4.4 Article

Vibrational studies of non-centrosymmetric [N2H5][M(HCOO)4] (M = Dy, Er and Y) supported by DFT calculations and analysis of IR reflectance spectra using three different methods

期刊

VIBRATIONAL SPECTROSCOPY
卷 87, 期 -, 页码 40-52

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vibspec.2016.09.006

关键词

Metal-organic framework; Formate; DFT; IR reflectance; Three-parameter model; Four-parameter model

资金

  1. National Science Centre (NCN) Poland [DEC-2015/17/D/ST5/01339]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimental vibrational as well as theoretical studies of three non-centrosymmetric (Pca2(1)) and polar MOFs, [N2H5][M(HCOO)(4)], where M = Dy, Er and Y, have been performed. IR reflectance spectra have been recorded at room temperature and fitted using three- (3PM) and four-parameter model (4PM) to obtain information on LO-TO splitting and symmetry of the observed bands. The Kramers-Kronig analysis (KK) of raw reflectance spectra is presented for comparison as well. We have also recorded polarized Raman spectra and performed DFT (the three-parameter hybrid B3LYP, 6-311G(2d,2p) basis set) calculations in harmonic and anharmonic approximations for hydrazine molecule and its singly protonated cation. The obtained theoretical spectra have revealed strongly anharmonic nature of the v(NH2) modes and showed that protonation of only one amine group in hydrazine molecule should affect most significantly the rho(NH2), omega(NH2) coupled with v(NN), and twisting tau(NH2) modes, which are expected to shift towards higher wavenumbers after protonation. Based on the obtained results, all observed Raman and IR bands have been assigned to respective motions of structural units in the crystal lattice. The differences in the hydrogen bond arrangement have been discussed. The comparison of three types of IR reflectance spectra analyses showed that the Lorentz 3PM is the most suitable method and gives the best fitting results in comparison to 4PM and KK. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.4
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