A Comparative Ab Initio Study of the Primary Hydration and Proton Dissociation of Various Imide and Sulfonic Acid Ionomers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare the role of neighboring group substitutions on proton dissociation of hydrated acidic moieties suitable for proton exchange membranes through electronic structure calculations. Three pairs of ionomers containing similar electron withdrawing groups within the pair were chosen for the study: two fully fluorinated sulfonyl imides (CF(3)SO(2)NHSO(2)CF(3) and CF(3)CF(2)SO(2)NHSO(2)CF(3)), two partially fluorinated sulfonyl imides (CH(3)SO(2)NHSO(2)CF(3) and C(6)H(5)SO(2)NHSO(2)CF(2)CF(3)), and two aromatic sulfonic acid based materials (CH(3)C(6)H(4)SO(3)H and CH(3)OC(6)H(3)OCH(3)C(6)H(4)SO(3)H). Fully optimized counterpoise (CP) corrected geometries were obtained for each ionomer fragment with the inclusion of water molecules at the B3LYP/6-311G** level of density functional theory. Spontaneous proton dissociation was observed upon addition of three water molecules in each system, and the transition to a solvent-separated ion pair occurred when four water molecules were introduced. No considerable quantitative or qualitative differences in proton dissociation, hydrogen bond networks formed, or water binding energies were found between systems containing similar electron withdrawing groups. Each of the sulfonyl imide ionomers exhibited qualitatively similar results regarding proton dissociation and separation. The fully fluorinated sulfonyl imides, however, showed a greater propensity to exist in dissociated and ion-pair separated states at low degrees of hydration than the partially fluorinated sulfonyl imides. This effect is due to the additional electron withdrawing groups providing charge stabilization as the dissociated proton migrates away from the imide anion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".