2020
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.9b10248
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Understanding Trends in Molecular Bond Angles

Abstract: Trends in bond angle are identified in a systematic study of more than a thousand symmetric A 2 B triatomic molecules. We show that, in series where atoms A and B are each varied within a group, the following trends hold: (1) the A–B–A bond angle decreases for more polarizable central atoms B, and (2) the A–B–A angle increases for more polarizable outer atoms A. The physical underpinning is provided by the extended Debye polarizability model for the chemical bond angle, hence our present findings also serve as… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such an orientation of the surfactant molecules (Figure c) leaves the vibrational bands of the hydrocarbon chain due to different alkyl groups largely unaffected, while that of (CH 2 ) wagg at 1341–1360 cm –1 completely disappears. It happens due to a change in the angle of atoms of the methylene group versus the plane of the SDS molecule in the event of compact bilayer formation among the hydrocarbon chains. , Since the interactions are happening through oppositely charged head groups of SDS and 16- n -16, the frequency of the doublet of SDS (SO 2 ) depends on the spacer length of 16- n -16 (Figure b), which even merges into a single peak for 16-2-16 as well as 16-3-16, indicating much stronger adsorption due to a better compatibility between the SDS layer and the spacer length of two to three methylene groups of 16- n -16. The effect is minimum for CTAB, supplementing our earlier conclusion that surface adsorption of 16- n -16 is much stronger than that of CTAB.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such an orientation of the surfactant molecules (Figure c) leaves the vibrational bands of the hydrocarbon chain due to different alkyl groups largely unaffected, while that of (CH 2 ) wagg at 1341–1360 cm –1 completely disappears. It happens due to a change in the angle of atoms of the methylene group versus the plane of the SDS molecule in the event of compact bilayer formation among the hydrocarbon chains. , Since the interactions are happening through oppositely charged head groups of SDS and 16- n -16, the frequency of the doublet of SDS (SO 2 ) depends on the spacer length of 16- n -16 (Figure b), which even merges into a single peak for 16-2-16 as well as 16-3-16, indicating much stronger adsorption due to a better compatibility between the SDS layer and the spacer length of two to three methylene groups of 16- n -16. The effect is minimum for CTAB, supplementing our earlier conclusion that surface adsorption of 16- n -16 is much stronger than that of CTAB.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Si−X−Al bond angle decreases abruptly from 121.5° to 93.0° as the interacting halogen atom in Si−X−Al becomes increasingly heavier from F to Cl to Br (Set 4). Decreasing trend of bond angle can be attributed to the increasing polarizability of the halogens from F to Br [65] …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Decreasing trend of bond angle can be attributed to the increasing polarizability of the halogens from F to Br. [65] The SiÀ X bond of the halosilane gets elongated upon complexation with the acceptor. Elongation of the SiÀ X bond ranges from 0.009 Å in SiH 3 FÀ BBr 3 to 0.099 Å in SiH 3 FÀ Al(CF 3 ) 3 .…”
Section: Chemistryselectmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It clearly shows that the electron density of the C–Cl bond is slightly higher than that of C–F and C–Br for halogen-substituted cycloheptane, thus confirming a strong covalent interaction between the halogens and the ring as indicated by the color code in the RDG plot. However, the sign of the second eigenvalue of the electron density (ED) Hessian matrix, which clearly distinguishes repulsive (λ 2 > 0) interaction from attractive (λ 2 < 0) interactions shows that the sign­(λ 2 )­ρ for the molecules is >0, indicating the presence of slight repulsive interactions and strong covalent interactions in the molecules as indicated by the intrinsic bond strength index scale. In the case of oxepane, azepane, and thiepane, the result shows that the C–N bond has a higher ED than C–O and C–S bonds, suggesting stronger covalent interactions.…”
Section: Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%