| Literature DB >> 31614645 |
Shiliang Liu1,2, Mingzhe Zhang3, Baokun Huang4, Nannan Wu5,6, Shunli Ouyang7.
Abstract
The effects of hydrogen bonds on the molecular structure of water-tetrahydrofuran (H2O-THF), water-dimethyl sulfoxide (H2O-DMSO), and water-tetrahydrofuran-dimethyl sulfoxide (H2O-THF-DMSO) in binary aqueous solutions and ternary aqueous solutions were studied using Raman spectroscopy. The results indicate that in the binary aqueous solution, the addition of THF and DMSO will generate hydrogen bonds with water molecules, resulting in changes in the peak positions of S=O bonds and C-O bonds. Compared with the binary aqueous solutions, the hydrogen bonds between DMSO and THF, and the hydrogen bonds between DMSO and H2O in the ternary aqueous solutions are competitive, and the hydrogen bond competition is susceptible to water content. In addition, the formation of hydrogen bonds will destroy the fully hydrogen-bonded water and make it change to the partially hydrogen-bonded water. By fitting the spectra into the three Gaussian components assigned to water molecules with different hydrogen bonding (HB) environments, these spectral features are interpreted by a mechanism that H2O in different solution systems has equal types of water molecules with similar HB degrees-fully hydrogen-bonded H2O (FHW) and partially hydrogen-bonded H2O (PHW). The ratio of the intensity transition from FHW to PHW is determined based on Gaussian fitting. Therefore, the variation of hydrogen bond competition can be supplemented by the intensity ratio of PHW/FHW ((IC2 + IC3)/IC1). This study provides an experimental basis for enriching the hydrogen bonding theory of multivariate aqueous solution systems.Entities:
Keywords: Raman spectroscopy; binary aqueous solution; fully hydrogen-bonded water; hydrogen bond; ternary aqueous solution
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31614645 PMCID: PMC6832131 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24203666
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Raman spectra of binary aqueous solutions. (A) pure DMSO (Sample c) vs. H2O–DMSO solution (Sample e). (B) pure THF (Sample b) vs. H2O–THF solution (Sample d).
Figure 2The Raman shift of C–O and S=O. (A) THF and THF–DMSO. (B) DMSO and THF–DMSO.
Figure 3Raman shift vs. hydrogen bonding between different solutions. (a) pure THF, (b) THF–DMSO solution, and (c) H2O-THF.
Figure 4Raman shift of S=O (A) and C–O (B) vs. water content of the ternary solution.
Figure 5Deconvolution of Raman spectra into three Gaussian components C1, C2 and C3 with the central wave number at 3245, 3420 and 3550 cm−1, for (a) sample a, (b) sample d, (c) sample e, (d) sample g, (e) sample h, (f) sample j, (g) sample k, and (h) sample m. The thicker dashed lines represent the smoothed line of the raw spectral data by the Peak Fit software. The superposed contour is the fitted line by the three Gaussian components.
Ratio of intensity (I) sum of C2, C3 (IC2 + IC3) to intensity the sum of C1 (IC1) for H2O, binary and ternary aqueous solutions.
| Sample | a | d | e | g | h | j | k | m |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (IC2 + IC3)/IC1 | 1.58 | 2.20 | 2.40 | 0.45 | 1.30 | 2.55 | 2.14 | 1.60 |
Molar contents of each sample.
| Sample | Sample | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| a | 1:0:0 | h | 0.3:1:1 |
| b | 0:1:0 | i | 0.5:1:1 |
| c | 0:0:1 | j | 1:1:1 |
| d | 1:1:0 | k | 1.5:1:1 |
| e | 1:0:1 | l | 2:1:1 |
| f | 0:1:1 | m | 2.5:1:1 |
| g | 0.1:1:1 | n | 3:1:1 |