Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Why are copper(II) salts sometimes more stable than copper(I)?
When you look at the electron configuration of neutral copper, it is 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s1 3d10. Assuming that the two most stable electronic states for an atom or ion mean a full outer shell or a half-full outer shell, neutral copper should be quite stable (1 half full and 1 full). Copper(I) should have the configuration ... 4s0 3d10, a full outer orbital. Copper(II) would have ...4s0 3d9, neither full nor half-full. How come it has quite a high stability, as in, for example, copper(II) sulphate, seeing that copper(I) sulphate does not exist?
4 Answers
- CBLv 71 decade agoFavourite answer
For a variety of reasons (including hydration enthalpy and ionisation energies) Copper(I) is less stable than either copper or copper(II) and hence its compounds (if soluble in water or not stabilised by suitable ligands) tend to disproportionate. i.e. 2Cu(+I) --> Cu(0) + Cu(+II)
- 1 decade ago
Cu+2 copper (II) is more "unstable" as it needs to be in a salt because it requires -2 e- more urgently to fill its d shell. SO4^-2 gives these needed e-'s
Whereas Cu+1copper(I) only needs -1e- as it is more "stable" enough by itself.
Remember Cu+2 is actually missing 2e- and its configuration is 4s0 3d8 and Cu+1 is 4s0 3d9
