| Literature DB >> 27804955 |
Luke T Roling1, Jessica Scaranto1, Jeffrey A Herron1, Huaizhe Yu1, Sangwook Choi1, Nicholas L Abbott1, Manos Mavrikakis1.
Abstract
Nematic liquid crystals make promising chemoresponsive systems, but their development is currently limited by extensive experimental screening. Here we report a computational model to understand and predict orientational changes of surface-anchored nematic liquid crystals in response to chemical stimuli. In particular, we use first-principles calculations to evaluate the binding energies of benzonitrile, a model for 4'-pentyl-4-biphenylcarbonitrile, and dimethyl methylphosphonate to metal cation models representing the substrate chemical sensing surface. We find a correlation between these quantities and the experimental response time useful for predicting the response time of cation-liquid crystal combinations. Consideration of charge donation from chemical species in the surface environment is critical for obtaining agreement between theory and experiment. Our model may be extended to the design of improved chemoresponsive liquid crystals for selectively detecting other chemicals of practical interest by choosing appropriate combinations of metal cations with liquid crystals of suitable molecular structure.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27804955 PMCID: PMC5097134 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13338
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Figure 1Energy-optimized adsorption geometries.
Shown are the minimum energy structures of metal cations (Men+) bound to (a) benzonitrile (PhCN) and (b) dimethyl methylphosphonate (DMMP). Structural details for all cations studied are given in Supplementary Tables 3 and 4.
Formal charge binding energies and metal charges.
| Al3+ | −24.69 | 1.03 | −19.82 | 1.74 | 4.87 | No | Yes | No |
| Fe3+ | −20.31 | 1.60 | −19.63 | 1.51 | 0.68 | No | Yes | No |
| La3+ | −8.56 | 2.32 | −10.15 | 2.35 | −1.59 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Cd2+ | −6.49 | 1.22 | −7.33 | 1.39 | −0.84 | Yes | No | No |
| Co2+ | −6.88 | 0.87 | −7.72 | 1.22 | −0.84 | Yes | No | No |
| Cu2+ | −9.88 | 0.81 | −8.52 | 1.31 | 1.36 | No | Yes | No |
| Ni2+ | −7.66 | 0.86 | −8.26 | 1.23 | −0.60 | Yes | No | No |
| Zn2+ | −6.81 | 1.34 | −8.17 | 1.27 | −1.36 | Yes | No | No |
| Ag+ | −2.21 | 0.73 | −2.27 | 0.79 | −0.06 | No | No bind | No |
| Na+ | −1.41 | 0.83 | −1.71 | 0.89 | −0.30 | Yes | No bind | No |
Binding energy [eV] and final metal charge (q) for the minimum energy structures of Men+–PhCN and Men+–DMMP using the formal charge approach. Agreement regarding displacement events between theory and the original experiments was only seen in one of ten cases. After the follow-up experiments, agreement regarding displacement increased to three of ten cases (due to displacement of 5CB from Cd and Zn in the follow-up experiments).
*Computed displacement of PhCN by DMMP.
†Experimental displacement of PhCN by DMMP, from previous studies11.
‡Agreement between computed and experimental displacement. ‘No bind' indicates no homeotropic anchoring of the liquid crystal to the metal cation. Displacement is assumed to occur when BEDMMP−BEPhCN<−0.20 eV.
Reduced charge binding energies and metal charges.
| Al2+ | −7.45 | 1.36 | −8.60 | 1.36 | −1.15 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Fe2+ | −5.70 | 1.58 | −8.08 | 1.37 | −2.38 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| La2+ | −4.06 | 1.77 | −5.20 | 1.64 | −1.14 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Cd+ | −1.91 | 0.74 | −2.27 | 0.77 | −0.36 | Yes | No | No |
| Co+ | −2.51 | 0.83 | −2.54 | 0.61 | −0.03 | No | No | Yes |
| Cu+ | −2.56 | 0.77 | −2.81 | 0.70 | −0.25 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Ni+ | −2.56 | 0.77 | −2.78 | 0.67 | −0.22 | Yes | No | No |
| Zn+ | −2.23 | 0.64 | −2.79 | 0.67 | −0.56 | Yes | No | No |
| Ag0 | −0.08 | −0.05 | −0.17 | −0.04 | −0.09 | No bind | No bind | Yes |
| Na0 | −0.19 | −0.13 | −0.44 | −0.14 | −0.25 | No bind | No bind | Yes |
Binding energy [eV] and final metal charge (q) for the minimum energy structures of Men+–PhCN and Men+–DMMP using the reduced charge approach. Agreement regarding displacement events between theory and experiment was initially seen in seven of ten cases, as shown below. After the follow-up experiments, agreement regarding displacement increased to nine of ten cases (due to displacement of 5CB from Cd and Zn in the follow-up experiments). Further, the disagreement in the Ni case arises from only a very small difference (0.02 eV) between the displacement energy and the adopted energy threshold for the displacement event.
*Computed displacement of PhCN by DMMP.
†Experimental displacement of PhCN by DMMP, from previous studies11.
‡Agreement between computed and experimental displacement. ‘No bind' indicates no homeotropic anchoring of the liquid crystal to the metal cation. Displacement is assumed to occur when BEDMMP− BEPhCN<−0.20 eV.
Figure 2Comparison of displacement using the formal charge approach and the reduced charge approach.
Shown are the calculated displacement energies (BEDMMP–BEPhCN) for displacement of benzonitrile (PhCN) by dimethyl methylphosphonate (DMMP) using (a) the formal charge approach, and (b) the reduced charge approach. Displacement is predicted to occur when the displacement energy is stronger (more negative) than −0.20 eV. Blue bars represent agreement between theoretical predictions and experimental observations, whereas magenta bars show disagreement. Ag0 and Na0 are not predicted to exhibit homeotropic anchoring (in agreement with experiments), so no colour bar is shown for those entries.
Figure 3Computed binding energies predict experimental displacement time.
Shown is the experimental response time of 5CB anchored to various metal salts upon exposure to dimethyl methylphosphonate (DMMP) as a function of calculated displacement energy. The response time was defined as the time required to reach 80% normalized light intensity. Filled squares represent values for metal cations in the original data set of reduced charge calculations and corresponding experiments. The best-fit curve was calculated from these original data points, with the exception of the Cu outlier. Filled triangles represent new (Cr3+, Sc3+ and Fe2+) cations with response times predicted by the reduced charge model and evaluated experimentally. The hollow data points represent data calculated from a solvent-explicit model, as described in the text. Experimental error bars are drawn one standard deviation from the mean. All charge designations shown in the figure correspond to the metal salt precursor charges from experiments.
Figure 4Charge transfer diagrams.
Shown are calculated charge density difference plots for the interaction between a Cu cation and benzonitrile (PhCN), using (a) the formal charge approach, (b) the reduced charge approach, and (c) the formal charge approach incorporating two ethanol (EtOH) solvent molecules (two views of the same complex are provided for clarity). EtOH donates electron density to Cu2+, lowering its effective charge. Electronic charge density depletion from the aromatic ring is significantly reduced in the presence of EtOH, as in the case of the reduced charge model shown in (b). Red represents electron charge accumulation and blue electron charge depletion; an isovalue of 0.005 e Å−3 was used to construct the surfaces.