According to IUPAC gold book-
Does this meam that 2 species with diffrent electron number, but same valence electrons, be considered isoelectronic
Say a molecule XY and ZY where X and Z belong to the same group
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
-
1$\begingroup$ Does IUPAC say/assume all electrons are valence electrons? $\endgroup$– PoutnikCommented Sep 6, 2023 at 12:08
-
$\begingroup$ I don't think so, "valence electrons" leads me to oxidation state and valence leads me to "the maximum number of univalent atoms that can combine with the element" $\endgroup$– ThatApollo777Commented Sep 6, 2023 at 12:45
-
$\begingroup$ (Consider the above as a rhetorical question.) $\endgroup$– PoutnikCommented Sep 6, 2023 at 12:51
-
$\begingroup$ That depends, often only valence electrons are considered, so the concept is of more use. $\endgroup$– MithoronCommented Sep 6, 2023 at 14:46
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
The wikipedia page for isoelectronicity shows an example image of Serine, Cysteine, and Selenocysteine.
These three molecules can all be described by chemical formula "HOOC−CH(−NH2)−CH2−XH" where X represents Oxygen, Sulfur, or Selenium.
-
$\begingroup$ Thanks!, I was also 🤔 does this mean that one can describe the atoms O, S and Se as isoelectronic? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 7, 2023 at 1:22
-
$\begingroup$ @ThatApollo777 The isoelectronic concept is about comparing the overall structure of one molecule to another; for some big complex molecules it may make sense to consider some substructures as being isoelectronic substructures... but it seems like a stretch to make this kind of comparison all the way down to single-atom 'substructures'. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 7, 2023 at 18:08
-
$\begingroup$ @ThatApollo777 Furthermore, even if that particular O in Serine is analogous to the Se in Selenocysteine it is probably bad practice to say things like "O is isoelectronic to Se" because that's erasing the entire context of where the comparison applies and makes it potentially sound like it happens for ANY/ALL contexts (which will not always be the case). $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 7, 2023 at 18:08