Compare the relative stabilities and magnetic behaviour of the following species
(a) `O_(2)^(Θ)` and `N_(2)^(o+)` (b) `O_(2)^(2-)` and `N_(2)^(Θ)` (c ) `O_(2)^(2-)` and `N_(2)^(2-)` .

Explanation

Total number of `e^(-')` s in `O_(2)^(Θ)` in `O_(2)^(Θ) (Z = 8) implies (8 + 8 + 1)implies 17`
Reamaining `p e^(-') s =17 - 8 = 9`
`:. N_(b) = 6, N_(a) = 9 -6 = 3`
` :. ` Bond order ` = (1)/(2) (6 -3) = 1.5`
It contains one unpaired `e^(-')` in `ABMO` hence `O_(2)^(Θ)` is paramagnetic
(ii) Total number of `e^(-')` s in `N_(2)^(o+) (Z =7) implies (7 + 7 -1) implies 13`
Remaining `pe^(-') s =13 - 8 =5`
`:. N_(b) = 5, N_(a) =0`
`BO = (1)/(2) (5-0) 2.5`
It contains one unpaired `e^(-)` in `BMO` hence `N_(2)^(o+)` is also paramagnetic
`BO` of `N_(2)^(o+) (2.5) gt BO` of `O_(2)^( Θ) (1.5) Therefore N_(2)^(o+)` is more stable than `O_(2)^( Θ)` Both are paramagnetic
(b) Total number of `e^(-') `s in `O_(2)^(2-) (Z =8) implies (8 + 8+2) implies 18`
Remaining `p e^(-') s =18 -18 =10`
`N_(b) =6, N_(a) = 10 -6 =4`
`BO = (1)/(2) (6-4) =1` NO unpaired `e^(-')s` is present and hence diamagnetic
(ii) Total number `e^(-') s ` in `N_(2)^(Θ) (Z =7) implies (7 + 7 +1) implies 15`
Remaining `p^(-') s = 15 - 8 =7`
`N_(b) = 6, N_(a) = 7-6 = 1.0`
`BO = (1)/(2) (6 -1) = 2.5` One unpaired `e^(-)` is present
in `ABMO` and hecne paramagnetic
`BO` of `N_(2)^(Θ) (2.5) gt BO` of `O_(2)^(2-)` (1) Therefore `N_(2)^( Θ)` is more stable than `O_(2)^(2-)`
Moreover `O_(2)^(2-)` is diamagnetic whereas `N_(2)^( Θ)` is paramagnetic
(c ) Proceed as above in parts (a) and (b)
(i) `BO` of `O_(2)^(2-) = 1.0` Diamagnetic
(ii) `BO` of `N_(2)^(2-) =2.0` Two unpaired `e^(-')s` are present in `ABMO` and hence paramagnetic Hence `N_(2)^(Θ)` is more stable than `O_(2)^(-2)` Moreover Hence `N_(2)^(Θ)` is more stable than `O_(2)^(2-)` Moreover `O_(2)^(2-)` is diamagnetic and `N_(2)^(2-)` is paramagnetic .