4.7 Article

FTIR and dispersive gas phase fundamental infrared intensities of the fluorochloromethanes: Comparison with QCISD/cc-pVTZ results

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.saa.2018.07.020

关键词

Dispersive spectrophotometer; FTIR spectroscopy; Infrared intensities; PNNL spectral library; Fluorochloromethanes

资金

  1. Sao Paulo's FAPESP [2016/07411-4, 2014/21241-9]
  2. FAPESP [2009/09678]
  3. Brazil's CNPq [304518/2014-0]
  4. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [16/07411-4] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

New experimental values of the fundamental infrared gas phase intensities of the fluorochloromethanes have been determined by integrating the areas of vibrational bands contained in the PNNL spectral library using homemade software. The root mean square differences of these values and averages of experimental values determined at lower resolution during the latter part of the 20th century is 26.6 km mol(-1). All but one of the low resolution intensities are smaller than the PNNL values. The exception is the v(1),v(4) overlapped band intensity of CF3CI that has a standard deviation of the low resolution values of +/- 112.5 km mol(-1), larger than the observed difference of 102.5 km mol(-1). The use of an augmented triple zeta basis set at the QCISD level results in an rms difference of only 8.4 km mol(-1) for the fluoro- and chloromethane PNNL intensities, whereas a comparison of these with results at the QCISD/cc-pVTZ level produces an error twice as large, 16.2 km mol(-1). As such these results suggest that future comparisons of theoretical intensities with experimental values should take into account integrated intensities that can be obtained from hundreds of spectra in the PNNL library. Furthermore, the intensity values obtained from the PNNL spectra confirm electronegativity model results previously reported based on the low resolution intensities. (C) 2018 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

4.7
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