Lably
Skip to content

Group 3 element

Group of chemical elements

  • 18 min read
  • 6 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Transition metal, Periodic table and Oxidation state

The chemistry of the group 3 elements is typical for early transition metals: they all essentially have only the group oxidation state of +3 as a major one, and like the preceding main-group metals are quite electropositive and have a less rich coordination chemistry. Due to the effects of the lanthanide contraction, yttrium and lutetium are very similar in properties. Yttrium and lutetium have essentially the chemistry of the heavy lanthanides, but scandium shows several differences due to its small size. This is a similar pattern to those of the early transition metal groups, where the lightest element is distinct from the very similar next two.

All the group 3 elements are rather soft, silvery-white metals, although their hardness increases with atomic number. They quickly tarnish in air and react with water, though their reactivity is masked by the formation of an oxide layer. The first three of them occur naturally, and especially yttrium and lutetium are almost invariably associated with the lanthanides due to their similar chemistry. Lawrencium is strongly radioactive: it does not occur naturally and must be produced by artificial synthesis, but its observed and theoretically predicted properties are consistent with it being a heavier homologue of lutetium. None of the group 3 elements have any biological role.Historically, sometimes lanthanum (La) and actinium (Ac) were included in the group instead of lutetium and lawrencium, because the electron configurations of many of the rare earths were initially measured wrongly. This version of group 3 is still commonly found in textbooks, but most authors focusing on the subject are against it. Many authors attempt to compromise between the two formats by leaving the spaces below yttrium blank, but this contradicts quantum mechanics as it results in an f-block that is 15 elements wide rather than 14 (the maximum occupancy of an f-subshell).

Composition

Physical, chemical, and electronic evidence overwhelmingly shows that the correct elements in group 3 are scandium, yttrium, lutetium, and lawrencium: this is the classification adopted by most chemists and physicists who have considered the matter. This was noted at a presentation at the 33rd IUPAC General Assembly in 1985, supported by IUPAC in a 1988 report, and while in 2021 IUPAC instead considered it a matter of "convention" instead of science, it was still suggested that the form with lutetium in group 3 be used as a compromise. This classification dates back to Henry Bassett in 1892 and Alfred Werner in 1905 (though they left an empty space below yttrium as lutetium had not yet been discovered).

Many textbooks however show group 3 as containing scandium, yttrium, lanthanum, and actinium, a format based on historically wrongly measured electron configurations: Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifshitz already considered it to be "incorrect" in 1948, on the grounds that the 4f shell has already been completed by Lu and hence it must be a transition element. They did not yet take the step of removing lanthanum from the d-block as well, but Jun Kondō realized in 1963 that lanthanum's low-temperature superconductivity implied the activity of its 4f shell; and in 1965, David C. Hamilton linked this observation to its position in the periodic table, and argued that the f-block should be composed of the elements La–Yb and Ac–No. The issue was brought to a wide debate only in 1982 by William B. Jensen. In his 1982 article, Jensen quoted many cases where Sc, Y, and Lu behave the same way, but La behaves differently: the metallic crystal structure at room temperature; the structure of the oxides; the structure of the chlorides; a d-block-like structure for the conduction band; and the presence or absence of superconductivity. (It has nonetheless been argued that structures of Sc, Y, La, and Lu complexes depend on the sizes of the metal ions and are not an argument to choose between La or Lu in group 3.) This accords with the classic early 20th century separation of the rare earths by repeated precipitation or crystallization, in which the first separation achieved was into two groups: the cerium group and the yttrium group. The reason for this division arose from the difference in solubility of rare-earth double sulfates with sodium and potassium. The sodium double sulfates of the cerium group are poorly soluble, while those of the yttrium group are very soluble. Sc, Y, and Lu appear in the yttrium group, while La and Ac appear in the cerium group. This is also true for the occurrence of Sc, Y, Lu (yttrium group) and La (cerium group) in minerals. Jensen did not significantly consider Ac and Lr in his 1982 article, as little was known about Lr then; in 2015, he published an update to his article, noting that what had since come to light about Lr chemistry was entirely consistent with it being a d-block element. Meanwhile, Lu with its complete 4f shell and preferences for lower coordination numbers matches the succeeding 5d elements, and the trends going down Sc-Y-Lu better parallel trends elsewhere in the d-block (e.g. Ti-Zr-Hf, V-Nb-Ta) than the trends going down Sc-Y-La.

The spaces below yttrium are often left blank as a third option, but there is confusion in the literature on whether this format implies that group 3 contains only scandium and yttrium, or if it also contains all the lanthanides and actinides; either way, this format contradicts quantum physics by creating a 15-element-wide f-block when only 14 electrons can fit in an f-subshell. While the 2021 IUPAC report noted that 15-element-wide f-blocks are supported by some practitioners of a specialised branch of relativistic quantum mechanics focusing on the properties of superheavy elements, the project's opinion was that such interest-dependent concerns should not have any bearing on how the periodic table is presented to "the general chemical and scientific community". In fact, relativistic quantum-mechanical calculations of Lu and Lr compounds found no valence f-orbitals in either element. Other authors focusing on superheavy elements since clarified that the "15th entry of the f-block represents the first slot of the d-block which is left vacant to indicate the place of the f-block inserts", which would imply that this form still has Lu and Lr (the 15th entries in question) as d-block elements under Sc and Y. Indeed, when IUPAC publications expand the table to 32 columns, they make this clear and place Lu and Lr under Y.

As noted by the 2021 IUPAC report, Sc-Y-Lu-Lr is the only form that simultaneously allows for the preservation of the sequence of atomic number, avoids splitting the d-block into "two highly uneven portions", and gives the blocks the correct widths quantum mechanics demands (2, 6, 10, and 14). While arguments in favour of Sc-Y-La-Ac can still be found in the literature, many authors consider them to be logically inconsistent. For example, it has been argued that lanthanum and actinium cannot be f-block elements because their atoms have not begun to fill the f-subshells. But the same is true of thorium which is never disputed as an f-block element, proving that this criterion has nothing to do with block assignment as generally understood, and this argument overlooks the problem on the other end: that the f-shells complete filling at ytterbium and nobelium (matching the Sc-Y-Lu-Lr form), not at lutetium and lawrencium (as in Sc-Y-La-Ac). Lanthanum, actinium, and thorium are simply examples of exceptions to the Madelung rule; not only do those exceptions represent a minority of elements (only 20 out of 118), but they have also never been considered as relevant for positioning any other elements on the periodic table. In gaseous atoms, the d-shells complete their filling at copper (3d104s1), palladium (4d105s0), and gold (5d106s1), but it is universally accepted by chemists that these configurations are exceptional and that the d-block really ends in accordance with the Madelung rule at zinc (3d104s2), cadmium (4d105s2), and mercury (5d106s2). The relevant fact for placement is that lanthanum and actinium (like thorium) have valence f-orbitals that can become occupied in chemical environments, whereas lutetium and lawrencium do not: their f-shells are in the core, and cannot be used for chemical reactions. Thus the relationship between yttrium and lanthanum is only a secondary relationship between elements with the same number of valence electrons but different kinds of valence orbitals, such as that between chromium and uranium; whereas the relationship between yttrium and lutetium is primary, sharing both valence electron count and valence orbital type. Likewise it is also problematic to argue that the f-block should follow the number of electrons in trivalent lanthanide cations, from Ce3+ [Xe]4f1 to Lu3+ [Xe]4f14, as this would imply that La3+ [Xe] with its noble gas configuration could not be assigned to either the f-block or the d-block.

Sign in to keep reading

5 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Chemistry