2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.jct.2008.07.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental thermochemical study of the monochloronitrobenzene isomers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
21
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
5
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The estimated values of D f H m obtained by the Cox scheme are good estimates for the isomers in which the chlorine atoms are attached into the aromatic ring in meta and para position, as ob- served in a previous study concerned with the thermochemistry of the monochloronitrobenzenes [15]. So, for 3,4-and 3,5-dichloronitrobenzene, the estimations based on the Cox scheme are in very good agreement with the experimental values, cf.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The estimated values of D f H m obtained by the Cox scheme are good estimates for the isomers in which the chlorine atoms are attached into the aromatic ring in meta and para position, as ob- served in a previous study concerned with the thermochemistry of the monochloronitrobenzenes [15]. So, for 3,4-and 3,5-dichloronitrobenzene, the estimations based on the Cox scheme are in very good agreement with the experimental values, cf.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…2,4-and 2,5-dichloronitrobenzene, larger differences, D, are observed. Hence, supported on the former studies devoted to the monochloronitrobenzenes [15] and chloronitroanilines [19], in which it was observed that for benzene derivatives with these two substituents attached in ortho-position a correction term of $22 kJ Á mol À1 should be considered, the estimated values of D f H m ðgÞ for 2,3-, 2,4-, 2,5-, and 2,6-dichloronitrobenzene are, respectively, (45.1 ± 2.3) kJ Á mol À1 , (36.6 ± 2.3) kJ Á mol À1 , (33.4 ± 1.7) kJ Á mol À1 and (44.6 ± 2.3) kJ Á mol À1 , yielding better estimations as compared with the available experimental values.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 60%
See 3 more Smart Citations