Evaluation of Electronegativity Scales

Abstract

Scales of electronegativity values are used by chemists to describe numerous chemical features such as chemical mechanisms, bond polarity, band gap, atomic hardness, etc. While the many scales provide similar trends, all differ in their predictive quality. Confirmation of the quality of a new scale often uses a previous scale for comparison but does not use independent means to demonstrate the merits of the scale. Utilizing a table of binary compounds of known ionic, covalent, and metallic bonding characters, a means to evaluate electronegativity scales is developed here. By plotting the electronegativity values of the two bonded atoms in binary compounds of a known bonding character, a tripartite separation results that generally divides the three bond types. Using the results of graphs of this sort, the success of bonding separations of 14 different scales of electronegativity has been evaluated on the basis of three quantitative parameters that can provide a measure of the quality of the scales. Three scales, those of Allen, Martynov and Batsanov, and Nagle, have been shown to be superior in their ability to predict the expected separation of bond types. Since this scheme successfully demonstrates the ability to evaluate the quality of electronegativity scales, it can be applied to other scales to establish their effectiveness in predicting bond types in binary compounds and thus the quality of the scales. This scheme is applied to a recently published electronegativity scale to evaluate the ability to determine its quality.

Effect of Sm-doping on microstructure and thermoelectric properties of textured n-type Bi2Te2.7Se0.3 compound due to change in ionic bonding fraction

“…Since X Sm -X Bi > X Te -X Bi , I.F. should be gradually increasing with increasing Sm content [38]. To roughly estimate changing in I.F., which is due to the Sm-doping, expression (2) can be applied.…”

Averaged Scale in Electronegativity Joined to Physicochemical Perturbations. Consequences of Periodicity

“…The first digit between parenthesis in part (a) of these figures is the number of compounds outside the limits of the type of bond, the second, the outside repetitive elements, the third, the half of the elements in the interphase of the metalloid element, and the fourth, the half of the repetitive elements in the interphase. We have not analyzed the exactitude of the electronegativity scales as explained by Sproul 36 because we consider that each electronegativity scale indicates the measure of its physicochemical property in the type of bond. For example, the PE° electronegativity scale has compounds such as HgNa and LiHg, which are metallic, in Sproul’s and Meek’s sample, respectively, so deep in the ionic region as seen in Figures S8E(a)/F(a) , because these compounds have a more ionic character in the PE° scale.…”

Solid-state electronegativity of atoms: new approaches

“…In the present work five systems of ENs for atoms in the solid state were calculated by different methods based entirely on experimental characteristics of solids and without resort to the properties of isolated molecules in the gas phase (molecular ENs were used only for the purposes of conversion of our results to Pauling's scale of EN). The results for metals are listed in Table 16, alongside the 'molecular' system of Martynov & Batsanov (1980), credited as one of the more efficient in predicting bond types (Sproul, 2020). This system being 40 years old, we checked it against most recent experimental data, but found negligible differences.…”

“…(Here, Q of an exothermic reaction was regarded as positive; in present-day notation, Q = ÀÁH f .) Since then, dozens of different systems, scales and formulae of ENs have been proposed, based on various physical properties of atoms and molecules; see historical surveys by Batsanov & Batsanov (2012), Sproul (2020), Campero & Ponce (2020).…”