3D-RISM-KH molecular theory of solvation and density functional theory investigation of the role of water in the aggregation of model asphaltenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We applied a multiscale modeling approach that involves the statistical-mechanical three-dimensional reference interaction site model with the Kovalenko-Hirata closure approximation (3D-RISM-KH molecular theory of solvation) as well as density functional theory (DFT) of electronic structure to study the role of water in aggregation of the asphaltene model compound 4,4'-bis(2-pyren-1-yl-ethyl)-2,2'-bipyridine (PBP) [X. Tan, H. Fenniri and M. R. Gray, Energy Fuels, 2008, 22, 715]. The solvation free energy and potential of mean force predicted by 3D-RISM-KH reveal favorable pathways for disaggregation of PBP dimers in pure versus water-saturated chloroform solvent. The water density distribution functions elucidate hydrogen bonding preferences and water bridge formation between PBP monomers. The ΔG(298) values of -5 to -7 kcal mol(-1) for transfer of water molecules in chloroform to a state interacting with PBP molecules are in agreement with experimental results. Geometry optimization and thermochemistry analysis of PBP dimers with and without water bridges using WB97Xd/6-31G(d,p) predict that both PBP dimerization and dimer stabilization by water bridges are spontaneous (ΔG(298) < 0). The (1)H NMR chemical shifts of PBP monomers and dimers predicted using the gauge-independent atomic orbital method and polarizable continuum model for solvation in chloroform are in an excellent agreement with the experimental results for dilute and concentrated PBP solutions in chloroform, respectively [X. Tan, H. Fenniri and M. R. Gray, Energy Fuels, 2009, 23, 3687]. The DFT calculations of PBP dimers with explicit water show that bridges containing 1-3 water molecules lead to stabilization of PBP dimers. Additional water molecules form hydrogen bonds with these bridges and de-shield the PBP protons, negating the effect of water on the (1)H(C3) NMR chemical shift of PBP, in agreement with experiment. The ΔG(298) results show that hydrogen bonding to water and water-promoted polynuclear assembly bridging is as important as π-π interactions for asphaltene aggregation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".