Averaged Scale in Electronegativity Joined to Physicochemical Perturbations. Consequences of Periodicity

[Image: see text] In this work, we propose a new representative electronegativity scale χ(DC) based on a statistical analysis of 11 electronegativity scales associated with electric ionic resonance energy, ionization potential, electron affinity, polarizability, electric force, average orbital energy, chemical potential, electrochemical reduction potential, and electric potential energy. Among these scales, it is the new PE° electronegativity scale, which relates the reduction potential E° to Pauling’s electronegativity scale. The scale χ(DC) gives more weight to the physicochemical factors, which influence the electronegativity, but this scale is not necessarily the best electronegativity scale for the element. This scale is based on (1) the average of the experimental electronegativity values; (2) the proximity of an experimental value to the average given by the difference and the ratio to this average; (3) in critical cases, the periodicity network of the periods and the groups; and (4) the periodicity of the sequence of the ratios of the experimental electronegativity values to the best-selected electronegativity value. We have also taken as probe scales Nagle’s, Allred and Rochow’s, Allen’s (Hoffman’s and Politzer’s), PE°, Gordy’s, and Ghosh’s electronegativity scales in order to investigate the trend of the physicochemical factors which influence the electronegativity. With this trend, we have determined zones where a physicochemical property influences the electronegativity more. We have also found that physicochemical perturbations such as the orbital overlap, the stable configurations, the nephelauxetic effect, the width of the band gap, the ligand field stabilization energy, the penetration of the orbitals, and the lattice energy influence the electronegativity. Besides, we have analyzed the exactness of the electronegativity of the scales through the periodical ranking, the chemical tripartite separation among ionic, covalent, or metallic bond (taking into account the amplitude of the metalloid band), and the physicochemical property of bond force. The representative χ(DC) electronegativity scale is the best in periodicity, followed by Batsanov’s and Pauling’s scales. In the type of chemical bond, the ranking depends on the number and kind of compounds in the sample, but in general, Pauling’s, the ARS, and Batsanov’s electronegativity scales are the best with a confidence interval of 95%. On the other hand, in the physical bond force, Batsanov’s, Pauling’s, Mulliken’s, Nagle’s, Allen’s, the ARS, and the χ(DC) electronegativity scales are the best scales. Also, we have considered the free atom and the in situ hypotheses of electronegativity and used the low and high oxidation states to verify these hypotheses. Besides, as an example of the utility of this ranking of scales, we have analyzed the relation of lanthanum La and lutetium Lu to Group 3, lanthanides, and hafnium Hf. We also analyze the vertical, horizontal, Knight’s move, and isodiagonal periodicity of the electronegativity and associate this periodicity to a similar chemical–physical behavior of elements or ions.