Valencies of the lanthanides

In this valency, the lanthanides live up to their reputation of being very similar. Their most commonly observed reactions are complexing or precipitation processes in which the valency retains its value of three. In reactions of this kind, differences between elements are small. Such differences as there are are mainly associated with a gradual reduction in size across the series (“the lanthanide contraction”). This is illustrated in Fig. 1 for [Ln(H₂O)₉](C₂H₅OSO₃)₃ salts, all of which have the same structure (Gerkin and Reppart 1984; Persson et al. 2008). For some species, the reduction in size leads to a lowering of coordination number across the series. This is the case for Ln³⁺(aq) ions, in which there is an increasing shift from nine- to eight-coordination beyond dysprosium (D’Angelo et al. 2010).

Open image in new window

For the reactions we have just described, in which the valency of three is retained, there are other factors that can lead to small differences in chemistry. As in the transition series, these are ligand-field splitting, shell expansion (“the nephelauxetic effect”), and spin-orbit coupling. The net effect of these, however, is very much smaller than in the transition series (Johnson 2006). The most important is the second, whose prominence sometimes gives rise to the small irregularities in complexing constants illustrated in Fig. 2 (Peppard et al. 1969; Nugent 1970). There are four humps separated by three minima, first at the f³/f⁴ pair, secondly at f⁷ and thirdly at the f¹⁰/f¹¹ pair. This is called the “tetrad effect”.

Open image in new window

The first term in Eq. (3) is approximately equal to the Coulomb energy between the electrons (J), and the second term to the exchange energy between electrons of the same spin (K).⁴ This arises because electrons can keep apart better if their spins are parallel rather than antiparallel. The third term is associated with the ability of electrons to keep apart better if they are travelling round a nucleus in the same direction rather than in opposite directions. This lowers the repulsion between electrons whose m _l values have the same sign compared with those whose m _l values have the opposite sign.⁵

Table 2 also shows that δq and c ₃ bottom out at f³ and f⁴ and at f¹⁰ and f¹¹. Since the terms in q and c ₃ in Eq. (4) have opposite signs, the effect of this bottoming out will depend on the relative values of ΔE _q and ΔE ³. Although ΔE ³/ΔE _q is less than one, if it is sufficiently large, the variation in c ₃ will predominate because of the large negative values at f³, f⁴, f¹⁰, and f¹¹. In this case, when there is shell expansion (ΔE ³ < 0), the values of ln K _eq will bottom out in the same way. This accords with Fig. 2, which can be reproduced with ΔE _q = −36 cm⁻¹ and ΔE ³ = −7 cm⁻¹, coupled with a linear increase. A more precise analysis takes account of changes in spin-orbit coupling and ligand-field stabilization.

A secondary effect, which is not brought out by Eq. (3), is the higher repulsion exercised between electrons in the same orbital as compared with different orbitals (Blake 1981). We discuss this elsewhere (see footnote 4).

The valencies other than three are two, four, and, for praseodymium, five. Some of these can be obtained in aqueous solution. Others are obtained by reactions like

$$ \begin{aligned} 2{\text{LnCl}}_{3} + {\text{Ln}} \to 3{\text{LnCl}}_{2} \hfill \\ 3{\text{CsCl}} + {\text{LnCl}}_{3} \mathop{\longrightarrow}^{{{\text{F}}_{2} }}{\text{Cs}}_{3} {\text{LnF}}_{7} \hfill \\ \end{aligned} $$

What is striking about these valencies is their distribution. As shown in Table 3, most correspond to ions whose f-electron configuration approaches or constitutes an empty (f⁰), half-full (f⁷), or full shell (f¹⁴). The nearer the configuration approaches one of these types, the more stable the valency. For example, Nd⁴⁺ (f²) can only form Cs₃NdF₇, whereas Ce⁴⁺ (f⁰) has an extensive chemistry. The remaining valencies (in blue in Table 3) correspond to a configuration approaching a three-quarter-full shell (f^10.5), i.e. f¹⁰ for valency two and f¹¹ for valency four.

Table 3

Configurations of ions corresponding to the valencies in Table 1

Open image in new window

^aHigh-lighted: f⁰, f⁷, and f¹⁴ ions. Red Ln²⁺, Ln⁴⁺, and Ln⁵⁺ ions with or approaching the configuration f⁰, f⁷, or f¹⁴. Blue see text

The enthalpy of this can be analysed in terms of the following cycle (all standard molar enthalpy changes at 298.15 K):

Open image in new window

Figure 3 shows the variation in the hydration enthalpy, h ₃, with the number of f electrons.⁷ There is a detectable discontinuity between f⁰ and f¹ (Johnson and Nelson 2017a, b) arising from the break between two subshells, 5p (4f⁰ being 5p⁶) and 4f. Nevertheless, despite this aberration, and the change in coordination number across the series, the variation is fairly smooth; the h ₄ variation is expected to behave likewise. The ionization enthalpy i ₄, however, varies irregularly, as shown in Fig. 4.⁸ There is a general increase from f¹ to f⁷, followed by a big drop to f⁸, and then a general increase again. This explains why oxidation becomes increasingly difficult across the first half of the series, becomes easier at the half-full shell, and then becomes increasingly difficult again.

Open image in new window

Open image in new window

A similar analysis can be made of the corresponding reduction:

Open image in new window

Apart from the sub-shell break between f⁰ and f¹, the variations in ΔH are mainly determined by those in −i ₃, plotted in Fig. 5. In shape, this plot is the inverse of Fig. 4. There is a general decrease from f¹ to f⁷, followed by a big rise to f⁸, and then a general decrease again. This explains why reduction becomes easier towards the half-full shell, then becomes more difficult, then becomes easier again. There is also a definite irregularity around the three-quarter-full shell, making the f¹⁰ ion Dy²⁺ more stable than it would otherwise be. There is a similar irregularity around the quarter-full shell, but this is smaller. The plot suggests that Pm²⁺ (f⁵) should be at least as stable as Nd²⁺ (f⁴). Analysis of the reduction of solid trivalent compounds, including by the metals, leads to similar conclusions (Johnson 1982b: Sect. 6.8). The heightened stability of Dy²⁺ explains why, in agreement with Table 1, it has been possible to prepare solid dihalides of dysprosium, but not those of erbium.

Open image in new window

The marked irregularity around the three-quarter shell is also apparent in Fig. 4. It suggests that compounds of tetravalent thulium, such as Cs₃TmF₇, might be unexpectedly stable. Some workers claim to have prepared impure samples of this compound (Spitsin et al. 1982), but others have reported little or no oxidation [unpublished observations by the authors (1972), L. B. Asprey (1975) and R. Hoppe (1985)] and further confirmation is needed. This explains the question marks in Tables 1 and 3.

The reason for the big break in i ₃ and i ₄ is well known from the transition series. Repulsion energies between electrons are reduced by the exchange energy between electrons with the same spin. The latter builds up until a shell is half-full, then drops to zero as an electron is added with opposite spin. It then builds up again as more electrons are added with this spin.

As with the tetrad effect, the irregularities in Δ_i c ₃ centred on the quarter- and the three-quarter-full shell are associated with the ability of electrons to keep apart better if their m _l values have the same sign rather than opposite. This eases the general increase in interelectronic repulsion in the first quarter of the series, where electrons have m _l values of the same sign, relative to the second quarter, where they have both positive and negative values (Table 4); similarly in the third quarter over the fourth quarter.

Note that the pattern of variations exhibited by i ₃ and i ₄ holds for other processes involving the removal of an electron from an f shell (see below). Note also, with respect to the formation of 5-valent compounds by praseodymium, that this has the lowest fifth ionization energy of the lanthanides (Kramida et al. 2016).

The scope of Fig. 6 can be enlarged beyond salt-like/metallic distributions by using a classification that focuses on the 4f ⁿ configuration rather than on valency (Johnson 1977). Compounds or ions in which the lanthanide has the same 4f configuration as does the dipositive ion in an [Xe]4f ⁿ state are described as bi-f; those with the same 4f ⁿ configuration as the tripositive ion are called tri-f. Figure 6 then describes the distribution of systems between di-f and tri-f states. This allows us to include the free, gaseous dipositive ions which have either [Xe]4f ⁿ or [Xe]4f ⁿ⁻¹5d ground states, and the metals which may be (M²⁺2e⁻) or (M³⁺3e⁻). The bonding contribution of the outer 5d electron in the tri-f systems varies between zero in the gaseous ions to substantial in metallic compounds such as CeS where it populates a conduction band. Intermediate situations such as the dipositive ions in aqueous solution or fluoride host lattices also appear in Fig. 6. In the next section we encounter a case in which the d electron in tri-f compounds participates in π-bonding with ligands. This too has been included in Fig. 6.

The lanthanides form a number of organometallic compounds (see, e.g. Cotton and Wilkinson 1988: 968–973). These are generally trivalent, e.g. the cyclopentadienyl compounds Ln(η-C₅H₅)₃. Compounds with other valencies are formed by elements for which these valencies are most stable, e.g. Ce(η-C₅Η₅)₄, Sm(η-C₅Η₅)₂, Eu(η-C₅H₅)₂, and Yb(η-C₅H₅)₂.

Of interest are the ions [Ln(η-C₅H₄R)₃]⁻ [R = Si(CH₃)₃] (Hitchcock et al. 2008; Fieser et al. 2015; Evans 2016). These exhibit two valencies. Most have the same structure and size as Ln(η-C₅H₄R)₃, but those for samarium, europium, thulium and ytterbium are significantly larger. These are elements forming bivalent compounds (Table 1). Fieser et al. (2015) and Evans (2016) suggest that the lanthanide atoms in the latter ions are bivalent and have the configuration f ⁿ (M³⁺ = f ⁿ⁻¹) while those in the former have the configuration f ⁿ⁻¹d¹ and are trivalent, the d electron being involved in the bonding. This pattern of valencies can be explained in a similar way to the pattern in metallic compounds; we have accordingly included these ions in Fig. 6.

Also of interest are the arene complexes [Ln(η-C₆H₃Bu ₃ ^t )₂]. Anderson et al. (1989) account for the relative stabilities and magnetic moments of these by proposing an f ⁿ⁻¹d¹s² valence state for the lanthanide atoms. Promotion energies from f ⁿ s² into this state vary in a similar way to i ₃ and i ₄ (above).