According to my book, "Electrons of s and p orbitals produce more shielding than electrons of d and f orbitals. As a result, atoms of s and p-block elements experience lower effective nuclear charge. Consequently, their atomic sizes are greater than those of atoms of d and f-block elements".

My book's claim makes no sense to me. It's true that the electrons of s and p orbitals produce more shielding than electrons of d and f orbitals due to penetration, but why would that make atomic sizes of s & p block elements greater than d and f-block elements?

Let me take s-block as an example. In period 4, $\ce{K}(220 \pu{pm})$ is an s-block element and $\ce{Sc}(160\pu {pm})$ is a d-block element. It's true that the atomic size of K is greater than Sc; however, I don't think it's because s-orbitals have a stronger shielding effect than d-orbitals. If anything, we could ironically argue that Sc should have a greater atomic radius than K as s-orbitals have a stronger shielding effect than d-orbitals because the 4s-orbital is inner in Sc. In contrast, the 4s-orbital is situated outermost in K. So, why is my book making the claim that an outermost orbital's shielding power will determine the size of the atom? Outermost orbitals have no contribution to shielding!

Related

Edit:

It turns out that the 4s orbital is not actually inner in Sc. However, my point still stands. Why is my book making claims about shielding based on the outermost orbital (which has no contribution to shielding!)

It's a relatively unknown Bangladeshi book. It's called "Chemistry-First Paper (Class XI-XII)" by Professor Haradhan Nag

According to my book, "Electrons of s and p orbitals produce more shielding than electrons of d and f orbitals. As a result, atoms of s and p-block elements experience lower effective nuclear charge. Consequently, their atomic sizes are greater than those of atoms of d and f-block elements".

My book's claim makes no sense to me. It's true that the electrons of s and p orbitals produce more shielding than electrons of d and f orbitals due to penetration, but why would that make atomic sizes of s & p block elements greater than d and f-block elements?

Let me take s-block as an example. In period 4, $\ce{K}(220 \pu{pm})$ is an s-block element and $\ce{Sc}(160\pu {pm})$ is a d-block element. It's true that the atomic size of K is greater than Sc; however, I don't think it's because s-orbitals have a stronger shielding effect than d-orbitals. If anything, we could ironically argue that Sc should have a greater atomic radius than K as s-orbitals have a stronger shielding effect than d-orbitals because the 4s-orbital is inner in Sc. In contrast, the 4s-orbital is situated outermost in K. So, why is my book making the claim that an outermost orbital's shielding power will determine the size of the atom? Outermost orbitals have no contribution to shielding!

Related

Edit:

It turns out that the 4s orbital is not actually inner in Sc. However, my point still stands. Why is my book making claims about shielding based on the outermost orbital (which has no contribution to shielding!)

According to my book, "Electrons of s and p orbitals produce more shielding than electrons of d and f orbitals. As a result, atoms of s and p-block elements experience lower effective nuclear charge. Consequently, their atomic sizes are greater than those of atoms of d and f-block elements".

My book's claim makes no sense to me. It's true that the electrons of s and p orbitals produce more shielding than electrons of d and f orbitals due to penetration, but why would that make atomic sizes of s & p block elements greater than d and f-block elements?

Let me take s-block as an example. In period 4, $\ce{K}(220 \pu{pm})$ is an s-block element and $\ce{Sc}(160\pu {pm})$ is a d-block element. It's true that the atomic size of K is greater than Sc; however, I don't think it's because s-orbitals have a stronger shielding effect than d-orbitals. If anything, we could ironically argue that Sc should have a greater atomic radius than K as s-orbitals have a stronger shielding effect than d-orbitals because the 4s-orbital is inner in Sc. In contrast, the 4s-orbital is situated outermost in K. So, why is my book making the claim that an outermost orbital's shielding power will determine the size of the atom? Outermost orbitals have no contribution to shielding!

Related

Edit:

It turns out that the 4s orbital is not actually inner in Sc. However, my point still stands. Why is my book making claims about shielding based on the outermost orbital (which has no contribution to shielding!)

According to my book, "Electrons of s and p orbitals produce more shielding than electrons of d and f orbitals. As a result, atoms of s and p-block elements experience lower effective nuclear charge. Consequently, their atomic sizes are greater than those of atoms of d and f-block elements".

My book's claim makes no sense to me. It's true that the electrons of s and p orbitals produce more shielding than electrons of d and f orbitals due to penetration, but why would that make atomic sizes of s & p block elements greater than d and f-block elements?

Let me take s-block as an example. In period 4, $\ce{K}(220 \pu{pm})$ is an s-block element and $\ce{Sc}(160\pu {pm})$ is a d-block element. It's true that the atomic size of K is greater than Sc; however, I don't think it's because s-orbitals have a stronger shielding effect than d-orbitals. If anything, we could ironically argue that Sc should have a greater atomic radius than K as s-orbitals have a stronger shielding effect than d-orbitals because the 4s-orbital is inner in Sc. In contrast, the 4s-orbital is situated outermost in K. So, why is my book making the claim that an outermost orbital's shielding power will determine the size of the atom? Outermost orbitals have no contribution to shielding!

Related

Edit:

It turns out that the 4s orbital is not actually inner in Sc. However, my point still stands. Why is my book making claims about shielding based on the outermost orbital (which has no contribution to shielding!)

According to my book, "Electrons of s and p orbitals produce more shielding than electrons of d and f orbitals. As a result, atoms of s and p-block elements experience lower effective nuclear charge. Consequently, their atomic sizes are greater than those of atoms of d and f-block elements".

My book's claim makes no sense to me. It's true that the electrons of s and p orbitals produce more shielding than electrons of d and f orbitals due to penetration, but why would that make atomic sizes of s & p block elements greater than d and f-block elements?

Let me take s-block as an example. In period 4, $\ce{K}(220 \pu{pm})$ is an s-block element and $\ce{Sc}(160\pu {pm})$ is a d-block element. It's true that the atomic size of K is greater than Sc; however, I don't think it's because s-orbitals have a stronger shielding effect than d-orbitals. If anything, we could ironically argue that Sc should have a greater atomic radius than K as s-orbitals have a stronger shielding effect than d-orbitals because the 4s-orbital is inner in Sc. In contrast, the 4s-orbital is situated outermost in K. So, why is my book making the claim that an outermost orbital's shielding power will determine the size of the atom? Outermost orbitals have no contribution to shielding!

Related

According to my book, "Electrons of s and p orbitals produce more shielding than electrons of d and f orbitals. As a result, atoms of s and p-block elements experience lower effective nuclear charge. Consequently, their atomic sizes are greater than those of atoms of d and f-block elements".

My book's claim makes no sense to me. It's true that the electrons of s and p orbitals produce more shielding than electrons of d and f orbitals due to penetration, but why would that make atomic sizes of s & p block elements greater than d and f-block elements?

Let me take s-block as an example. In period 4, $\ce{K}(220 \pu{pm})$ is an s-block element and $\ce{Sc}(160\pu {pm})$ is a d-block element. It's true that the atomic size of K is greater than Sc; however, I don't think it's because s-orbitals have a stronger shielding effect than d-orbitals. If anything, we could ironically argue that Sc should have a greater atomic radius than K as s-orbitals have a stronger shielding effect than d-orbitals because the 4s-orbital is inner in Sc. In contrast, the 4s-orbital is situated outermost in K. So, why is my book making the claim that an outermost orbital's shielding power will determine the size of the atom? Outermost orbitals have no contribution to shielding!

Related

Edit:

It turns out that the 4s orbital is not actually inner in Sc. However, my point still stands. Why is my book making claims about shielding based on the outermost orbital (which has no contribution to shielding!)