| Literature DB >> 26696323 |
E Yurtsever1, F A Gianturco2,3, R Wester2.
Abstract
The existence of NCO(-)Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26696323 PMCID: PMC4947977 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.5b10472
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Phys Chem A ISSN: 1089-5639 Impact factor: 2.781
Computed Energy Gap Values for the Radical Reaction 4a
| method | Δ | Δ |
|---|---|---|
| MP2/aug-cc-pVTZ | –25.39 | –24.51 |
| MP2/aug-cc-pVQZ | –24.65 | –23.82 |
| MP2/aug-cc-pV5Z | –24.51 | –23.97 |
| CCSD(T) /aug-cc-pVTZ | –21.47 | –20.94 |
| CCSD(T) /aug-cc-pVqZ | –20.32 | –19.77 |
| CCSD(T) /aug-cc-pV5Z | –19.99 | –19.44 |
| CBS | –19.58 | –19.00 |
See text for further details.
Geometrical Parameters of the Reactants and Products from MP2 Optimizationsa
| aug-cc-pVTZ | aug-cc-pVQZ | aug-cc-pV5z | |
|---|---|---|---|
| R(N–C) in NC | 1.126 | 1.123 | 1.122 |
| R(O–O) in O2 | 1.224 | 1.219 | 1.218 |
| R(N–C) in NCO | 1.248 | 1.245 | 1.244 |
| R(C–O) in NCO | 1.158 | 1.155 | 1.154 |
All values are in units of angstroms.
Figure 1Computed reactive PES for the radical reaction of eq . See main text for further comments. Distances are in angstroms.
Figure 2Similar data to those of Figure but for the different orientation angle Θ = 90°. The units are the same as in Figure . See main text for a more extended discussion.
Figure 3Reactive PES behavior along the NC···OO distance and for different values of the RO–O bond length. See main text for additional comments.
Figure 4Computed energy cut for the reactive PES along the ROO distance, while the RCN and RCO are kept fixed. See main text for additional discussion.
A Summary of the Computed Energetics (MP2 Calculations) for the Radical Reaction 4a
| Total Energy (au) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| species | aug-cc-pVDZ | aug-cc-pVTZ | aug-cc-pVQZ |
| NC | –92.451672 | –92.521340 | –92.544873 |
| O2 | –150.004290 | –150.120938 | –150.160430 |
| NCO | –167.591514 | –167.723440 | –167.767876 |
| O | –74.906967 | –74.959294 | –74.976709 |
See main text for further details.
Dependence of Bond Values on Basis Set Choicesa
| aug-cc-pVTZ | aug-cc-pVQZ | aug-cc-pV5z | |
|---|---|---|---|
| R(N–C) in NC– | 1.191 | 1.187 | 1.187 |
| R(O–O) in O2 | 1.224 | 1.219 | 1.218 |
| R(N–C) in NCO– | 1.204 | 1.201 | 1.200 |
| R(C–O) in NCO– | 1.233 | 1.230 | 1.229 |
All values are in angstroms.
Computed Energy Gap (ΔE) of the Ionic Reactiona
| method | Δ | Δ |
|---|---|---|
| MP2/aug-cc-pVTZ | –10.77 | –9.14 |
| MP2/aug-cc-pVQZ | –10.40 | –8.79 |
| MP2/aug-cc-pV5Z | –10.36 | –9.02 |
| CCSD(T) /aug-cc-pVTZ | –11.43 | –9.96 |
| CCSD(T) /aug-cc-pVqZ | –11.04 | –9.54 |
| CCSD(T) /aug-cc-pV5Z | –10.93 | –9.41 |
| CBS | –10.78 | –9.25 |
See main text for details. The data in the third column are obtained by also including the ZPE corrections.
Computed Geometry and Energy Parameters for the Linear Transition State of the Ion–Molecule Reaction as a Function of the Level of Calculationsa
| MP2/aug-cc-pVDZ | MP2/aug-cc-pVTZ | MP2/aug-cc-pVQZ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| R(NC) | 1.188 | 1.175 | 1.172 |
| R(CO) | 1.747 | 1.733 | 1.730 |
| R(OO) | 1.577 | 1.569 | 1.566 |
| activ.E. | 99.4 | 101.0 | 102.2 |
| act.E. ZPE corr. | 99.8 | 102.9 | 104.0 |
| reaction energy | –10.87 | –10.77 | –10.40 |
| backward activ.E. | 110.3 | 111.9 | 122.6 |
| backward act.E. ZPE corr. | 110.9 | 112.1 | 112.8 |
All data are in either angstroms or kcal/mol.
Figure 5Energy profile of the transition state location along the IRC representation of the ionic reaction 5. See main text for additional discussion.
Figure 6Computed energy profiles, as a function of the RCO distance between CN– and OO, by optimizing the two molecular distances at each step. Distances in angstroms.
Computed Thermochemical Energy Gaps as a Function of the Orientation between Initial Reagentsa
| Θ | Δ |
|---|---|
| 0° | –12.64 |
| 15° | –9.56 |
| 30° | 1.10 |
| 45° | 40.14 |
| 60° | 70.15 |
| 75° | 104.04 |
| 90° | 130.09 |
The Θ = 0° corresponds to the [NCO···O]− structure.
Figure 7Computed energy profiles for the NC– and OO system for different orientations of the two bonds. The Θ = 0° is given for [NC–OO]− configuration. The curves are given as functions of the C···O distances. See main text for additional discussion.
Figure 8Graphical presentation of the thermochemical energy gap as a function of the NC––OO angle, with 0° corresponding to the [NCO–+O] configuration. See text for a more extensive discussion.
Figure 9Energy landscape for the ion–molecule reaction with the O2 partner approaching CN– on the nitrogen end with the RCN– bond kept fixed at its equilibrium value. See text for further discussion.
Figure 10Same graphical presentation as that for the data of Figure but now referring to two bent configurational approaches. See main text for a more extended discussion.