Overlooked Difference between Hydrogen Bonds of Equal Strength Formed between Catechol and an Oxygen or Nitrogen Base. Experiments and DFT Calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The IR spectrum of catechol in CCl(4) shows two fairly sharp O-H stretching bands of roughly equal absorbance at 3615.0 and 3569.6 cm(-1) due, respectively, to the "free" OH and the intramolecularly H-bonded OH groups. Intermolecular H-bond formation between the "free" OH and a hydrogen bond acceptor (HBA) decreases its stretching frequency by several hundred wavenumbers and simultaneously decreases the frequency of the intramolecularly H-bonded OH by a few tens of wavenumbers. The magnitude of these frequency shifts, Deltaupsilon(inter) and Deltaupsilon(intra), respectively, are very well reproduced by DFT calculations. As would be expected, the magnitudes of Deltaupsilon(inter) and Deltaupsilon(intra) increase as the HB accepting ability of the HBA increases as quantified, on a relative scale, by the HBA's values (Abraham et al. J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans. 2 1990, 521). However, plots of experimental, or calculated, frequency shifts versus reveal that Deltaupsilon(inter) and Deltaupsilon(intra) are ca. 40% larger for a nitrogen atom HBA than for an oxygen atom HBA having equal HBA activity. We hypothesize that for HBAs of equal strength, i.e., of equal, the H-bond in (O-H- - -O)(inter) is shorter and, hence, intrinsically stronger than the H-bond in the (O-H- - -N)(inter). However, we further hypothesize that there is more charge separation in the H-bond to N because N is a better proton acceptor than O. Hence, it is the greater Coulombic attraction in (O-H- - -N)(inter) which strengthens this H-bond and compensates for its greater length. Theoretical calculations lend support to these hypotheses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".