Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2024 January 18

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 18

Lanthanum and Actinium

These 2 elements are d-block or f-block? Simple google search says f-block, but other sources, I have, say d-block. Both present their claim with confidence. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This issue is discussed at Periodic table#Group 3 and Group 3 element. La and Ac were thought to be d-block back when electron configurations were first being measured: in 1927, Friedrich Hund thought that the usual trivalency of rare earths meant the configurations of La through Lu were 4f^0–145d¹6s², so that La would be d-block, Ce-Lu would be f-block, and then Hf-Hg would continue the d-block. Since then it became known that this doesn't happen (in fact, almost all 4f elements lack a 5d electron as gaseous atoms), and that the relationship between electron configuration and chemistry is not so simple: transition elements are better thought of as having different configurations depending on their environment. Since at least 1965 (doi:10.1119/1.1972042) it has been suggested that La is really an f-element, as it has chemically accessible f-orbitals that are implicated in bonding, and later authors who focused on this issue have tended to agree. More generally, the elements that can use f-orbitals for bonding are La-Yb and Ac-No, so those are the most natural choice for the f-elements, and Lu and Lr are best treated as the first members of the subsequent d-series. With that said, many textbooks still persist in the old version with La as a d-element – probably as a result of a long string of copying back to Sargent–Welch.

(The same issue of course applies to actinium, but it was naturally studied less due to its radioactivity. That it is an f-element was confirmed by calculations last year: doi:10.1002/jcc.26929.)

P.S. I collected a lot of links to papers about this at User:Double sharp/Group 3 sources. Double sharp (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: forgot to ping you. Double sharp (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)