In countless sites, I view that they put $ceO$ in the middle, however our teacher said that we have to put $ceO$ close to the extremity. Which is the best way?



I completely agree through Gonçalo Justino"s answer, but would like to add another the shade to it.

You are watching: Draw two possible lewis structures for hypochlorous acid

In principle over there are fairly a couple of possible arrangements thinkable for this molecule - at the very least in the gas phase. In this thought it simply refers to the reality that they are local minima top top the potential power surface. The most stable of all is the one that has actually been debated here before. Hypochlorous mountain is likewise one that the compounds the disrupt the ozone cycle. Since concentrations in the stratosphere are low, we can discover most possible arrangements of the three atoms. The should additionally be noted, the these reaction usually happen via a radical pathway.

Structure the $ceHOCl$

The bonding situation in these "weird" compound is not evident at all, classifying it as a purely covalent tied is equally as wrong as calling the ionic.Interestingly the $ceO-H$ link is much an ext covalent than the $ceO-Cl$ bond, when we look in ~ the many stable, i.e. Bent, conformation. I am no going into information about feasible linear intermediates, together they are only really short lived species.The analysis of a DF-BP86/def2-SVP calculation with the quantum concept of atom in molecule (QTAIM) reflects us this somewhat unexpected behaviour.


What we see here is the the bond in between the hydrogen and the oxygen is strongly covalent together the electron density is $ ho_mathrmBCP(ceO-H)=0.34~mathrme,a.!u.^-3$ and the Laplacian has actually a high an unfavorable value, $ abla^2 ho_mathrmBCP(ceO-H)=-2.02$, i.e. Lot charge accumulation. On the other hand the chlorine oxygen bond has quite some ionic character. The electron thickness is $ ho_mathrmBCP(ceO-Cl)=0.18~mathrme,a.!u.^-3$, while the Laplacian is slightly positive, $ abla^2 ho_mathrmBCP(ceO-Cl)=+0.01$, i.e. Low charge depletion. This makes this bond about half ionic and fifty percent covalent. (An appropriate ionic shortcut would have an electron thickness close come zero and a much bigger positive Laplacian value.)From this analysis it makes sense, that in the gas step the molecule more likely dissociates via $$ceHOCl -> HO + Cl.$$In aqueous systems there are rather a few more equilibria in ~ work and also the reaction and also stability that this compound is extremely pH dependent. In general this compound will certainly decompose whenever it it s okay the chance.

Structure that $ceOClH$

This structure is about $61.5~mathrmkcal,mol^-1$ greater in energy and therefore fairly unstable. But that walk not average it does no exist.The interesting point here is that both bond are about the exact same strength and also both deserve to be thought about predominantly covalent. The oxygen chlorine bond, $ ho_mathrmBCP(ceO-Cl)=0.25~mathrme,a.!u.^-3$, has actually a little greater electron thickness than the chlorine hydrogen bond, $ ho_mathrmBCP(ceCl-H)=0.21~mathrme,a.!u.^-3$. Both have actually a negative Laplacian, $ abla^2 ho_mathrmBCP(ceO-Cl)=-0.19$, $ abla^2 ho_mathrmBCP(ceCl-H)=-0.57$, i.e. Fee accumulation.


Other feasible structures of $ceHOCl$

Any various other structure, for example linear or bending $ceOHCl$, room no minima on the potential energy surface. They can exist as excited or transition states, but they room incredibly short lived. One only has to care around these types when dealing with facility gas step reactions. (There is now method they could be stable in solution.)


While it is theoretically feasible to have actually the oxygen in a terminal position, it is certainly not the ground state. An additional aspect to think around is also, exactly how accurately can a Lewis structure stand for the molecule. Specifically when it comes to tiny molecules one constantly has to take it v a serial of salt as most of the theories brake under at this level.For as much as highschool level of, however, the answer come this inquiry is the one provided by so numerous others before.

See more: What Is The Correct Formula For Iron Ii Bromide, What Is The Formula For Febr2

If that did not bore you to death, could I suggest extr literature: Kirk A. Peterson, Sergei Skokov and also Joel M. Bowman; J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 111, 7446. (mirror)