Statement-1 : `delta`-bonds are formed by four lobes interaction of d-orbitals.
Statement-2 : `d_Z^2` orbital does not have nodal plane.

Options

A. Statement-1 is true , Statement-2 is true and Statement-2 is correct explanation for Statement-1
B. Statement-1 is true, Statement-2 is true and Statement-2 NOT the correct explanation for Statement-1
C. Statement-1 is true , Statement-2 is false
D. Statement-1 is false, statement-2 is true.

Answer

To analyze the statements regarding delta bonds and the dz² orbital, let's break down the concepts step by step:

### Step 1: Understanding Delta Bonds
- **Definition**: A delta bond is a type of covalent bond that is formed by the overlap of four lobes of d-orbitals from two atoms.
- **Formation**: In a delta bond, the interaction involves four lobes of two d-orbitals, which can be visualized as two d-orbitals with four lobes each coming together.
- **Conclusion**: Therefore, Statement 1, which claims that delta bonds are formed by the four-lobe interaction of d-orbitals, is **true**.

### Step 2: Understanding the dz² Orbital
- **Definition**: The dz² orbital is one of the d-orbitals characterized by its unique shape, which includes a lobe along the z-axis and a torus around the equatorial plane.
- **Nodal Plane**: A nodal plane is a region in an orbital where the probability of finding an electron is zero. For the dz² orbital, there is no nodal plane where the probability of finding an electron is zero.
- **Conclusion**: Therefore, Statement 2, which states that the dz² orbital does not have a nodal plane, is also **true**.

### Step 3: Evaluating the Statements
- Both statements are true.
- However, Statement 1 discusses a bond (delta bond), while Statement 2 discusses an orbital (dz² orbital). They are related concepts but pertain to different aspects of chemistry.

### Final Conclusion
- Both statements are true, but Statement 2 does not provide a correct explanation for Statement 1. Therefore, the correct answer is that both statements are true, but Statement 2 does not explain Statement 1.