$\ce{Sr^2+}$ is exactly the same as $\ce{Kr}$, in terms of electrons and orbitals. The only difference between the two, is that $\ce{Sr^2+}$ has a couple of extra protons in the nucleus (and probably a couple of extra neutrons too, but these don't influence ionic/atomic size).

Considering the two extra protons in the nucleus of $\ce{Sr^2+}$, and the overall 2+ charge on the ion, shouldn't this draw the valence electrons in closer to the nucleus in $\ce{Sr^2+}$ in comparison to $\ce{Kr}$?

(Krypton size= 88 pm, while Sr2+ is 132 pm.)

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ These are different, incomparable kinds of bigness. $\endgroup$ – Ivan Neretin May 14 at 7:29
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ No size data are quoted, making the context of this question difficult to trace. Do tell. $\endgroup$ – Oscar Lanzi May 14 at 9:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ References for size data being considered would be very useful as well $\endgroup$ – Ian Bush May 14 at 11:11
  • $\begingroup$ Incomparable kinds of bigness? I see a textbook problem comparing the radius of an sodium atom to its ion (see Zumdahl & Zumdahl, 9th Edition, Ch. 7, Exercise 109). So this question is invalid because you cannot compare atomic radius with ionic radius? Notwithstanding my last sentence, I need to say that I never saw a question on a standardized test asks me to compare atomic radius with ionic radius. $\endgroup$ – L. Cang May 14 at 13:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Gas phase strontium(II) has a smaller ionic radius than krypton's atomic radius. The thing is that in a crystal lattice it isn't quite the same as in the gas phase. $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn May 15 at 12:01

Sr2+ is exactly the same as Kr, in terms of electrons and orbitals.

I think the appropriate word for this relation is isoelectronic.

According to Ptable and LumenLearning, $\ce{Kr}$ has an atomic radius of 88 pm, while $\ce{Sr^2+}$ has an atomic radius of 132 pm. Although it is true that $\ce{Kr}$ and $\ce{Sr^2+}$ have the same electron orbital configuration and $\ce{Sr^2+}$ has two more protons than $\ce{Kr}$, $\ce{Sr^2+}$'s greater nuclear attraction is likely countered by the nature of metal ions being more willingly to lose electrons, which implies the electrons are more loosely held by the nucleus than the noble gas $\ce{Kr}$.

Another reason I conjecture is that $\ce{Sr^2+}$ has unfilled 5s orbitals to readily accept promoted electrons, while $\ce{Kr}$'s electrons have less tendency to fill the 5s orbitals because the property of being a noble gas.

  • $\begingroup$ Comparing Vander Waal's radius with atomic radius doesn't make sense. Krypton has an atomic radius of 88 pm which is less than 132 pm. $\endgroup$ – Nisarg Bhavsar May 14 at 4:37
  • $\begingroup$ I thought they were the same thing. I will do some research and edit the answer accordingly. $\endgroup$ – L. Cang May 14 at 5:27
  • $\begingroup$ You are comparing atomic radius with ionic radius. They are not the same thing. $\endgroup$ – Ian Bush May 14 at 11:11
  • $\begingroup$ Please see my comments under the question. $\endgroup$ – L. Cang May 14 at 13:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.