From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thiocyanate and Happiness[edit]

On most articles I see about molecular compounds (polyatomic ions or neutral molecules), there's a fire diamond and toxicity warnings. I figured that thiocyanate would have toxicity warning posted because of the C≡N bond, but the attached sulfur could change the toxicity completely. Does anyone happen to know the safety concerns about this ion? Kyoobur9000 (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason that there isn't is that they are not that toxic. Also, look at the individual thiocyanates for definite toxicological data, as not all compounds are created equally. Thiocyanates, SCN-, do not generate cyanides, CN- ions.JSR (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Lewis Structure[edit]

I have changed the diagram to one where the carbon is double-bonded to both sulfur and nitrogen. Here, the negative formal charge is on the nitrogen atom, which, as nitrogen is the least electronegative of the atoms, is correct. The previous structure had nitrogen triple-bonded, which places the negative formal charge on sulfur, which is incorrect. Bochum (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that simple:
  • if you look at the HOMO of [SCN], it has larger lobes on sulfur than on nitrogen
  • the electric potential surface shows similar potential on sulfur and nitrogen (bit more on N but not massively so)
  • the ionisation potential surface shows electrons are most easily removed from sulfur, so thiocyanate is often nucleophilic at sulfur
  • thiocyanate reacts at either S or N (depending on conditions and what it's reacting with)
All these facts mean that a pair of resonance structures would be better.
p.s. if you're going to be adding more chemical structures, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing.
Ben (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did some calculations in Spartan. It gives the following charges:

Electrostatic: −0.67
Mulliken: −0.58
Natural: −0.60

Electrostatic: −0.71
Mulliken: −0.56
Natural: −0.55

Electrostatic: 0.37
Mulliken: 0.14
Natural: 0.15

So you can see that there's very little difference between the charge on nitrogen and the charge on sulfur, and therefore it does not make sense to give only one resonance structure in the article.

Ben (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)