4.6 Article

Enthalpy of formation of 6-phenyl-1,5-diazabicyclo[3.1.0]hexane by combustion calorimetry and theoretical approach for efficient prediction of thermochemistry of diaziridines

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 25, 期 37, 页码 25289-25298

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d3cp03290f

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study determined the combustion energy and standard molar enthalpy of formation of PDABH using both experimental and theoretical methods. It also predicted the enthalpy of formation of PDABH in the solid phase.
The combustion energy and standard molar enthalpy of formation of crystalline 6-phenyl-1,5-diazabicyclo[3.1.0]hexane (PDABH) were determined using an isoperibolic calorimeter with a static bomb. PDABH is the first diaziridine for which the experimental value of the enthalpy of formation was obtained. This value was validated by the theoretical values of gas phase enthalpy of formation and enthalpy of sublimation. The gas phase enthalpy of formation was calculated using the DLPNO-CCSD(T1)/CBS method in conjunction with isodesmic-type reactions. This method was chosen in comparison to another high quality evaluative method (G4), which has been shown to provide unreliable results for cyclic nitrogen containing compounds. The descriptors of the molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) were used to estimate the enthalpy of sublimation of PDABH. The proposed MEP model is based on experimental enthalpies of sublimation for 75 compounds structurally similar to PDABH. The high-level ab initio calculations of gas phase enthalpies of formation combined with enthalpies of sublimations estimated using descriptors of MEP allow predicting the enthalpies of formation of diaziridines in the solid phase. High-level ab initio calculations of gas phase enthalpies of formation combined with enthalpies of sublimations estimated using descriptors of electrostatic potential allow predicting the enthalpies of formation of diaziridines in the solid phase.

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