The CFSE for octahedral $[CoCl_6]^{4-}$ is $18,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}$. The CFSE for tetrahedral $[CoCl_4]^{2-}$ will be (i) $18,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}$ (ii) $16,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}$ (iii) $8,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}$ (iv) $20,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}$

The CFSE for octahedral [CoCl₆]⁴⁻ is 18,000cm⁻¹. The CFSE for tetrahedral [CoCl₄]²⁻ will be (i) 18,000cm⁻¹ (ii

NCERT Exemplar · Q8

[CoCl_6]^{4-}

(i)

18,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}

(ii)

16,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}

(iii)

8,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}

(iv)

20,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}

Kerala DhseMCQ· 1mImportance★★★★★

55% · 56/101 Questions

🔒 Locked · start free trial →

You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Concept understanding — Crystal Field Splitting

Crystal Field Splitting: From Intuition to Precision

Imagine you are a negatively charged electron sitting on a metal ion. All around you, the space is perfectly spherical — every direction feels the same. Your energy depends only on how far you are from the nucleus, not on which way you face.

Now imagine that six negative ions (or the negative ends of polar molecules) march in from the $x$ , $y$ , and $z$ axes and stop close to you. Suddenly, the space around you is no longer uniform. If you try to move straight toward one of these approaching ions, you feel a strong repulsion — that path costs extra energy. If you move between the axes (say, along a diagonal), you feel less repulsion because you are farther from the incoming charges.

This is the core intuition: when ligands approach a metal ion, they break the spherical symmetry of the space around the metal. Different directions in space are no longer equivalent. Electrons in orbitals that point directly at the ligands get pushed up in energy; electrons in orbitals that point between the ligands stay lower.

The Precise Statement

d

For the most common geometry — octahedral — here is what happens:

Six ligands sit at the corners of an octahedron, along the $+x$ , $-x$ , $+y$ , $-y$ , $+z$ , $-z$ axes.
The $d_{x^2-y^2}$ and $d_{z^2}$ orbitals point their lobes directly along these axes. These are the $e_g$ set. They feel maximum repulsion → higher energy.
The $d_{xy}$ , $d_{xz}$ , and $d_{yz}$ orbitals point their lobes between the axes (into the octahedral faces). These are the $t_{2g}$ set. They feel less repulsion → lower energy.

The energy gap between these two sets is denoted by $\Delta_o$ (or $10\,Dq$ ). The $t_{2g}$ set drops by $0.4\Delta_o$ and the $e_g$ set rises by $0.6\Delta_o$ , keeping the average energy unchanged (the "barycentre" rule).

Note

The labels $e_g$ and $t_{2g}$ come from group theory — they describe how the orbitals transform under the symmetry operations of an octahedron. You do not need to memorise the derivation, but the notation is standard in every exam.

Why This Matters

Crystal field splitting explains three things you will see repeatedly:

Colour — electrons can jump from $t_{2g}$ to $e_g$ by absorbing visible light. The gap $\Delta_o$ determines the colour you see.
Magnetism — if $\Delta_o$ is large, electrons pair up in the lower $t_{2g}$ set (low spin). If $\Delta_o$ is small, electrons spread out (high spin). This changes the number of unpaired electrons. …

Why this formula?

Crystal Field Splitting: Why the Energy Splitting Occurs

Crystal Field Theory (CFT) explains how the d-orbitals of a transition metal ion split in energy when placed in an electrostatic field created by surrounding ligands (anions or polar molecules). The key result is that five degenerate d-orbitals split into two or more sets with different energies. Let's understand why this happens.

1. The Starting Point: Degenerate d-Orbitals

In a free transition metal ion (no ligands), all five d-orbitals have the same energy (degenerate). Their shapes are:

$d_{xy}$ , $d_{xz}$ , $d_{yz}$ — lobes lie between the x, y, z axes (called $t_{2g}$ set in octahedral symmetry)
$d_{x^2-y^2}$ , $d_{z^2}$ — lobes point directly along the x, y, z axes (called $e_g$ set)

Key idea: The spatial orientation of each orbital determines how it interacts with approaching ligands.

2. The Octahedral Case: Why $e_g$ Orbitals Are Higher in Energy

Imagine six ligands approaching along the +x, –x, +y, –y, +z, –z axes (octahedral geometry).

What happens to $d_{x^2-y^2}$ and $d_{z^2}$ ?

Their lobes point directly at the ligands.
The negatively charged ligands repel the electron density in these orbitals.
This repulsion raises the energy of these orbitals — they become less stable (higher energy).

What happens to $d_{xy}$ , $d_{xz}$ , $d_{yz}$ ?

Their lobes point between the axes (e.g., $d_{xy}$ lobes lie in the xy-plane but at 45° to x and y).
They avoid the ligands — less repulsion.
Their energy is lower than the $e_g$ set.

The Splitting Pattern

\Delta_{\text{oct}} = E(e_g) - E(t_{2g})

Where:

$E(e_g)$ = energy of $d_{x^2-y^2}$ and $d_{z^2}$ (higher)
$E(t_{2g})$ = energy of $d_{xy}$ , $d_{xz}$ , $d_{yz}$ (lower)
$\Delta_{\text{oct}}$ is called the crystal field splitting energy (CFSE)

Why the name? The $e_g$ orbitals are "doubly degenerate" (2 orbitals), $t_{2g}$ are "triply degenerate" (3 orbitals). The letters come from group theory symmetry labels.

3. The Energy Conservation Rule

The total energy of all five d-orbitals must remain constant (no energy is created or destroyed). So:

The center of gravity (average energy) of the split set equals the original degenerate energy.
For octahedral splitting:
- 2 $e_g$ orbitals go up by $+0.6\Delta_{\text{oct}}$ each
- 3 $t_{2g}$ orbitals go down by $-0.4\Delta_{\text{oct}}$ each

Check:

2 \times (+0.6\Delta) + 3 \times (-0.4\Delta) = 1.2\Delta - 1.2\Delta = 0

This conservation of energy is a fundamental constraint — the splitting is not arbitrary.

4. The Tetrahedral Case: Why It's Opposite and Smaller

In a tetrahedral complex, four ligands approach from alternate corners of a cube. The axes are different:

The $d_{xy}$ , $d_{xz}$ , $d_{yz}$ orbitals now point closer to the ligands (more repulsion).
The $d_{x^2-y^2}$ and $d_{z^2}$ orbitals point away from ligands (less repulsion).

Result:

$e$ set ( $d_{x^2-y^2}$ , $d_{z^2}$ ) — lower energy
$t_2$ set ( $d_{xy}$ , $d_{xz}$ , $d_{yz}$ ) — higher energy

The splitting is inverted compared to octahedral.

Magnitude:

\Delta_{\text{tet}} \approx \frac{4}{9} \Delta_{\text{oct}}

Why smaller?

Only 4 ligands (vs. 6) → less total repulsion.
Ligands are not directly along axes → weaker interaction. …

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Using the standard relation $\Delta_t = \tfrac{4}{9}\,\Delta_o$ , the tetrahedral stabilization scales as $\tfrac{4}{9}$ of the octahedral value: $\tfrac{4}{9}\times 18{,}000 = 8{,}000\ \text{cm}^{-1}$ . The answer is (iii).

Setup. In both complexes the metal is $\text{Co}^{2+}$ ( $d^7$ ) with the same weak-field $\text{Cl}^-$ ligands. The only quantity that changes on going from octahedral to tetrahedral geometry is the size of the crystal-field splitting.

Key relation. For the same metal ion and the same ligands,

$\Delta_t = \frac{4}{9}\,\Delta_o.$ …

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Common Mistakes Students Make on This CFSE Problem

Mistake 1: Forgetting the Geometry Factor (Δₜ = 4/9 Δₒ)

The error: Students directly use the same CFSE value for tetrahedral as octahedral, or apply a wrong ratio.

Why it’s wrong:

Crystal Field Splitting in tetrahedral complexes is smaller than in octahedral. The relationship is:

\Delta_t = \frac{4}{9} \Delta_o

Here, $\Delta_o = 18,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}$ , so:

\Delta_t = \frac{4}{9} \times 18,000 = 8,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}

How to avoid: Always recall: tetrahedral splitting is always $\frac{4}{9}$ of octahedral splitting for the same metal and ligand.

Mistake 2: Ignoring the d-electron Count and CFSE Formula

The error: Students calculate $\Delta_t$ but forget that CFSE depends on how electrons fill the $t_2$ and $e$ orbitals.

Why it’s wrong:

For $[CoCl_6]^{4-}$ , Co is in +2 state → $d^7$ configuration.

In octahedral: $t_{2g}^5 e_g^2$ (high spin, weak field ligand Cl⁻).

CFSE = $[5 \times (-0.4) + 2 \times (0.6)] \Delta_o = (-2 + 1.2) \Delta_o = -0.8 \Delta_o$

For tetrahedral $[CoCl_4]^{2-}$ (also $d^7$ , weak field):

Configuration: $e^4 t_2^3$

CFSE = $[4 \times (-0.6) + 3 \times (0.4)] \Delta_t = (-2.4 + 1.2) \Delta_t = -1.2 \Delta_t$

So CFSE (tet) = $-1.2 \times 8,000 = -9,600\ \text{cm}^{-1}$ — but the question asks for $\Delta_t$ , not CFSE.

How to avoid: Read carefully — does the question ask for CFSE or Δ? Here it asks for CFSE of tetrahedral, which is not simply $\frac{4}{9} \times$ octahedral CFSE.

Mistake 3: Confusing Δ with CFSE

The error: Students treat $\Delta$ and CFSE as the same quantity.

Why it’s wrong:

$\Delta$ is the splitting energy between $t_2$ and $e$ sets.

CFSE is the net energy stabilization after placing electrons, given by:

\text{CFSE} = \left[ -0.4 \times n(t_{2g}) + 0.6 \times n(e_g) \right] \Delta_o \quad \text{(octahedral)}

\text{CFSE} = \left[ -0.6 \times n(e) + 0.4 \times n(t_2) \right] \Delta_t \quad \text{(tetrahedral)}

How to avoid: Always write the electron configuration and apply the correct CFSE formula — never skip this step.

Mistake 4: Using the Wrong d-Orbital Splitting Pattern

The error: Students apply octahedral orbital labels ( $t_{2g}, e_g$ ) to tetrahedral geometry.

Why it’s wrong:

In tetrahedral, the splitting is inverted:

Lower energy: $e$ set ( $d_{x^2-y^2}, d_{z^2}$ ) …

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Same / Similar Concept — real previous-year questions on the same or a closely similar concept, not this exact question.

Showing the 12 most recent of 17 on this concept.

KEAM 2026Set eng-2026-04184 marksMCQ
$[Co(NH_3)_6]^{+3}$
›Reveal solutionSolution

A complex absorbs the colour complementary to the one it appears; the violet/purple $[CoCl(NH_3)_5]^{2+}$ absorbs yellow.

Observed colour is complementary to the absorbed colour. A species that absorbs yellow light appears violet/purple. …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
KEAM 2026Set eng-2026-04204 marksMCQ
$NCS^- < CN^- < SCN^- < S^{2-} < OH^-$
›Reveal solutionSolution

Field strength increases: $SCN^{-}<S^{2-}<OH^{-}<NCS^{-}<CN^{-}$ . …

Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
KEAM 2026Set eng-2026-04214 marksMCQ
$Q. The correct increasing order of wavelength of absorption of the following complexes is$
(i) $[CoCl(NH_3)_5]^{2+}$
(ii) $[Co(NH_3)_5(H_2O)]^{3+}$
(iii) $[Co(NH_3)_6]^{3+}$
(iv) $[Co(CN)_6]^{3-}$ (A)
(i) <
(ii) <
(iii) <
(iv) (B)
(i) <
(ii) <
(iv) <
(iii) (C)
(ii) <
(i) <
(iv) <
(iii) (D)
(iv) <
(iii) <
(ii) <
(i) (E)
(iv) <
(i) <
(ii) < (iii)
›Reveal solutionSolution

Wavelength is inverse to $\Delta_o$ ; increasing $\lambda$ : (iv)<(iii)<(ii)<(i). …

Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
KEAM 2026Set pha-2026-0420F4 marksMCQ
$Q. Which one of the statements is not the limitation of valence bond theory of complexes? (A) It does not give a quantitative interpretation of the thermodynamic stabilities. (B) It does not give quantitative interpretation of magnetic properties.. (C) It explains the colour exhibited by coordination compounds. (D) It does not distinguish between weak and strong ligands. (E) It does not make exact predictions regarding the tetrahedral structures of 4-coordinated complexes.$
›Reveal solutionSolution

A recognised limitation of VBT is that it fails to explain colour; the statement that it explains colour (C) is therefore not a limitation.

Valence bond theory has several well-known limitations: it gives no quantitative account of thermodynamic stabilities (A), no quantitative account of magnetic properties (B), does not distinguish strong from weak ligands (D), and makes no exact prediction of tetrahedral geometries (E) — all genuine shortcomings. …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
KEAM 2025Set eng-2025-04294 marksMCQ
$[NiCl_4]^{2-}$
(i) Magnetic moment
(ii) Geometry
(iii) Hybridisation of central metal ion
(iv) Oxidation state of nickel (A) (i),
(ii) and
(iv) (B) (i),
(ii) and
(iii) (C) (ii),
(iii) and
(iv) (D)
(ii) and
(iii) (E) (i), (ii),
(iii) and (iv)
›Reveal solutionSolution
Both have Ni in the $+2$ state, so (iv) does not differ. They differ in magnetic moment (i), geometry (ii) and hybridisation (iii) — option (B).

Both complexes have $Ni^{2+}$ ( $d^8$ ), so the oxidation state (iv) is the same in both — it cannot be a point of difference.

$[NiCl_4]^{2-}$ : $Cl^-$ is a weak-field ligand, so no pairing occurs. Configuration $d^8$ with 2 unpaired electrons → $sp^3$ hybridisation → tetrahedral, paramagnetic. …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
KEAM 2025Set eng-2025-04294 marksMCQ
$Q. Four complex ions are given in Column I and the colours of light absorbed are given in Column II. Match the correct answer from the codes given below. Complex:$
(a) $[Ti(H_2O)_6]^{3+}$ ;
(b) $[Cu(H_2O)_4]^{2+}$ ;
(c) $[CoCl(NH_3)_5]^{2+}$ ;
(d) $[Co(NH_3)_6]^{3+}$ Colour of light absorbed:
(i) Blue;
(ii) Yellow;
(iii) Blue green;
(iv) Red (A) (a)-(iii), (b)-(iv), (c)-(ii), (d)-(i) (B) (a)-(ii), (b)-(iv), (c)-(iii), (d)-(i) (C) (a)-(iii), (b)-(ii), (c)-(iv), (d)-(i) (D) (a)-(i), (b)-(iv), (c)-(ii), (d)-(iii) (E) (a)-(iii), (b)-(iv), (c)-(i), (d)-(ii)
›Reveal solutionSolution
[!TLDR]

Using crystal-field strength to rank the $d$ - $d$ absorption energies, $[Ti(H_2O)_6]^{3+}$ absorbs blue-green, $[Cu(H_2O)_4]^{2+}$ red, $[CoCl(NH_3)_5]^{2+}$ yellow and $[Co(NH_3)_6]^{3+}$ blue — option (A).

Concept

In a transition-metal complex, $d$ -electrons are excited across the crystal-field gap $\Delta$ . The complex absorbs the wavelength matching $\Delta$ ; a stronger ligand field means a larger $\Delta$ and absorption of higher-energy (shorter-wavelength, toward blue/violet) light. This CFT reasoning is standard in the NCERT/CBSE coordination-chemistry chapter that the KEAM syllabus draws from.

Solution

(b) $[Cu(H_2O)_4]^{2+}$ : aqua ligands give a small $\Delta$ ; the deep-blue solution absorbs low-energy red light $\Rightarrow$ (iv).

(a) $[Ti(H_2O)_6]^{3+}$ : a single $d$ - $d$ band near $500\,\text{nm}$ absorbs blue-green light (complex looks purple) $\Rightarrow$ (iii). …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
KEAM 2025Set pha-2025-0424F4 marksMCQ
$[Ni(CO)_4]$
›Reveal solutionSolution
"Spin free" = high spin. Only $[CoF_6]^{3-}$ , with the weak-field $F^-$ ligand, keeps its d-electrons unpaired (high spin).

A spin-free (high-spin) complex forms with weak-field ligands, where the crystal-field splitting is too small to force pairing.

$[Ni(CO)_4]$ : $CO$ strong field, $Ni(0)$ $d^{10}$ — diamagnetic, not relevant as "spin-free."

$[Co(NH_3)_6]^{3+}$ : $NH_3$ strong-ish field, $Co^{3+}$ $d^6$ — low spin.

$[Ni(CN)_4]^{2-}$ : $CN^-$ strong field — low-spin, square planar, diamagnetic. …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
KEAM 2025Set pha-2025-0424A4 marksMCQ
$[MnCl_6]^{3-}$
›Reveal solutionSolution
$[Co(C_2O_4)_3]^{3-}$ is diamagnetic.

Check the unpaired electrons in each ion:

$[MnCl_6]^{3-}$ : Mn $^{3+}$ $d^4$ , weak-field Cl $^-$ $\Rightarrow$ 4 unpaired — paramagnetic.

$[Fe(CN)_6]^{3-}$ : Fe $^{3+}$ $d^5$ low spin $t_{2g}^5$ $\Rightarrow$ 1 unpaired — paramagnetic.

$[Co(C_2O_4)_3]^{3-}$ : Co $^{3+}$ $d^6$ ; oxalate is a fairly strong field ligand giving low spin $t_{2g}^6 e_g^0$ $\Rightarrow$ 0 unpaired — diamagnetic. …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
KEAM 2025Set pha-2025-0429F4 marksMCQ
$[Co(NH_3)_6]^{3+}$
›Reveal solutionSolution
Outer-orbital (high-spin) complexes form with weak-field ligands that use the outer $d$ orbitals ( $sp^3d^2$ ). Among the options only $[MnCl_6]^{3-}$ has a weak-field ligand ( $Cl^-$ ); the rest have strong-field ligands ( $CN^-$ , $NH_3$ , $C_2O_4^{2-}$ ) giving inner-orbital ( $d^2sp^3$ ) complexes.

Reasoning

Whether a complex is inner- or outer-orbital depends on the ligand field strength:

$[Co(NH_3)_6]^{3+}$ — $NH_3$ strong field, $d^2sp^3$ , inner orbital.

$[Mn(CN)_6]^{3-}$ — $CN^-$ strong field, inner orbital.

$[Co(C_2O_4)_3]^{3-}$ — Co(III) with oxalate, low-spin inner orbital. …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
KEAM 2024Set eng-2024-06094 marksMCQ
$[Ti(H_2O)_6]^{3+}$
›Reveal solutionSolution

$Ti^{3+}$ is a $d^1$ ion; the single electron jumps $t_{2g}\to e_g$ .

In $[Ti(H_2O)_6]^{3+}$ , titanium is in the $+3$ state: $Ti$ is $[Ar]3d^24s^2$ , so $Ti^{3+}$ is $[Ar]3d^1$ — a single $d$ electron. In an octahedral field it occupies the lower $t_{2g}$ set: $t_{2g}^1e_g^0$ . Absorption of light (giving the violet col …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
KEAM 2024Set eng-2024-06094 marksMCQ
$CO < H_2O < Cl^{-} < I^{-}$
›Reveal solutionSolution

Increasing field strength: $I^-<Cl^-<H_2O<CO$ .

In the spectrochemical series the ligands are arranged by increasing crystal-field splitting power. The relevant fragment is
$I^-<Br^-<Cl^-<F^-<H_2O<NH_3<en<CN^-\approx CO.$
Hence for the given ligands the increasing field strength is …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →
KEAM 2024Set eng-2024-06094 marksMCQ
$[CoF_6]^{3-}$
›Reveal solutionSolution

$[CoF_6]^{3-}$ is a high-spin $d^6$ complex (weak-field $F^-$ ) with 4 unpaired electrons.

Cobalt in $[CoF_6]^{3-}$ is $Co^{3+}$ : $[Ar]3d^6$ . Fluoride is a weak-field ligand, so the splitting $\Delta_o$ is small and the complex is high spin. The six $d$ electrons fill as

$t_{2g}^4\,e_g^2,$ …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →

←Previous questionQ7 — Indicate the complex ion which shows geometrical isomerism. (i) [Cr(H₂…→Next questionQ9 — Due to the presence of ambidentate ligands coordination compounds show…

Q.The CFSE for octahedral $[CoCl_6]^{4-}$ is $18,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}$ . The CFSE for tetrahedral $[CoCl_4]^{2-}$ will be

Concept understanding — Crystal Field Splitting

Crystal Field Splitting: From Intuition to Precision

The Precise Statement

Why This Matters

Why this formula?

Crystal Field Splitting: Why the Energy Splitting Occurs

1. The Starting Point: Degenerate d-Orbitals

2. The Octahedral Case: Why $e_g$ Orbitals Are Higher in Energy

What happens to $d_{x^2-y^2}$ and $d_{z^2}$ ?

What happens to $d_{xy}$ , $d_{xz}$ , $d_{yz}$ ?

The Splitting Pattern

3. The Energy Conservation Rule

4. The Tetrahedral Case: Why It's Opposite and Smaller

Result:

Magnitude:

Method: Crystal Field Splitting Ratio Rule for Tetrahedral vs Octahedral Complexes

Why this method works

Steps to solve

Common Mistakes Students Make on This CFSE Problem

Mistake 1: Forgetting the Geometry Factor (Δₜ = 4/9 Δₒ)

Mistake 2: Ignoring the d-electron Count and CFSE Formula

Mistake 3: Confusing Δ with CFSE

Mistake 4: Using the Wrong d-Orbital Splitting Pattern

Concept

Solution

Q.The CFSE for octahedral [CoCl6]4−[CoCl_6]^{4-}[CoCl6​]4− is 18,000 cm−118,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}18,000 cm−1. The CFSE for tetrahedral [CoCl4]2−[CoCl_4]^{2-}[CoCl4​]2− will be

🎓Unlock everything free for 14 days

Q.The CFSE for octahedral $[CoCl_6]^{4-}$ is $18,000\ \text{cm}^{-1}$ . The CFSE for tetrahedral $[CoCl_4]^{2-}$ will be

Unlock everything free for 14 days