1977
DOI: 10.1021/ja00454a015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predictive value of proton affinity. Ionization energy correlations involving oxygenated molecules

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
53
0
1

Year Published

1977
1977
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 146 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
5
53
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The fact that the carbonyl oxygen is more basic than the hydroxyoxygen was noted already in the 1960s [4, 8, 20, 29 -31], and is in accordance with a general trend for similar carbonyl compounds [32,33]. It is also interesting that structure 1 recently was isolated and characterized in the solid state in the form of HC(OH) 2 ϩ AsF 6 Ϫ [9].…”
Section: Potential Energy Surfacessupporting
confidence: 61%
“…The fact that the carbonyl oxygen is more basic than the hydroxyoxygen was noted already in the 1960s [4, 8, 20, 29 -31], and is in accordance with a general trend for similar carbonyl compounds [32,33]. It is also interesting that structure 1 recently was isolated and characterized in the solid state in the form of HC(OH) 2 ϩ AsF 6 Ϫ [9].…”
Section: Potential Energy Surfacessupporting
confidence: 61%
“…G 0 W 0 calculations have been shown to be adequately converged at the tier 4 level, as compared to reference calculations using larger basis sets augmented with Gaussian basis functions and to experimental vertical IPs for a set of small molecules. 32 For TiO 2 38,39 and IPA 40 the GW@PBEh HOMO and LUMO at the tier 4 level are within 0.1 eV of the experimental IP and EA. For catechol, 41 the GW@PBEh HOMO is very close to the adiabatic IP and about 0.4 eV above the vertical IP.…”
Section: Basis Set Convergencementioning
confidence: 64%
“…The key feature of the plot, though, is that the compounds are separated into two distinct groups, with the smaller group having GB values much higher than would be anticipated, based upon their high IEs and the clear trend in the main group. The reason for the separation is that the smaller group are substituent-protonating, rather than ring-protonating, and their GB values do not reflect the basicity of the ring, which is low because of the EW substituent effect, but that of the substituent itself [21][22][23]. Significantly, all of the compounds from the substituent-protonating group were observed to selfprotonate during Test 1 of the experiments; the only self-protonating dopant not among the substituentprotonating group of Figure 2 was phenyl acetate, which is absent from the plot altogether.…”
Section: Discussion Of Results For Substituted-benzenesmentioning
confidence: 99%