4.5 Article

Cyclic versus straight chain oligofuran as sensor: A detailed DFT study

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2020.107569

关键词

Oligofuran; Density functional theory (DFT); Symmetry adopted perturbation theory (SAPT); CHELPG charge transfer; Noncovalent interaction index (NCI)

资金

  1. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan [5309]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a novel approach for exploring the sensitivity and selectivity of cyclic oligofuran (5/6/7CF) toward gaseous analytes and their comparison with straight chain analogues (5/6/7SF). The work is not only vital to understand the superior sensitivity but also for rational design of new sensors based on cyclic ring structures of oligofuran. Interaction of cyclic and straight chain oligofuran with NH3, CO, CO2, N2H4, HCN, H2O2, H2S, CH4, CH3OH, SO2, SO3 and H2O analytes is studied via DFT calculation at B3LYP-D3/6-31++G (d, p) level of theory. The sensitivity and selectivity are illustrated by the thermodynamic parameters (E-bind, SAPT0 energies, NCI analysis), electronic properties (H-L gap, percentage of average energy gap, CHELPG charge transfer, DOS spectra), and UV-Vis analysis. All these properties are simulated at B3LYP/6-31G (d) level of theory while UV-Vis is calculated at TD-DFT method. Cyclic oligofurans have high binding energies with analytes compared to 5/6/7SF which corresponds to higher sensitivity of 5/6/7CF. Furthermore, the cyclization of oligofuran significantly improves the sensitivity and selectivity of the system. Alteration in electronic properties of 5/6/7CF and 5/6/7SF is remarkably high upon complexation with SO2 and SO3. Further the stability of rings (5, 6 and 7 membered cyclic oligofurans) and their SO3 complexes is also confirmed by molecular dynamics calculations. The findings of the work clearly suggest that the cyclic geometry enhances not only sensitivity but also selectivity of conducting polymers (oligofuran). (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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