4.6 Article

Solvation of Silver Ions in Noble Gases He, Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 123, 期 48, 页码 10426-10436

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.9b09496

关键词

-

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund, FWF [P23657, I4130, P31149]
  2. European Commission (ELEvaTE H2020 Twinning Project) [692335]
  3. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P23657, P31149, I4130] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use a novel technique to solvate silver cations in small clusters of noble gases. The technique involves the formation of large, superfluid helium nanodroplets that are subsequently electron ionized, mass-selected by deflection in an electric field, and doped with silver atoms and noble gases (Ng) in pickup cells. Excess helium is then stripped from the doped nanodroplets by multiple collisions with helium gas at room temperature, producing cluster ions that contain no more than a few dozen noble gas atoms and just a few (or no) silver atoms. Under gentle stripping conditions, helium atoms remain attached to the cluster ions, demonstrating their low vibrational temperature. Under harsher stripping conditions, some of the heavier noble gas atoms will be evaporated as well, thus enriching stable clusters of Ng(n)Ag(m)(+) at the expense of less stable ones. This results in local anomalies in the cluster ion abundance, which is measured in a high-resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometer. On the basis of these data, we identify specific magic sizes n of particularly stable ions. There is no evidence, however, for enhanced stability of Ng(2)Ag(+), in contrast to the high stability of Ng(2)Au(+) that derives from the covalent nature of the bond for heavy noble gases. Magic sizes are also identified for Ag-2(+) dimer ions complexed with He or Kr. Structural models will be tentatively proposed. A sequence of magic numbers n = 12, 32, and 44, indicative of three concentric solvation shells of icosahedral symmetry, is observed for HenH2O+.

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