4.6 Article

Computational Study of Competition between Direct Abstraction and Addition-Elimination in the Reaction of Cl Atoms with Propene

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 119, 期 36, 页码 9452-9464

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.5b07052

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/L005913/1]
  2. Univ. of Bristol
  3. EPSRC [EP/L005913/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/L005913/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quasi-classical trajectory calculations on a newly constructed and full-dimensionality potential energy surface (PES) examine the dynamics of the reaction of Cl atoms with propene. The PES is an empirical valence bond (EVE) fit to high-level ab initio energies and incorporates deep potential energy wells for the 1-chloropropyl and 2-chloropropyl radicals, a direct H atom abstraction route to HCl + allyl radical (CH2CHCH2 center dot) products (Delta H-r(298K)circle minus = -63.1 kJ mol(-1)), and a pathway connecting these regions. In total, 94 000 successful reactive trajectories were used to compute distributions of angular scattering and HCl vibrational and rotational level populations. These measures of the reaction dynamics agree satisfactorily with available experimental data. The dominant reaction pathway is direct abstraction of a hydrogen atom from the methyl group of propene occurring in under 500 fs. Less than 10% of trajectories follow an addition-elimination route via the two isomeric chloropropyl radicals. Large amplitude motions of the Cl about the propene molecular framework couple the addition intermediates to the direct abstraction pathway. The EVB method provides a good description of the complicated PBS for the Cl + propene reaction despite fitting to a limited number of ab initio points, with the further advantage that dynamics specific to certain mechanisms can be studied in isolation by switching off coupling terms in the EVE matrix connecting different regions of the PES.

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