The autoionization of water involves two molecules transfering a proton to give hydronium hydroxide, a process for which the free energy of reaction is well known. Here I ask what might happen with the next element along in the periodic table, F.
I have been unable to find much about the autoionization of HF in the literature; the pH of neat HF appears unreported (unlike that of H2O, which of course is 7). Even the dielectric constant of liquid HF[1],[2] seems to vary widely, the largest reported being ~84. It is suggested that liquid HF is much less ordered than e.g. water, and this suggests that a single static model is unlikely to be entirely realistic. Nonetheless, I thought it might be informative to take the model I previously constructed for water and try applying it to HF. Here is part of the geometry optimisation cycle[3] from the original edited water model. I used ωB97XD/Def2-TZVPPD/SCRF=water for the model. Why continuum water as the solvation treatment? Well, standard parameters for liquid HF are not available (perhaps given the variation in dielectric) and since the upper bound might be similar to water, I decided to use that to see what I got. Clearly however an approximation.
The low energy final geometry corresponds to 10 HF molecules and lies about 16 kcal/mol lower (in total energy) than the cyclic structure containing H2F+.F– species connected by two (HF)3 bridges and two further non-bridge HF molecules hydrogen bonding to the H2F+ and the F–. In fact the ionic structure turns out to be a transition state for proton shifting along the chain to create (HF)10, with a free energy barrier of 9.2 kcal/mol above the neutral form.[4] This difference between ionic and non-ionic forms is considerably less than that for water as previously indicated. Note also how much shorter the hydrogen bonding H…F distances are in the HF cluster.
So unlike water, where the hydronium hydroxide is a clear minimum in the potential with a small but distinct barrier (~3.5 kcal/mol[5]) to proton transfer, with HF at the same level of theory the barrier is zero. Perhaps the difference might be because whereas hydronium hydroxide can support three stabilizing (H2O)3 bridges, only two (HF)3 bridges are possible with H2F+.F–. It might also be higher levels of theory (or better/larger models of the HF cluster) could well give a barrier for the process, but this does tend to suggest that the dynamics of HF liquid may suggest quite different lifetimes for autoionized forms of HF compared to water. Liquid HF is clearly just as complicated a liquid as is H2O, certainly much less is known about it.
References
- R.H. Cole, "Dielectric constant and association in liquid HF", The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 59, pp. 1545-1546, 1973. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1680219
- P.H. Fries, and J. Richardi, "The solution of the Wertheim association theory for molecular liquids: Application to hydrogen fluoride", The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 113, pp. 9169-9179, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1319172
- H.S. Rzepa, "H 10 F 10", 2016. https://doi.org/10.14469/ch/192032
- H.S. Rzepa, "H 10 F 10", 2016. https://doi.org/10.14469/ch/192034
- H.S. Rzepa, "H22O11", 2016. https://doi.org/10.14469/ch/192022
