from the nuclear charge by the intervening filled 4d and 5f subshells. An important consideration is that compounds in the lower oxidation state are ionic, whereas the compounds in the higher oxidation state tend to be covalent. Therefore, covalency effects must be taken into account. An alternative explanation of the inert pair effect by Drago in 1958 attributed the effect to low M−X bond enthalpies for the heavy p-block elements and the fact that it requires less energy to oxidize an element to a low oxidation state than to a higher oxidation state. This energy has to be supplied by ionic or covalent bonds, so if bonding to a particular element is weak, the high oxidation state may be inaccessible. Further work involving relativistic effects confirms this. In the case of groups 13 to 15 the inert-pair effect has been further attributed to "the decrease in bond energy with the increase in size from Al to Tl so that the energy required to involve the s electron in bonding is not compensated by the energy released in forming the two additional bonds". That said, the authors note that several factors are at play, including relativistic effects in the case of gold, and that "a quantitative rationalisation of all the data has not been achieved". Steric activity of the lone pair The chemical inertness of the s electrons in the lower oxidation state is not always married to steric inertness (where steric inertness means that the presence of the s-electron lone pair has little or no influence on the geometry of the molecule or crystal). A simple example of steric activity is that of SnCl2, which is bent in accordance with VSEPR theory. Some examples where the lone pair appears to be inactive are bismuth(III) iodide, BiI3, and the anion. In both of these the central Bi atom is octahedrally coordinated with little or no distortion, in contravention to VSEPR theory. The steric activity of the lone pair has long been assumed to be due to the orbital having some p character, i.e. the orbital is not spherically symmetric. More recent theoretical work shows that this is not always necessarily the case. For example, the litharge structure of PbO contrasts to the more symmetric and simpler rock-salt structure of PbS, and this has been explained in terms of PbII–anion interactions in PbO leading to an asymmetry in electron density. Similar interactions