4.6 Article

NMR tensors in planar hydrocarbons of increasing size

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 11, 期 48, 页码 11404-11414

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b919860a

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Graduate School of Computational Chemistry and Molecular Spectroscopy
  2. Alfred Kordelin Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

C-13 nuclear shielding and C-13-C-13 spin-spin coupling tensors were calculated using density functional theory linear response methods for a series of planar hydrocarbons. As calculation of the spin-spin coupling is computationally demanding for large molecules due to demands placed on basis-set quality, novel, compact completeness-optimized (co) basis sets of high quality were employed. To maximize the predictive value of the data, the convergence of the co basis sets was compared to well-known basis-set families. The selection of the exchange-correlation functional was performed based on the available experimental data and coupled-cluster calculations for ethene and benzene. The series of hydrocarbons, benzene, coronene, circumcoronene and circumcircumcoronene, was chosen to simulate increasingly large fragments of carbon nanosheets. It was found that the nuclear shielding and the one-, two-, and three-bond spin-spin coupling constants, as well as the corresponding anisotropies with respect to the direction normal to the plane, approach convergence as the number of carbon atoms in the fragment is increased. Predictions of the investigated properties can then be done for the limit of large planar hydrocarbons or carbon nanosheets. From the results obtained with a judicious choice of the functional, PBE, and co basis close to convergence, limiting values are estimated as follows: sigma = 54 +/- 1 ppm [corresponding to the chemical shift of 134 ppm with methane (CH4) as a reference], Delta sigma = 207 +/- 4 ppm, (1)J = 59.0 +/- 0.5 Hz, Delta(1)J = -1.5 +/- 0.5 Hz, (2)J = 0.2 +/- 0.4 Hz, Delta(2)J = -4.6 +/- 0.2 Hz, (3)J = 6 +/- 1 Hz, and Delta(3)J = 3 +/- 1 Hz.

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