I have a question regarding the hybridization of $\ce{NCl3}$. From what I've understood, hybridization occurs when electrons belonging to different orbitals mix.
For example an electron belonging to the orbital 's' moves to one of the 'p' orbitals creating a certain number of hybrid orbitals. This occurs when more individually occupied orbitals are needed in order to complete the bonds and form the molecule.

Now, considering the fact that in $\ce{NCl3}$, nitrogen already has three individually occupied 'p' orbitals, it doesn't need to hybridise these orbitals in order to create three bonds with chlorine.
So why does $\ce{NCl3}$ utilise sp3 hybridization?


Let us suppose that your assumption is correct and nitrogen has already $\ce{2p^3}$ configuration. Let's further assume that it doesn't undergo hybridisation. Instead, the pure atomic orbitals undergo overlap with 3 $\ce{Cl}$ atoms and the filled $\ce{2s}$ shell electron pair acts as a lone pair and thus $\ce{NCl3}$ is formed. This consideration creates problems.

If pure atomic orbitals of nitrogen, i.e. $\ce{2p_x}$, $\ce{2p_y}$ and $\ce{2p_z}$ undergo σ-bond formation with the chlorine atoms, then the bonds should be $90^\circ$ to each other, as $\ce{p_x}$, $\ce{p_y}$ and $\ce{p_z}$ orbitals are mutually perpendicular. But $\ce{NCl3}$ has 3 σ-bonds with bond angles between $\ce{Cl-N-Cl}$ close to $107.1^\circ$, which is close to the tetrahedral bond angle of $109.5^\circ$. Therefore the pure orbital undergoing bond formation doesn't support this observation.

If we consider $\ce{sp^3}$ hybrid orbitals of $\ce{NCl3}$, this tetrahedral arrangement of three σ-bonds and a lone pair (disregarding the lone pair, it's pyramidal) is nicely explained. That's why, the hybridisation is $\ce{sp^3}$ which supports every observed chemical property of $\ce{NCl3}$.

  • $\begingroup$ Although the above-written answer is true, one can always ask Why doesn't $\ce{NCl3}$ form 3 $\sigma$ bonds out of the pure p orbitals? What is the reason that $\ce{NCl3}$ adopts such tetrahedral geometry? $\endgroup$ Feb 7 '18 at 12:19
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @ApoorvPotnis I would not say that the above is correct. It assumes hybridisation prior to bond formation, which is dead wrong. Hybridisation is a mathematical concept, it only helps us understand certain aspects of the wave function. You are absolutely correct in asking for the reason of the mixing of s and p orbitals to allow more flexible bond angles, because this is essentially the reason why a description with sp³ orbitals is possible in the first place. This has partially be answered here. $\endgroup$ Feb 7 '18 at 12:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin-マーチン Yes, my mistake. I did not read the last paragraph properly. $\endgroup$ Feb 7 '18 at 13:02

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.