4.7 Article

The hydration of formic acid and acetic acid

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR LIQUIDS
卷 205, 期 -, 页码 85-92

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2014.11.030

关键词

Neutron diffraction; Molecular modelling; Aqueous solutions; Weak acids; Formic acid; Acetic acid; X-ray diffraction

资金

  1. UK Materials Chemistry Consortium (EPSRC) [EP/L000202]
  2. ISIS Facility Access Panels [RB910589]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Formic add and acetic acid share the unique feature, amongst carboxylic adds, of crystallising in the form of long chains, containing both O-H center dot center dot center dot O and C-H center dot center dot center dot O hydrogen bonds. We have performed a neutron diffraction study of the pure adds and of three mixtures of add and water (2:1, 1:1 and 1:2). The data from the SANDALS diffractometer at ISIS have been modelled using the Empirical Potential Structure Refinement code, which is able to reproduce a set of configurations compatible with the experimental data. The relative importance of the hydrogen bonds present in the solution is assessed based on geometrical criteria: bond length and directionality as well as number of bonds. At all concentrations, the carbonyl oxygen on the carboxylic group is the most active site for a strong hydrogen bond. The tendency to establish direct interactions between acid molecules in the presence of water is reduced for acetic acid by a larger degree than for formic acid. The overall tendency is for a greater number of hydrogen bonds being formed when the solution is more diluted. The availability of good quality structural data on the liquid states is of great importance for the understanding of spectroscopic experiments and for benchmarking both classic molecular dynamics and ab initio simulations. The results provide a springboard to more realistic models of aerosol formation, which is greatly needed for better understanding of cloud formation processes. Crown Copyright (C) 2014 Published by 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