Multinuclear Solid‐State Magnetic Resonance as a Sensitive Probe of Structural Changes upon the Occurrence of Halogen Bonding in Co‐crystals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the understanding of intermolecular interactions, such as hydrogen bonding, is relatively well-developed, many additional weak interactions work both in tandem and competitively to stabilize a given crystal structure. Due to a wide array of potential applications, a substantial effort has been invested in understanding the halogen bond. Here, we explore the utility of multinuclear ((13)C, (14/15)N, (19)F, and (127)I) solid-state magnetic resonance experiments in characterizing the electronic and structural changes which take place upon the formation of five halogen-bonded co-crystalline product materials. Single-crystal X-ray diffraction (XRD) structures of three novel co-crystals which exhibit a 1:1 stoichiometry between decamethonium diiodide (i.e., [(CH3)3N(+)(CH2)10N(+)(CH3)3][2 I(-)]) and different para-dihalogen-substituted benzene moieties (i.e., p-C6X2Y4, X=Br, I; Y=H, F) are presented. (13)C and (15)N NMR experiments carried out on these and related systems validate sample purity, but also serve as indirect probes of the formation of a halogen bond in the co-crystal complexes in the solid state. Long-range changes in the electronic environment, which manifest through changes in the electric field gradient (EFG) tensor, are quantitatively measured using (14)N NMR spectroscopy, with a systematic decrease in the (14)N quadrupolar coupling constant (CQ) observed upon halogen bond formation. Attempts at (127)I solid-state NMR spectroscopy experiments are presented and variable-temperature (19)F NMR experiments are used to distinguish between dynamic and static disorder in selected product materials, which could not be conclusively established using solely XRD. Quantum chemical calculations using the gauge-including projector augmented-wave (GIPAW) or relativistic zeroth-order regular approximation (ZORA) density functional theory (DFT) approaches complement the experimental NMR measurements and provide theoretical corroboration for the changes in NMR parameters observed upon the formation of a halogen bond.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".