The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Chemistry
  4. Why are Group I metals more reactive towards the bottom of the periodic table?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Why are Group I metals more reactive towards the bottom of the periodic table?

  • 5 Replies
  • 22144 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Poetic-Justice (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Binary Revolution
Why are Group I metals more reactive towards the bottom of the periodic table?
« on: 25/05/2008 15:41:06 »
Hello,

Im interested in why as you go down the group I metals, they become more reactive?

Im a bit confused, as my notes from class say that as the metals lose electrons to gain a full outer shell, the further away from the nucleas the electrons are, the more reactive the reaction is. I would have thought that as the electron(s) is further away from the nucleas, the electron can leave easier as the protons are further away. And surely with it being easier to leave, there should be a less reactive reaction?

Anyone have an answer? I would ask my teacher, but we've just started the holidays, and I cant afford not to revise well at the moment.

Thanks anyway,
Poetic-Justice
« Last Edit: 26/05/2008 10:17:21 by chris »
Logged
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
 



Offline StereoChemist

  • First timers
  • *
  • 7
  • Activity:
    0%
Re: Why are Group I metals more reactive towards the bottom of the periodic table?
« Reply #1 on: 25/05/2008 19:19:07 »
The fact that it is easier for the electron to leav makes it more reactive, in the smaller G1 metals the electrons are more tightly held and are not lost as easily this makes them LESS reactive because the reaction involves loss of the electron.

another way to think about is the energies of the electrons, generally higher energy electrons are more reactive beacause things generally react to lower themselves in energy.  and it is easier for a high E electron to get to lower E state than a low E electron to go even lower.  The valence electrons in the large group 1 metals' orbitals are in higher energy orbitals because they are in an orbital with a higher quantum # n.   a good fact to know is that (there are always exceptions in chemistry though) electrons that are closer to a nucleus or on a more electronegative atom are lower in energy.  So on the reacting species that is being oxidized it is always preferable for the leaving electron to be in a high energy (high n) oribtal.
Logged
 

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 8082
  • Activity:
    1.5%
  • Thanked: 514 times
Re: Why are Group I metals more reactive towards the bottom of the periodic table?
« Reply #2 on: 25/05/2008 20:16:21 »
Take note of these heats of formation:

LiF = -616.93 kJ/mol
NaF = -575.38 kJ/mol
KF = -568.61 kJ/mol
RbF = I couldn't find it.
CsF = -554.67 kJ/mol

These are the products generated from reactions of the Alkali Metals with fluorine, which give rise to the corresponding fluoride salts in the solid state. The negative sign means that the reaction that creates these salts releases energy. Notice that the energy given off by the reactions actually goes down as you go down the Alkali Metal column.

I think the reason why, say, cesium reacts more readily with something like water than lithium does despite this decrease in reaction energy is because of its lower melting point. As heat is generated by the reaction, it melts the cesium faster than it does for lithium. Once it's in a liquid state, the metal has an increased surface area to which the water can react.

The metals do get ionized more easily as you go down the column, though, as pointed out above.
Logged
 

Offline Poetic-Justice (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Binary Revolution
Re: Why are Group I metals more reactive towards the bottom of the periodic table?
« Reply #3 on: 26/05/2008 09:42:18 »
Thank you ever so much, especially StereoChemist. Thank you again!
Logged
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Why are Group I metals more reactive towards the bottom of the periodic table?
« Reply #4 on: 30/05/2008 00:17:01 »
A simpler, 'school level' explanation is that, as you go down the periodic table, there are more inner shells which can be looked upon as screening the single outer electron from the attraction of the single net positive charge inside their orbit. The effect is more marked for Group 1 elements.
Logged
 



Offline Poetic-Justice (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Binary Revolution
Why are Group I metals more reactive towards the bottom of the periodic table?
« Reply #5 on: 30/05/2008 09:34:05 »
Ah, ok. Thanks!
Logged
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.538 seconds with 40 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.