Why is it better to describe ion formation as a “transfer of electrons” rather than as
“losing and gaining” electrons?
Describing ion formation as a "transfer of electrons" rather than as "losing and gaining" electrons is more accurate and better because it correctly represents the mechanism of ion formation and avoids the misconception that ions are formed by creating or destroying electrons.
When atoms form ions, they typically do not create or destroy electrons. Instead, they undergo a transfer of electrons to achieve a stable electron configuration. For example, in the formation of a cation, an atom loses one or more electrons, while in the formation of an anion, an atom gains one or more electrons. The total number of electrons remains the same; only their distribution changes.
Describing ion formation as a "transfer of electrons" highlights the fact that electrons are simply transferred from one atom to another, maintaining the overall charge neutrality. This description also emphasizes that the atoms involved in ion formation undergo a change in their electron configurations to achieve greater stability.
On the other hand, describing ion formation as "losing and gaining" electrons could potentially mislead by suggesting that atoms are able to create or destroy electrons. This classic description might imply that ions are created by changing the overall number of electrons, which is incorrect.
To accurately convey the process of ion formation, it is therefore better to highlight the transfer of electrons rather than the simplistic notion of losing and gaining electrons.