ISRN Inorganic Chemistry

Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 689040, 10 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/689040

Research Article

Relativistic Corrections for Calculating Ionization Energies of One- to Five-Electron Isoelectronic Atomic Ions

Peter F. Lang and Barry C. Smith

School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Birkbeck College, University of London, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HX, UK

Received 20 August 2012; Accepted 1 October 2012

Academic Editors: A. M. Fonseca, A. Karadag, and Z. Wu

Copyright © 2013 Peter F. Lang and Barry C. Smith. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

We have previously proposed a simple empirical equation to reproduce the literature values of the ionization energies of one-electron to four-electron atomic ions with very good agreement. However, we used a potential energy approach in our equation, which has no theoretical basis. This paper discusses an alternative kinetic energy expression for one to five electrons with simple corrections for relativistic and Lamb shift effects and for two- to-five electron ions additional effects including electron relaxation and residual interactions. For calculated values of one-electron (hydrogen-like) and two electron (helium like) atomic ions, the difference with the literature values is typically 0.001% or less. Agreement with the literature values for three-, four-, and five-electron ions is 99% or better. First electron affinities calculated by our expression also agree fairly well with generally recommended values. These results show that there is strong evidence that our methodology can be developed to reliably predict, with fairly good accuracy, ionization energies of multielectron atomic ions that have not been measured.

1. Introduction

A knowledge of ionization energies is essential for understanding the chemistry of the elements and other fundamental concepts, such as lattice energies of inorganic solids.

With the development of quantum theory, the two-particle problem can be solved exactly and the kinetic energy of the electron in a hydrogen atom can be calculated using the Schrödinger equation. Since the Schrödinger equation does not take account of relativistic effects, Dirac [1] produced an equation which included a relativistic correction for the electron energy levels. However, Lamb and Retherford [2–4] in a series of experiments showed that there is a small shift in the energy levels of the hydrogen atom not accounted for by the Dirac equation. This energy shift is now commonly called the Lamb shift. Theoretical atomic energy levels were calculated from a nonrelativistic model, and then relativistic and quantum electrodynamic effects were accounted for by treating them as perturbation corrections.

General availability of powerful computers allowed highly complicated theoretical calculations of the energy levels and ionization energies of hydrogen [5] and helium-like ions [6] to be performed. These sophisticated equations for one- and two-electron atomic ions, which need complex computer routines to compute, include corrections for the variation of mass with velocity, reduced mass, mass polarization, and Lamb shift, and for two-electron ions, corrections for interactions between the two electrons. Values computed by these equations are quoted to cm⁻¹ (wave number) level or small fractions of a cm⁻¹. Updated theoretical ionization energies and Lamb shifts for one-electron [7] and two-electron [8] atomic ions have been published more recently and are generally accepted as very accurate. These recent results differ very little from the earlier computed values of Garcia and Mack [5] or Midtdal and Aashamar [6].

We have previously devised a simple empirical equation to reproduce literature values for the ionization energies of one-electron [9] and two-electron [10] atomic ions with very good agreement. More recently, we extended calculations to three- and four-electron isoelectronic ions [11], which reproduced literature values with good agreement. However, this equation is based on a potential energy approach (when the potential energy is maximum, the kinetic energy approaches zero, that is, zero velocity, and relativistic correction for the variation of mass with velocity is not required) and has no theoretical basis. In this paper we use a kinetic energy expression with a relativistic correction, which has theoretical justification to calculate the ionization energies of one- to five-electron atomic ions. Besides applying a relativistic and a Lamb shift correction, we have also made a few hypotheses on factors that influence the size of the ionization energy. To maintain our aim of simplicity and ease of computation, the equations only contain fundamental constants or values derived from fundamental constants and simple numbers.

2. Sources of Data

The extensive publications by Moore [12–15] contain detailed tables of atomic energy levels in reciprocal wavelengths or wave numbers (cm⁻¹), ionization reciprocal wavelengths (in cm⁻¹), and values converted from wave numbers to electron volts (eV) for atoms and atomic ions with estimated experimental errors and references to original work. This remains the most extensive survey of ionization energies. Recently, the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics [16] presented extensive authoritative data of ionization energies with reference to Moore and other up-to-date works. Andersen et al. [17] provided an extensive compilation of first electron affinities (binding energies of single negative ions) based on both theory and experiment. The majority of compilations of ionization energy data are now available on the National Institute of Standards and Technology web site (http://www.nist.gov/srd/). These compilations include values of ionization energies that are accurately measured as well as crude estimates.

On closer examination of many of the original papers and compilations, we have found that, in general, the first few ionization energies are most reliably measured, experimental errors increase across the higher members of a series, and some results have errors of over one eV. For example, the ionization energy of (five-electron boron series) is . Hence, we consider that when comparisons are made, agreement with the first few members of a series is more relevant than with higher members of a series. There is no reason to doubt the reliability of the values published in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics of all fundamental constants and ionization energies. Values of all fundamental constants used for calculation in this work and ionization energies for comparison purposes are taken directly from it. Table 1 shows the symbols, elementary constants and conversion factors used in this work.

Table 1: Symbols, conversion factors, and constants (to 9 significant figures).

Symbol/constant
Value/comment/definition

0.00729735254

Number of electrons remaining after ionization

Principal quantum number

Electron velocity

Number of residual electron-electron interactions

Mass number

Reduced mass (see Table 8 column 6 for individual values)

Screening constant for the ionizing electron

Screening for the remaining electron(s) after ionization

Screening for the remaining electron(s) before ionization

Proton number (nuclear charge)

Velocity of light  ms⁻¹

Electron rest mass  kg

Proton rest mass  kg

Electron charge  C

Planck’s constant  Js

 Fm⁻¹

Ionization energies are presented in electron volts (eV) in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and eV is a more commonly used unit, so, as with our previous work, ionization energies are presented here in eV and rounded to four decimal places (please note that 0.0001 eV is equivalent to 0.8 cm⁻¹.) We consider that this is sufficiently precise, since some literature values are quoted only to one or two decimal places or less because the levels of uncertainty/experimental error for some ionization energies can be of the order of an eV or more. For comparison purposes, values that are originally presented in cm⁻¹ are converted to eV with the conversion factor k in Table 1. Results are presented up to atomic number 20 for the following two reasons. Firstly, uncertainties of the ionization energies of those elements with atomic number 21 or more (for an isoelectronic sequence) are usually much higher than the differences between the calculated values produced by our expression and literature values for elements with atomic number below 21. Secondly, our results are compared with ionization energies computed by Garcia and Mack [5] and Midtdal and Aashamar [6] who presented their results up to atomic number 20.

3. Contributions to the Electron Energy

The kinetic energy of an electron in an isolated atom or atomic ion is not simply because it is moving at high speed. When there is more than one electron in the system, it is logical to assume that the attractive energy between the nucleus and remaining electron(s) changes because of the change in screening experienced by the remaining electron(s) before and after ionization. The energy released by the electron relaxation or transition needs to be taken into account as well as the Lamb shift correction when calculating the ionization energy. There may be residual electron interactions because of the finite size of the electron. Hence, we assume that the ionization energy of an electron can be considered to contain the following components in a multielectron system:

where is the ionization energy, is the kinetic energy term, is the Lamb shift term, is the relaxation/transition energy term, and represents residual electron interaction energy term. is the principal quantum number and is the reduced mass [18] (because the nucleus and electron being ionized, both revolve around the centre of mass). represent multiplied by , respectively, because ionization occurs in energy level , where is the principal quantum number. Values of ionization energy calculated by our expression are converted to eV by dividing them with the elementary electron charge (given in Table 1).

4. Kinetic Energy and the Relativistic Correction

The maximum velocity of the electron moving in a Bohr orbit [19] can be calculated from the relationship:

where is the electron rest mass, is the velocity of the electron, stand for the charges of the electron and nucleus, is the permittivity of a vacuum, and , the Bohr radius, is . The velocity of the electron in the hydrogen atom can be calculated from (2) and is equal to  m/sec. The velocity of the electron in successive atoms of the one-electron series increase by times, where is the atomic/proton number or . When there is more than one electron in the system, the velocity of the electron increases by , where is the screening constant for that electron. A common interpretation of relativity theory [20] shows the total energy of a particle of mass and velocity is

and the kinetic energy of the particle is then

In reality, only the first three terms (in (4)) are significant as shown in the expression, and all other terms are minute and can be ignored. In an equilibrium situation, the energy of the electron is exactly half potential and half kinetic. Assuming that an electron is ionized in an equilibrium condition, only half the relativistic correction should be included, that is, the relativistic correction for a one-electron atom is then

For a hydrogen-like ion, there is no relaxation energy and no residual electron interactions, and the ionization energy is then represented by

Columns 2, 3, 5, and 6 of Table 2 list the nonrelativistic kinetic energy, the relativistic correction calculated by (5), the Lamb shift, and the ionization energy as calculated by (6), respectively. However, as shown below, values calculated by (6) for one-electron atoms are too large when compared to generally accepted values.

Table 2: Kinetic energy with two different relativistic and Lamb shift corrections for ionization energies of one-electron atomic ions (eV).

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

Corr (4)
Corr (7)

(5)
(9)

1
13.5983
0.0003
0.0002
0.0000
13.5985
13.5984

2
54.4153
0.0043
0.0029
0.0005
54.4192
54.4177

3
122.4416
0.0220
0.0147
0.0022
122.4615
122.4541

4
217.6778
0.0696
0.0464
0.0060
217.7414
217.7182

5
340.1253
0.1700
0.1133
0.0131
340.2823
340.2256

6
489.7825
0.3527
0.2351
0.0241
490.1111
489.9935

7
666.6528
0.6537
0.4357
0.0415
667.2651
667.0470

8
870.7344
1.1160
0.7438
0.0666
871.7838
871.4416

9
1102.0292
1.7890
1.1922
0.1028
1103.7154
1103.1187

10
1360.5319
2.7289
1.8185
0.1465
1363.1143
1362.2039

11
1646.2494
3.9992
2.6647
0.2082
1650.0404
1648.7060

12
1959.1748
5.6698
3.7774
0.2789
1964.5657
1962.6733

13
2299.3152
7.8179
5.2081
0.3748
2306.7584
2304.1485

14
2666.6634
10.5280
7.0126
0.4809
2676.7105
2673.1951

15
3061.2265
13.8917
9.2520
0.6204
3074.4978
3069.8581

16
3482.9974
18.0078
11.9917
0.7708
3500.2345
3494.2184

17
3931.9834
22.9829
15.3026
0.9642
3954.0021
3946.3218

18
4408.1838
28.9312
19.2601
1.2104
4435.9046
4426.2335

19
4911.5858
35.9744
23.9451
1.4269
4946.1332
4934.1039

20
5442.2023
44.2423
29.4434
1.6957
5484.7489
5469.9500

We consider that, as theory of relativity points out, the mass of a moving particle is given by the expression , where is the rest mass of particle. Expansion of this expression gives

Therefore, it follows that .

This expression for total kinetic energy can be simplified to:

and the relativistic correction for a one electron atom at the equilibrium position is then

The ionization energy of a one-electron atom is then

Columns 4 and 7 of Table 2 list the relativistic corrections calculated by (9) and the ionization calculated by (10), respectively. As described below, when expression (9) is used, the ionization energies calculated have excellent agreement with values calculated by complex computer routines and other generally accepted literature values.

5. The Lamb Shift

The Lamb Shift is usually considered as a quantum electrodynamic effect (see e.g., Garcia and Mack [5] or Johnson and Soff [7]) and is computed by complex formulas.

We have made a number of assumptions (without theoretical justification) that the Lamb shift is a secondary relativistic effect. We assume that the Lamb shift is caused by a combination of effects related to mass and size and the whole system in motion. The energy reduction is approximated to the following expression:

where is the electron mass, is the proton mass, where the factor for the reduced mass correction for hydrogen is . is the fine structure constant and is a crude approximation of the square root of the ratio of nuclear to atomic size for hydrogen. is the mass number of the atom. S is the screening constant and in a one-electron system S is zero. The size of the nucleus increases [21] roughly in proportion to . As shown in Table 3, the Lamb shift values calculated using this simple equation agree well with those computed by Johnson and Soff [7] for the one-electron system. For the two-electron system, the values calculated by (11) are higher than those computed by Midtdal and Aashamar [6], but they compare well with those computed by Drake [8], which are more recent and probably more accurate.

Table 3: Comparison of Lamb shifts for one, and two-electron atomic ions (eV).

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

One electron

(this work)
One electron

(Johnson and Soff)
Two electron

(this work)
Two electron

(Drake)
Two electron

(Midtdal et al.)

1
0.00003
0.00003

2
0.0005
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002

3
0.0022
0.0020
0.0012
0.0011
0.0010

4
0.0060
0.0056
0.0039
0.0037
0.0034

5
0.0131
0.0126
0.0093
0.0091
0.0081

6
0.0241
0.0243
0.0182
0.0186
0.0164

7
0.0415
0.0422
0.0328
0.0336
0.0292

8
0.0666
0.0678
0.0541
0.0557
0.0475

9
0.1208
0.1028
0.0856
0.0864
0.0724

10
0.1465
0.1489
0.1243
0.1275
0.1047

11
0.2082
0.2079
0.1793
0.1806
0.1453

12
0.2789
0.2817
0.2434
0.2476
0.1948

13
0.3748
0.3720
0.3305
0.3303
0.2538

14
0.4809
0.4808
0.4280
0.4306
0.3226

15
0.6204
0.6101
0.5565
0.5504
0.4013

16
0.7708
0.7620
0.6962
0.6916
0.4900

17
0.9642
0.9383
0.8762
0.8562
0.5883

18
1.2104
1.1414
1.1058
1.0461
0.6957

19
1.4269
1.3724
1.3099
1.2634
0.8116

20
1.6957
1.6346
1.5634
1.5101
0.9348

6. Electron Relaxation Energy

After an electron is ionized, one or more of the remaining electron(s) is/are attracted more closely to the nucleus. The attractive energy between the nucleus and remaining electron(s) changes because of the change in screening experienced by the remaining electron(s) before and after ionization. This relaxation or transition energy is proportional to

where is the screening constant for remaining electron(s) after ionization and is the screening constant for the remaining electron(s) before ionization.

In the helium system, there are two electrons and both occupy the orbital. Since each electron occupies half of the space and each is repelled by only one other electron (here we have assumed that the two electrons act as in a two-particle problem and are equivalent), the screening constant is a half (0.5). After ionization, there is only one electron in the system and so there is zero screening.

In the lithium series, the electron that is ionized occupies a higher orbital and is shielded by two electrons, and the screening increases by 1 to 1.5. The extra screening experienced by the two inner electrons in the orbital increases to 0.625, which is an increase by or 0.125 rather than 0.5 because the third electron occupies a different orbital and in a different electron shell (i.e., 0.5 of 0.5 of 0.5). After ionization, only two electrons are left in the system and the screening reduces to just 0.5.

In the beryllium series, the electron that is ionized occupies the orbital. Since there are four electrons and each moving in an elliptical orbit, each may at any time interact differently with the other three electrons. We suppose that the screening of the fourth electron increases by a half to 2 and the other electron in the orbital experiences a screening of between 1.5 and 2 and is 1.75. After ionization of the fourth electron, the screening experienced by the third electron drops back to 1.5.

For the boron system, the outermost electron occupies a new orbital and the screening increases by 1 to 3. The screening of the fourth electron increases by 0.25 to 2.25 and after ionization the screening reduces back to 2. There is no reason to expect screening constants to be complicated numbers, and the screening constants used in the calculations are listed in Table 4.

Table 4: Screening constants.

Isoelectronic series

Helium series
0.5
0.0
0.5

Lithium series
1.5
0.5
0.625

Beryllium series
2.0
1.5
1.75

Boron series
3.0
2.0
2.25

7. Residual Electron Interaction

The reduced mass calculation implicitly assumes that the electron and nucleus are point charges, but the nucleus and the electron have a finite size [22]. We assume that when there is more than one electron in the atom/ion, the finite size of the electron generates two opposite and competing kinds of residual electron-electron interactions. The first type is residual electron-electron repulsion because the electrons are not point charges (have a finite size) and are slightly closer to each other. This increases the electron-electron repulsion and reduces the energy required to ionize the electron. However, this reduction diminishes very rapidly with increasing number of protons as the electrons become much more tightly bound to the nucleus.

This residual electron-electron repulsion is directly proportional to the number of electron-electron interactions and an inverse function of proton-electron interactions. The number of electron-electron interactions QI, before ionization, is 1, 3, and 6 when there are two, three, or four electrons and so on. The reduction in energy resulting from this interaction is approximated to

, the electron radius, is is the Bohr radius , and is the number of electrons after ionization.

We assume that the second type of residual interaction, which is opposite to the first type and a competing type of electron-electron interaction, occurs when there are three or more electrons in the system before ionization. In a three-electron system, two electrons occupy the orbital and one occupies the 2s orbital. The finite size of the two electrons causes them to repel each other slightly more and tend to move further from each other. This asymmetric distribution of electrons causes the electron being screened slightly less from each of the electrons. The result is that it is attracted to the nucleus a bit more than expected and hence increases amount of energy required to remove it from the atom/ion. The small increase in energy is a function of the number of electron-electron interactions, there are because the more electron-electron interactions, the further they are apart and the bigger will be the reduction in screening of the nucleus from the ionizing electron. This effect also increases as the number of protons increases (i.e., attraction between the nucleus and outermost electron(s) increases), and for a system with three or more electrons it is approximately

is the number of electron interactions after ionization and the total residual electron interaction energy change is

8. Ionization Energy of One-Electron Atoms

There is only one electron, n is 1, and the expression for calculating the ionization energy is

Column 2 of Table 2 shows the nonrelativistic kinetic energy , for the purpose of comparison, column 3 shows the relativistic correction calculated by (5), column 4 shows the relativistic correction calculated by (9), column 5 shows the Lamb shift correction, column 6 shows the ionization energy calculated by expression (6), and column 7 shows the ionization energy calculated by expression (16) (which is equivalent to (10)).

The one-electron ionization energies calculated by (16) are shown in column 2 of Table 5. Ionization energies computed by Johnson and Soff [7] and Garcia and Mack [5] and values published in the CRC Handbook are shown in columns 3, 4, and 5, respectively. It is very clear that (9) is a much more appropriate expression than (5) to calculate the relativistic correction. Ionization energies calculated by expression (16) show exceptional agreement with values computed by complex formulas and with the latest accepted values. Compared to ionization energies published in the CRC Handbook, values calculated by (16) agree to 99.999% or differ by less than 0.001% (or <10 parts per million) in 18 out of the 20 values as shown in column 6 of Table 5, the biggest absolute difference is 0.0860 eV from a calculated value of 5469.95 eV.

Table 5: Comparison of the ionization energies of one-electron atomic ions (eV).

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

This paper
Johnson and Soff
Garcia and Mack
CRC
Diff %

1
13.5984
13.5984
13.5984
13.5984
0.0001

2
54.4177
54.4178
54.4178
54.4178
0.0001

3
122.4541
122.4543
122.4543
122.4543
0.0001

4
217.7182
217.7185
217.7185
217.7187
0.0002

5
340.2256
340.2260
340.2259
340.2258
0.0001

6
489.9935
489.9931
489.9931
489.9933
0.0000

7
667.0470
667.0460
667.0459
667.0460
−0.0001

8
871.4116
871.4098
871.4095
871.4101
−0.0002

9
1103.1187
1103.1173
1103.1170
1103.1176
−0.0001

10
1362.2039
1362.1990
1362.1987
1362.1995
−0.0003

11
1648.7060
1648.7019
1648.7015
1648.7020
−0.0002

12
1962.6733
1962.6634
1962.6629
1962.6650
−0.0004

13
2304.1485
2304.1397
2304.1391
2304.1410
−0.0003

14
2673.1951
2673.1772
2673.1768
2673.1820
−0.0005

15
3069.8581
3069.8411
3069.8411
3069.8420
−0.0005

16
3494.2184
3494.1874
3494.1884
3494.1892
−0.0008

17
3946.3218
3946.2904
3946.2931
3946.2960
−0.0007

18
4426.2335
4426.2222
4426.2273
4426.2296
−0.0001

19
4934.1039
4934.0476
4934.0574
4934.0460
−0.0012

20
5469.9500
5469.8608
5469.8776
5469.8640
−0.0016

9. Ionization Energy of Two-Electron Atoms

The ionization energy of a two-electron system is , where:

Since, for simplicity, we have not applied a relativistic correction to , we have made a crude approximation of reducing the relativistic correction in by 5% to 0.45 (rather than 0.5) and where is , so it is

Columns 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Table 6 show separately and the calculated ionization energies of two-electron atoms, respectively. Table 7 is a comparison of the ionization energies calculated in this paper and those computed by Drake [8], Midtdal, and Aashamar [6] and values published in the CRC Handbook. As shown in the table, there is very good agreement with the other computed results. When compared to values published in the CRC Handbook, all values except one (atomic number 8) agree to better than 99.99% (or difference of less than 0.01% as shown in column 6), and the largest absolute difference is 0.2161 eV from a calculated value of 2437.8641 eV.

Table 6: Components of the ionization energies of two-electron atomic ions (eV).

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

1
3.3996
0.0000
2.5497
0.0993
0.7507

2
30.6094
0.0002
5.9517
0.0702
24.5874

3
85.0353
0.0012
9.3532
0.0405
75.6404

4
166.6840
0.0039
12.7546
0.0203
153.9053

5
275.5684
0.0093
16.1560
0.0091
259.3941

6
411.7027
0.0182
19.5573
0.0037
392.1235

7
575.1094
0.0328
22.9587
0.0014
552.1166

8
765.8109
0.0541
26.3601
0.0005
739.3961

9
983.8362
0.0856
29.7616
0.0002
953.9889

10
1229.2125
0.1243
33.1630
0.0001
1195.9253

11
1501.9819
0.1793
36.5644
0.0000
1465.2381

12
1802.1778
02434
39.9658
0.0000
1761.9686

13
2129.8508
0.3305
43.3673
0.0000
2086.1531

14
2485.0427
0.4280
46.7686
0.0000
2437.8461

15
2867.8127
0.5565
50.1701
0.0000
2817.0861

16
3278.2110
0.6962
53.5715
0.0000
3223.9433

17
3716.3056
0.8762
56.9729
0.0000
3658.4565

18
4182.1621
1.1058
60.3744
0.0000
4120.6818

19
4675.8384
1.3099
63.7758
0.0000
4610.7527

20
5197.4218
1.5634
67.1772
0.0000
5128.6812

Table 7: Comparison of ionization energies of two-electron atomic ions (eV).

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

This work
Drake
Midtdal et al.
CRC
Diff %

1

2
24.5874
24.5874
24.5874
24.5874
0.0001

3
75.6404
75.6401
75.6402
75.6400
−0.0005

4
153.9053
153.8962
153.8965
153.8966
−0.0057

5
259.3941
259.3743
259.3753
259.3752
−0.0073

6
392.1235
392.0905
392.0926
392.0870
−0.0093

7
552.1166
552.0673
552.0715
552.0718
−0.0081

8
739.3961
739.3267
739.3344
739.2900
−0.0144

9
953.9889
953.8979
953.9107
953.9112
−0.0081

10
1195.9253
1195.8077
1195.8278
1195.8286
−0.0081

11
1465.2381
1465.0983
1465.1286
1465.1210
−0.0080

12
1761.9686
1761.8038
1761.8475
1761.8050
−0.0093

13
2086.1531
2085.9754
2086.0365
2085.9800
−0.0083

14
2437.8461
2437.6558
2437.7388
2437.6300
−0.0089

15
2817.0861
2816.9054
2817.0154
2816.9100
−0.0063

16
3223.9433
3223.7762
3223.9187
3223.7800
−0.0051

17
3658.4565
3658.3380
3658.5187
3658.5210
0.0018

18
4120.6818
4120.6582
4120.8833
4120.8857
0.0049

19
4610.7527
4610.7978
4611.0728
4610.8000
0.0010

20
5128.6812
5128.8458
5129.1766
5128.8000
0.0023

10. Ionization Energy of Three, Four, and Five Electron Atoms

The ionization energy of a three- to-five electron system is

where

The screening constants used are shown in Table 4, and , the number of electron-electron interactions before ionization, is 3, 6, and 10, respectively, for three-, four-, and five-electron systems. Columns 2, 3, and 4 of Table 8 list the calculated ionization energies, literature values, and the percentage differences of three-electron isoelectronic systems. The calculated ionization energies of four- and five-electron isoelectronic sequences are shown in columns 2 and 5; the corresponding literature values in columns 3 and 6 and their differences are shown in columns 4 and 7, respectively, in Table 9. The agreement with literature values is 99% or better in all cases (99.9% or better for a third of all values).

Table 8: Ionization energies of three electron atom/atomic ions (eV).

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

This work
CRC
Diff %
1
0.999455717

2

2
0.999862962

3
5.3975
5.3917
−0.1075
3
0.999921837

4
18.2921
18.2111
−0.4445
4
0.999939160

5
37.9891
37.9306
−0.1540
5
0.999950207

6
64.4924
64.4939
0.0024
6
0.999954325

7
97.8161
97.8902
0.0757
7
0.999960870

8
137.9734
138.1197
0.1059
8
0.999965753

9
184.9757
185.1860
0.1136
9
0.999971178

10
238.8325
239.0989
0.1114
10
0.999972620

11
299.5532
299.8640
0.1036
11
0.999972620

12
367.1481
367.5000
0.0957
12
0.999977196

13
441.6271
442.0000
0.0844
13
0.999979768

14
523.0034
523.4200
0.0796
14
0.999980467

15
611.2877
611.7400
0.0739
15
0.999982367

16
706.4970
707.0100
0.0726
16
0.999982925

17
808.6426
809.4000
0.0936
17
0.999984398

18
917.7394
918.0300
0.0317
18
0.999986358

19
1033.8184
1033.4000
−0.0405
19
0.999986014

20
1156.8864
1157.8000
0.0789
20
0.999986372

Table 9: Ionization energies of four- and five-electron atom/atomic ions (eV).

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

This work (four electrons)
CRC
Diff %
This work (five electrons)
CRC
Diff %

3

4
9.2942
9.3227
0.3058

5
24.9666
25.1548
0.7482
8.3121
8.2980
−0.1695

6
47.4641
47.8878
0.8849
24.2893
24.3833
0.3855

7
76.7925
77.4735
0.8791
47.1286
47.4492
0.6758

8
112.9756
113.8990
0.8107
76.8369
77.4135
0.7449

9
156.0359
157.1651
0.7185
113.4510
114.2428
0.6931

10
205.9899
207.2759
0.6204
157.0043
157.9300
0.5861

11
262.8503
264.2500
0.5297
207.5202
208.5000
0.4699

12
326.6286
328.0600
0.4363
265.0149
265.9600
0.3553

13
397.3348
398.7500
0.3549
329.5004
330.1300
0.1907

14
474.9817
476.3600
0.2893
400.9890
401.3700
0.0949

15
559.5797
560.8000
0.2176
479.4916
479.4600
−0.0065

16
651.1450
652.2000
0.1618
565.0208
564.4400
−0.1029

17
749.6888
749.7600
0.0095
657.5892
656.7100
−0.1339

18
855.2253
854.7700
−0.0533
757.2096
755.7400
−0.1945

19
967.7837
968.0000
0.0223
863.9076
861.1000
−0.3261

20
1087.3713
1087.0000
−0.0342
977.6915
974.0000
−0.3790

11. First Electron Affinities

First electron affinities calculated by our expression and recommended values are listed in Table 10. Our calculated value of the first electron affinity of helium differs from the generally accepted value by less than 0.5% which is an excellent agreement. There is also fairly good agreement between our other calculated values and recommended values.

Table 10: First electron affinities (eV).

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Element
Hydrogen
Helium
Lithium
Beryllium

Calculated
0.7507
−0.6667
0.5045
−0.4824

Recommended*
0.7542
<0
0.6180
<0

* Recommended values are from [16].

12. Discussion

Johnson and Soff [7] used an approximate empirical formula as part of the set of expressions to calculate the finite nuclear size correction. Drake [8] reported that uncertainties of calculated Lamb shifts in some cases can be up to 10%. Our expression (19) is fairly simple and can be calculated quite easily as compared to the complex equations, which required computer routines to compute.

We have only used the size of the (one-electron) hydrogen atom in the Lamb shift equation for one to five electrons. It is fairly remarkable that in the majority of cases agreement between our calculated values and the values computed by Johnson and Soff [7] and Drake [8] is 90% or better. The size of hydride ion (negative hydrogen ion) is different from the hydrogen atom, and obviously the sizes of the negative helium, lithium, and beryllium ions are as well. We have not applied any corrections to negative ions for the two- to five-electron systems, because the size of the hydride ion [23] is contentious and there is no accurate measurement of the size of the other negative ions. There are no reliable Lamb shift calculations for three- to five-electron systems, so a comparison with our results is not possible. Even though our assumptions and approximations are simple and straight forward, our results show excellent agreement with ionization energies published in the CRC Handbook as well as with Johnson and Soff [7] and Garcia and Mack [5] for one-electron and Midtdal and Aashamar [6] and Drake [8] for two-electron ions.

We have found that, as shown by up-to-date publications [24], Moore is still quoted as a major source of experimental information. For some isoelectronic sequences, only the first five or six members are reliably measured and there may be many members somewhere along the sequence without any reliably measured ionization energies, and in these cases values are obtained by semiempirical interpolation or extrapolation formulas [25]. Recent papers [26, 27] also quoted ionization energies of some members of many isoelectronic sequences estimated by Lotz [28] in 1967. We have recently demonstrated [29, 30] that ionization energies and ionization pathways of some elements or sequences are fairly complicated. Hence, there is scope to update the measurements and calculations of ionization energies of isoelectronic sequences.

Although some of our hypotheses may be controversial and there is no proof that our interpretation of the relativistic correction for mass change is correct, there is no doubt that they form part of expressions that produce very precise values of the ionization energies of one- to five-electron isoelectronic sequences. This is good evidence that both expression (19) or our alternative potential energy approach can be developed to predict, with good accuracy, ionization energies of multi-electron atomic ions that have not been reliably measured.

References

P. A. M. Dirac, Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Chapter 5, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1930.

W. E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford, “Fine structure of the hydrogen atom by a microwave method,” Physical Review, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 241–243, 1947.

W. E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford, “Fine structure of the hydrogen atom. Part I,” Physical Review, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 549–572, 1950.

W. E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford, “Fine structure of the hydrogen atom. Part II,” Physical Review, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 222–232, 1951.

J. D. Garcia and J. E. Mack, “Energy level and line tables for one-electron atomic spectra,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 654–676, 1965.

J. Midtdal and K. Aashamar, “Perturbation theory expansions through 20th order of mass polarization correction, relativistic effects and Lamb shift of the two-electron system (1s)²,” Physica Norvegica, vol. 2, pp. 99–108, 1967.

W. R. Johnson and G. Soff, “The lamb shift in hydrogen-like atoms, 1 ≤ Z ≤ 110,” Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 405–446, 1985.

G. W. Drake, “Theoretical energies for the and 2 states of the helium isoelectronic sequence up to ,” Canadian Journal of Physics, vol. 66, pp. 586–611, 1988.

P. F. Lang and B. C. Smith, “Ionisation potentials of one-electron atoms,” Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry Letters, vol. 17, pp. 27–. 29, 1981.

A. M. E. Sabir, P. F. Lang, and B. C. Smith, “Ionisation energies of two-electron atoms,” Journal of the Chemical Society, vol. 80, pp. 1089–1091, 1984.

P. F. Lang and B. C. Smith, “A simple formula to calculate the ionization energies of two-, three-, and four-electron atomic ions,” Naturwissenschaften, vol. 97, no. 7, pp. 689–696, 2010.

C. E. Moore, Atomic Energy Levels, vol. 1, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, USA, 1949.

C. E. Moore, Atomic Energy Levels, vol. 2, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, USA, 1952.

C. E. Moore, Atomic Energy Levels, vol. 3, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, USA, 1958.

C. E. Moore, Ionization Potentials and Ionization Limits Derived From the Analysis of Optical Spectra, NSRDS-NBS 34, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, USA, 1970.

D. R. Lide, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CRC, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 89th edition, 2009.

T. Andersen, H. K. Haugen, and H. J. Hotop, “Binding energies in atomic negative ions: III,” Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, vol. 28, no. 1511, 1527 pages, 1999.

E. U. Condon and H. Odabasi, Atomic Structure, Chapter 1, CUP, New York, NY, USA, 1980.

A. Sommerfeld, Atomic Structure and Spectral Lines, Chapter 2, Methuen, London, UK, 1934.

W. G. V. Rosser, Relativity and High Energy Physics, Chapter 2, Methuen, London, UK, 1969.

I. R. Williams and M. W. Williams, Basic Nuclear Physics, Chapter 2, Newnes, London, UK, 1962.

M. Born, Atomic Physics, Chapter 3, Blackie, London, UK, 8th edition, 1969.

P. F. Lang and B. C. Smith, “Ionic radii for group 1 and group 2 halide, hydride, fluoride, oxide, sulfide, selenide and telluride crystals,” Dalton Transactions, vol. 39, no. 33, pp. 7786–7791, 2010.

J. E. Sansonetti and W. C. Martin, “Handbook of basic atomic spectroscopic data,” Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, vol. 34, pp. 1559–1992, 2005.

J. E. Sansonetti, “Wavelengths, transition probabilities, and energy levels for the spectra of rubidium (Rb I through Rb VII),” Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, vol. 35, pp. 301–421, 2006.

J. Sugar and A. Musgrove, “Energy levels of Zinc, Zn I through Zn ,” Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, vol. 24, pp. 1803–1872, 1995.

T. Shirai, J. Sugar, and A. Musgrove, “Spectral data for highly ionized atoms: Ti, V, Cr, MN, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Kr, and Mo,” Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, Monograph No. 8, 632 pages, 2000.

W. Lotz, “Ionization potentials of atoms and ions from hydrogen to Zinc,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. 57, pp. 873–880, 1967.

P. F. Lang and B. C. Smith, “Ionization energies of atoms and atomic ions,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 80, no. 8, pp. 938–946, 2003.

P. F. Lang and B. C. Smith, “Ionization energies of lanthanides,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 87, no. 8, pp. 875–881, 2010.