MedVision ad

Ozone and oxygen molecule reactivity (1 Viewer)

RachelGreen

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2015
Messages
84
Gender
Male
HSC
2017
I read that O2 is more stable than O3, since to decompose oxygen its double bond has to be broken and that requires a lot of energy in comparison to the less energy taken to decompose the single (coordinate covalent bond) in the ozone. Therefore, O3 is less than O2.
But, what I don't understand is, shouldn't it take more energy to decompose the O3 molecule? Shouldn't O3 be more stable than O2, since it has a single coordinate covalent bond as well as a double bond in its structure?

Can anyone explain to me why O3 is less stable than O2? Or is it something the HSC syllabus dumbs it down for us
 

Ambility

Active Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
336
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
The decomposition of ozone usually refers to the formation of diatomic oxygen. This mean ozone's double bond is not broken, only the coordinate covalent bond.
 

BlueGas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
2,448
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
You have pretty much answered the question in the first half of your answer. When the coordinate covalent bond is broken down in ozone, it's not ozone anymore, hence it's less stable as you said, because it's easier to break the coordinate covalent bond in ozone than the double bond in oxygen.
 

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
I read that O2 is more stable than O3, since to decompose oxygen its double bond has to be broken and that requires a lot of energy in comparison to the less energy taken to decompose the single (coordinate covalent bond) in the ozone. Therefore, O3 is less than O2.
But, what I don't understand is, shouldn't it take more energy to decompose the O3 molecule? Shouldn't O3 be more stable than O2, since it has a single coordinate covalent bond as well as a double bond in its structure?

Can anyone explain to me why O3 is less stable than O2? Or is it something the HSC syllabus dumbs it down for us
The coordinate covalent bond is MUCH MORE UNSTABLE than an ordinary double bond.

And in reality, that's not exactly the case. You actually have a resonance forming - the coordinate bond and the ordinary covalent bond interchange.
 

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
What's a resonance formation?
Like I said, the coordinate bond and the ordinary covalent bond interchange.

It's kinda like one minute oxygen #2 and #3 feature a coordinate bond from 2 to 3, then next minute its #1 to #2, and etc.
 

someth1ng

Retired Nov '14
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
5,558
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2021
Like I said, the coordinate bond and the ordinary covalent bond interchange.

It's kinda like one minute oxygen #2 and #3 feature a coordinate bond from 2 to 3, then next minute its #1 to #2, and etc.
What you said is also technically wrong.

If you measure it, both bonds are absolutely identical. Resonance is NOT a swapping effect (that would be an equilibrium). The strength of both bonds will be the average of what a double bond and a single bond would be (approximately 1.5 bonds).
 

Fizzy_Cyst

Owner @ Sigma Science + Phys Goat
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
1,212
Location
Parramatta, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
Uni Grad
2005
What you said is also technically wrong.

If you measure it, both bonds are absolutely identical. Resonance is NOT a swapping effect (that would be an equilibrium). The strength of both bonds will be the average of what a double bond and a single bond would be (approximately 1.5 bonds).
Yep, this is a massive misconception.

Resonance is such a strange term to call this phenomenon, when nothing is actually resonating, lol.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top