4.6 Article

Structure, Physicochemical Properties, and Density Functional Theory Calculation of High-Energy-Density Materials Constructed with Intermolecular Interaction: Nitro Group Charge Determines Sensitivity

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 118, 期 41, 页码 23487-23498

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp5062418

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21373162, 21463020, 21127004, 21173168, 21203149]
  2. Nature Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province [11JS110, FF10091, SJ08B09]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four nitro-containing energetic compounds, cocrystal of AT center dot DNBA (1), salt of MA center dot DNSA (2), salt of AG center dot DNBA center dot H2O (3), and salt of DAT center dot DNSA H2O (4), are synthesized and structurally characterized based on supramolecular interactions (AT, 4-amino-1,2,4-triazole; DNBA, 3,5-dinitrobenzoic acid; MA, melamine; DNSA, 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid; AG, amino guanidine; DAT, 3,5-diamino-1,2,4-triazole). The physicochemical properties of the compounds are theoretically and experimentally investigated in detail. The optimized structures, molecular total energies, frontier orbit energies, and charge densities of 14 are calculated by theoretical methods. The experimental results indicate that all compounds exhibit good thermostability and low sensitivity. It is worth noting that the values of impact sensitivity are measured to be 30, >40, 38, and >40 J for 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, which correspond well to the order of nitro group charge (Q(Nitro)) calculated by density functional theory. The detonation performances of 14 are discussed; in particular, 1 and 2 exhibit heats of detonation (2.191 kcal g(1) for 1 and 2.214 kcal g(1) for 2) superior to those of classical nitro-rich compounds. In addition, the nonisothermal thermokinetic parameters are obtained by Kissinger and Ozawa methods, and the standard molar enthalpies of formation are calculated from the determination of constant volume combustion energies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据