charge (if any) is added to that sum.

Applied to a Lewis structure

An example of a Lewis structure with no formal charge, 

illustrates that, in this algorithm, homonuclear bonds are simply ignored (notice the bond orders in blue). 

Carbon monoxide exemplifies a Lewis structure with formal charges: 

To obtain the oxidation states, the formal charges are summed with the bond-order value taken positively at the carbon and negatively at the oxygen. 

Applied to molecular ions, this algorithm considers the actual location of the formal (ionic) charge, as drawn in the Lewis structure. As an example, summing bond orders in the ammonium cation yields −4 at the nitrogen of formal charge +1, with the two numbers adding to the oxidation state of −3: 

Notice that the sum of oxidation states in the ion equals its charge (as it equals zero for a neutral molecule). 

Also in anions, the formal (ionic) charges have to be considered when nonzero. For sulfate this is exemplified with the skeletal or Lewis structures (top), compared with the bond-order formula of all oxygens equivalent and fulfilling the octet and 8 − N rules (bottom): 

Applied to bond graph

A bond graph in solid-state chemistry is a chemical formula of an extended structure, in which direct bonding connectivities are shown. An example is the AuORb₃ perovskite, the unit cell of which is drawn on the left and the bond graph (with added numerical values) on the right:

We see that the oxygen atom bonds to the six nearest rubidium cations, each of which has 4 bonds to the auride anion. The bond graph summarizes these connectivities. The bond orders (also called bond valences) sum up to oxidation states according to the attached sign of the bond’s ionic approximation (there are no formal charges in bond graphs). 

Determination of oxidation states from a bond graph can be illustrated on ilmenite, FeTiO₃. We may ask whether the mineral contains Fe²⁺ and Ti⁴⁺, or Fe³⁺ and Ti³⁺. Its crystal structure has each metal atom bonded to six oxygens and each of the equivalent oxygens to two irons and two titaniums, as in the bond graph below. Experimental data show that three metal–oxygen bonds in the octahedron are short and three are long (the metals are off-center). The bond orders (valences), obtained from the bond lengths by the bond valence method, sum up to 2.01 at Fe and 3.99 at Ti; which can be rounded off to oxidation states +2 and +4, respectively: 

Balancing redox

Oxidation states can be useful for balancing chemical equations for oxidation–reduction (or redox) reactions, because the changes in the oxidized atoms have to be balanced by the changes in the reduced atoms. For example, in the reaction of acetaldehyde with Tollens' reagent to form acetic acid (shown below), the carbonyl carbon atom changes its oxidation state from +1 to +3 (loses two electrons). This oxidation is balanced by reducing two Ag⁺ cations to Ag⁰ (gaining two electrons in total). 

An inorganic example is the Bettendorf reaction using SnCl₂ to prove the presence of arsenite ions in a concentrated HCl extract. When arsenic(III) is present, a brown coloration appears forming a dark precipitate of arsenic, according to the following simplified reaction:

2 As³⁺ + 3 Sn²⁺ → 2 As⁰ + 3 Sn⁴⁺

Here three tin atoms are oxidized from oxidation state +2 to +4, yielding six electrons that reduce two arsenic atoms from oxidation state +3 to 0. The simple one-line balancing goes as follows: the two redox couples are written down as they react;

As³⁺ + Sn²⁺ ⇌ As⁰ + Sn⁴⁺.

One tin is oxidized from oxidation state +2 to +4, a two-electron step, hence 2 is written in front of the two arsenic partners. One arsenic is reduced from +3 to 0, a three-electron step, hence 3 goes in front of the two tin partners. An alternative three-line procedure is to write separately the half-reactions for oxidation and for reduction, each balanced with electrons, and then to sum them up such that the electrons cross out. In general, these redox balances (the one-line balance or each half-reaction) need to be checked for the ionic and electron charge sums on both sides of the equation being indeed equal. If they are not equal, suitable ions are added to balance the charges and the non-redox elemental balance.

Appearances

Nominal oxidation states

A nominal oxidation state is a general term for two specific purpose-oriented values:

• Electrochemical oxidation state; it represents a molecule or ion in the Latimer diagram or Frost diagram for its redox-active element. An example is the Latimer diagram for sulfur at pH 0 where the electrochemical oxidation state +2 for sulfur puts HS
  ₂O⁻
  ₃ between S and H₂SO₃:

• Systematic oxidation state; it is chosen from close alternatives for pedagogical reasons of descriptive chemistry. An example is the oxidation state of phosphorus in H₃PO₃ (which is in fact the diprotic HPO(OH)₂) taken nominally as +3, while Allen electronegativities of phosphorus and hydrogen suggest +5 by a narrow margin that makes the two alternatives almost equivalent:

Both alternative oxidation states of phosphorus make chemical sense, depending on the chemical property or reaction we wish to emphasize. In contrast, their average (+4) does not.

Ambiguous oxidation states

Lewis formulae are fine rule-based approximations of chemical reality, as indeed are Allen electronegativities. Still, oxidation states may seem ambiguous when their determination is not straightforward. Rule-based oxidation states feel ambiguous when only experiment can decide. There are also truly dichotomous values to be decided by mere convenience.

Oxidation-state determination from resonance formulas is not straightforward

Seemingly ambiguous oxidation states are obtained on a set of resonance formulas of equal weights for a molecule of heteronuclear bonds where the atom connectivity does not correspond to the number of two-electron bonds dictated by the 8 − N rule. An example is S₂N₂ where four resonance formulas featuring one S=N double bond have oxidation states +2 and +4 on the two sulfur atoms, to be averaged to +3 because the two sulfur atoms are equivalent in this square-shaped molecule.

A physical measurement is needed to decide the oxidation state

• This happens when a non-innocent ligand is present, of hidden or unexpected redox properties that could otherwise be assigned to the central atom. An example is the nickel dithiolate complex, Ni(S
  ₂C
  ₂H
  ₂)²⁻
  ₂.
• When the redox ambiguity of a central atom and ligand yields dichotomous oxidation states of close stability, thermally induced tautomerism may result, as exemplified by manganese catecholate, Mn(C₆H₄O₂)₃. Assignment of such oxidation states in general requires spectroscopic, magnetic or structural data.
• When the bond order has to be ascertained along an isolated tandem of a heteronuclear and a homonuclear bond. An example is S
  ₂O²⁻
  ₃ with two oxidation-state alternatives (note bond orders in blue and formal charges in green):

The S–S distance in thiosulfate is needed to reveal that this bond order is very close to 1, as in the formula on the left.

Truly ambiguous oxidation states occur

• When the electronegativity difference between two bonded atoms is very small (as in H₃PO₃ above). Two almost equivalent pairs of oxidation states, open for a choice, are obtained for these atoms.
• When an electronegative p-block atom forms solely homonuclear bonds, the number of which differs from the number of two-electron bonds suggested by rules. Examples are homonuclear finite chains like N⁻
  ₃ (the central nitrogen connects two atoms while three two-electron bonds are required by 8 − N rule) or I⁻
  ₃ (the central iodine connects two atoms while one two-electron bond fulfills the 8 − N rule). A sensible approach is to distribute the ionic charge over the two outer atoms. Such a placement of charges in a polysulfide S²⁻
  _n (where all inner sulfurs form two bonds, fulfilling the 8 − N rule) follows already from its Lewis structure.
• When the isolated tandem of a heteronuclear and a homonuclear bond leads to a bonding compromise in between two Lewis structures of limiting bond orders. An example here is N₂O:

The typically-used oxidation state of nitrogen in N₂O is +1, which also obtains for both nitrogens by a molecular orbital approach. It is worth noting that the formal charges on the right comply with electronegativities, and this implies an added ionic bonding contribution. Indeed, the estimated N−N and N−O bond orders are 2.76 and 1.9, respectively, approaching the formula of integer bond orders that would include the ionic contribution explicitly as a bond (in green):

Conversely, formal charges against electronegativities in a Lewis structure decrease the bond order of the corresponding bond. An example is carbon monoxide with a bond-order estimate of 2.6.

Fractional oxidation states

Fractional oxidation states are often used to represent the average oxidation state of several atoms of the same element in a structure. For example, the formula of magnetite is Fe
₃O
₄, implying an average oxidation state for iron of +8/3. However, this average value may not be representative if the atoms are not equivalent. In a Fe
₃O
₄ crystal below 120 K (−153 °C), two-thirds of the cations are Fe³⁺ and one-third are Fe²⁺, and the formula may be more specifically represented as FeO·Fe
₂O
₃. 

Likewise, propane, C
₃H
₈, has been described as having a carbon oxidation state of -8/3. Again, this is an average value since the structure of the molecule is H
₃C−CH
₂−CH
₃, with the first and third carbon atoms each having an oxidation state of −3 and the central one −2. 

An example with true fractional oxidation states for equivalent atoms is potassium superoxide, KO
₂. The diatomic superoxide ion O⁻
₂ has an overall charge of −1, so each of its two equivalent oxygen atoms is assigned an oxidation state of -1/2. This ion can be described as a resonance hybrid of two Lewis structures, where each oxygen has oxidation state 0 in one structure and −1 in the other.

For the cyclopentadienyl anion C
₅H⁻
₅, the oxidation state of C is −1 + -1/5 = -6/5. The −1 occurs because each carbon is bonded to one hydrogen atom (a less electronegative element), and the -1/5 because the total ionic charge of −1 is divided among five equivalent carbons. Again this can be described as a resonance hybrid of five equivalent structures, each having four carbons with oxidation state −1 and one with −2.

Examples of fractional oxidation states for carbon

Oxidation state	Example species
−6/5	C 5H− 5
−6/7	C 7H+ 7
+3/2	C 4O2− 4

Elements with multiple oxidation states

Most elements have more than one possible oxidation state. For example, carbon has nine possible integer oxidation states from −4 to +4:

Integer oxidation states of carbon

Oxidation state	Example compound
−4	CH 4
−3	C 2H 6
−2	C 2H 4, CH 3Cl
−1	C 2H 2, C 6H 6, (CH 2OH) 2
0	HCHO, CH 2Cl 2
+1	OCHCHO, CHCl 2CHCl 2
+2	HCOOH, CHCl 3
+3	HOOCCOOH, C 2Cl 6
+4	CCl 4, CO 2

Oxidation state in metals

Many compounds with luster and electrical conductivity maintain a simple stoichiometric formula; such as the golden TiO, blue-black RuO₂ or coppery ReO₃, all of obvious oxidation state. Ultimately, however, the assignment of the free metallic electrons to one of the bonded atoms has its limits and leads to unusual oxidation states. Simple examples are the LiPb and Cu₃Au ordered alloys, the composition and structure of which are largely determined by atomic size and packing factors. Should oxidation state be needed for redox balancing, it is best set to 0 for all atoms of such an alloy.

Early forms (octet rule)

A figure with a similar format was used by Irving Langmuir in 1919 in one of the early papers about the octet rule. The periodicity of the oxidation states was one of the pieces of evidence that led Langmuir to adopt the rule. 

Use in nomenclature

The oxidation state in compound naming is placed either as a right superscript to the element symbol in a chemical formula, such as Fe^III, or in parentheses after the name of the element in chemical names, such as iron(III). For example, Fe
₂(SO
₄)
₃ is named iron(III) sulfate and its formula can be shown as Fe^III
₂(SO
₄)
₃. This is because a sulfate ion has a charge of −2, so each iron atom takes a charge of +3. Note that fractional oxidation numbers should not be used in naming. Red lead, Pb
₃O
₄, is represented as lead(II,IV) oxide, showing the actual two oxidation states of the nonequivalent lead atoms.

History of the oxidation state concept

Early days

Oxidation itself was first studied by Antoine Lavoisier, who defined it as the result of reactions with oxygen (hence the name). The term has since been generalized to imply a formal loss of electrons. Oxidation states, called oxidation grades by Friedrich Wöhler in 1835, were one of the intellectual stepping stones that Dmitri Mendeleev used to derive the periodic table. Jensen gives an overview of the history up to 1938.

Use in nomenclature

When it was realized that some metals form two different binary compounds with the same nonmetal, the two compounds were often distinguished by using the ending -ic for the higher metal oxidation state and the ending -ous for the lower. For example, FeCl₃ is ferric chloride and FeCl₂ is ferrous chloride. This system is not very satisfactory (although sometimes still used) because different metals have different oxidation states which have to be learned: ferric and ferrous are +3 and +2 respectively, but cupric and cuprous are +2 and +1, and stannic and stannous are +4 and +2. Also there was no allowance for metals with more than two oxidation states, such as vanadium with oxidation states +2, +3, +4 and +5.

This system has been largely replaced by one suggested by Alfred Stock in 1919 and adopted^[129] by IUPAC in 1940. Thus, FeCl₂ was written as iron(II) chloride rather than ferrous chloride. The roman numeral II at the central atom came to be called the "Stock number" (now an obsolete term), and its value was obtained as a charge at the central atom after removing its ligands along with the electron pairs they shared with it.

Development towards the current concept

The term "oxidation state" in English chemical literature was popularized by Wendell Mitchell Latimer in his 1938 book about electrochemical potentials. He used it for the value (synonymous with the German term Wertigkeit) previously termed "valence", "polar valence" or "polar number" in English, or "oxidation stage" or indeed the "state of oxidation". Since 1938, the term "oxidation state" has been connected with electrochemical potentials and electrons exchanged in redox couples participating in redox reactions. By 1948, IUPAC used the 1940 nomenclature rules with the term "oxidation state", instead of the original valency. In 1948 Linus Pauling proposed that oxidation number could be determined by extrapolating bonds to being completely ionic in the direction of electronegativity. A full acceptance of this suggestion was complicated by the fact that the Pauling electronegativities as such depend on the oxidation state and that they may lead to unusual values of oxidation states for some transition metals. In 1990 IUPAC resorted to a postulatory (rule-based) method to determine the oxidation state. This was complemented by the synonymous term oxidation number as a descendant of the Stock number introduced in 1940 into the nomenclature. However, the terminology using "ligands" gave the impression that oxidation number might be something specific to coordination complexes. This situation and the lack of a real single definition generated numerous debates about the meaning of oxidation state, suggestions about methods to obtain it and definitions of it. To resolve the issue, an IUPAC project (2008-040-1-200) was started in 2008 on the "Comprehensive Definition of Oxidation State", and was concluded by two reports and by the revised entries "Oxidation State" and "Oxidation Number" in the IUPAC Gold Book. The outcomes were a single definition of oxidation state and two algorithms to calculate it in molecular and extended-solid compounds, guided by Allen electronegativities that are independent of oxidation state.