4.6 Article

Unraveling the Key Role of the Benzyl Group in the Synthesis of CL-20 Precursor HBIW

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 7, 期 25, 页码 21912-21924

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.2c0216121912

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [22005177]
  2. Science Challenge Project [TZ20180004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed the important role of the benzyl group in the synthesis of CL-20 precursor HBIW and the mechanism by which it reduces energy and barriers through pi-pi stacking interactions. It was found that the reaction can produce 16 intermediates with different chirality, and the steric hindrance effect of the benzyl group leads to corrections of chirality errors, guiding the selection of the most suitable reactant.
As one of the most important energetic material molecules, hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane (CL-20) can only be synthesized using an amine with a benzyl group. Moreover, the reaction mechanism remains unexplored and the special role of the benzyl group has not been revealed. To address these issues, we perform an extensive theoretical study to investigate the synthesis mechanism of CL-20 precursor HBIW by employing density functional theory. Our calculated results demonstrate that the benzyl group can reduce the energy of the intermediate and the energy barrier of the rate-determining step due to the pi-pi stack interaction between two benzene rings of the benzyl group. For the first time, we revealed that the reactions can produce 16 intermediates with different chiralities during the formation of the first two side fivemembered rings and only two of which can further form the bottom sixmembered ring and finally obtain the product HBIW. The steric hindrance effect of the benzyl group leads to the formation of a higher-energy intermediate first, thereby providing an opportunity to correct the wrong chirality. All of these factors make the diimine with the benzyl group the most suitable reactant for the synthesis of CL-20.

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