The following fragment of the table of atomic radii from CrystalMaker — Elements, Atomic Radii and the Periodic Table shows a regular decrease in the atomic radius of 3d series:
Table of Atomic Radii
The following table contains some of the atomic radius data used by CrystalMaker. This is a brief summary of a far more extensive body of work — please see the notes at the end of this page for more information. $$ \begin{array}{ccc} \hline \text{Atomic} & \text{Element} & \text{Atomic} \\ \text{Number} & \text{Symbol} & \text{Radius [Å]} \\ \hline \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ 21 & \ce{Sc} & 1.84 \\ 22 & \ce{Ti} & 1.76 \\ 23 & \ce{V} & 1.71 \\ 24 & \ce{Cr} & 1.66 \\ 25 & \ce{Mn} & 1.61 \\ 26 & \ce{Fe} & 1.56 \\ 27 & \ce{Co} & 1.52 \\ 28 & \ce{Ni} & 1.49 \\ 29 & \ce{Cu} & 1.45 \\ 30 & \ce{Zn} & 1.42 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ \hline \end{array} $$
Notes
- Atomic Radii: values are calculated from:
E Clementi, D L Raimondi, W P Reinhardt (1963) J Chem Phys. 38:2686.
While comparing atomic radii, two factors are important:
- Decrease in size due to increase in effective nuclear charge.
- Increase in size due to increase in shielding effect.
I was surprised to find a regular decrease in the atomic radius of 3d series elements on this site because that would mean that effective nuclear charge is dominating in case of each element more than shielding factor. On some posts like Variation in atomic sizes in the transition elements I have found that from Ni to Zn there is a regular increase in size.
Are the values shown on this site wrong? If yes, what are the correct values?
If not, why shielding wouldn't be as effective as increase in nuclear charge?