Why Mulliken scale of electronegativity is more rational than the other scale?
I am an encouraging, dedicated and patient tutor
Both Mulliken and Pauling Electronegativity is a proportion of the electron fascination intensity of an iota in a particle. As per the Pauling definition, it was depicted as a thermodynamic property, which identifies with the bond vitality of the atom. The distinction in the bond vitality of any atom, A-B from the normal of An and B-B bond energies is a proportion of the electronegativity contrast among An and B. At the end of the day, if χA and χB, are the electronegativity of particle An and B, at that point, Another scale, which is introduced by Mulliken, is based on the properties of atoms. An atom with high ionization energy and high electron affinity is less likely to lose an electron, while it is bonded to another atom, whereas it is more likely that it will gain electrons and hence may be called highly electronegative. Thus Mulliken expressed EN as the average of ionization energy (IE) and electron affinity (EA); in the actual calculation, the valence state IE and EA (IEv and EAv) are used instead of the normal IE and EA, to account for the effect of other atoms bonded to the atom under consideration (The calculation of IEv and EAv is slightly complicated and hence will not be discussed here). Thus, the Mulliken EN can be expressed as: A conversion of the Mulliken EN to the units of the Pauling EN is: It should be noted that XP in the above equation is not Pauling electronegativity. It is Mulliken electronegativity Xm converted to Pauling units.
Find me a tutor
We take your privacy seriously. View our policy.