4.5 Article

Why does the intermolecular dynamics of liquid biphenyl so closely resemble that of liquid benzene? - Molecular dynamics simulation of the optical-Kerr-effect spectra

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 110, 期 2, 页码 976-987

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp0558932

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The combination of optical-Kerr-effect (OKE) spectroscopy and molecular dynamics simulations has provided us with a newfound ability to delve into the librational dynamics of liquids, revealing, in the process, some surprising commonalities among aromatic liquids. Benzene and biphenyl, for example, have remarkably similar OKE spectra despite marked differences in their shapes, sizes, and moments of inertia-and even more chemically distinct aromatics tend to have noticeable similarities in their spectra. We explore this universality by using a molecular dynamics simulation to investigate the librational dynamics of molten biphenyl and to predict its OKE spectrum, comparing the results with our previous calculations for liquid benzene. We suggest that the impressive level of quantitative agreement between these two liquids is largely a reflection of the fact that librations in these and other aromatic liquids act as torsional oscillations with oscillator frequencies selected from the liquid's librational bands. Since these bands are centered about the librational Einstein frequencies, the quantitative similarities between the liquids are essentially reflections of the near identities of their Einstein frequencies. Why then are the Einstein frequencies themselves so insensitive to molecular details? We show that, for nearly planar molecules, mean-square torques and moments of inertia tend to scale with molecular dimensions in much the same way. We demonstrate that this near cancellation provides both a quantitative explanation of the close relationship between benzene and biphenyl and a more general perspective on the similarities seen in the ultrafast dynamics of aromatic liquids.

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