Molecular simulations and density functional theory calculations of bromine in clathrate hydrate phases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bromine forms a tetragonal clathrate hydrate structure (TS-I) very rarely observed in clathrate hydrates of other guest substances. The detailed structure, energetics, and dynamics of Br2 and Cl2 in TS-I and cubic structure I (CS-I) clathrate hydrates are studied in this work using molecular dynamics and quantum chemical calculations. X-ray diffraction studies show that the halogen-water-oxygen distances in the cages of these structures are shorter than the sum of the van der Waals radii of halogen and oxygen atoms. This suggests that the stabilizing effects of halogen bonding or other non-covalent interactions (NCIs) may contribute to the formation of the unique tetragonal bromine hydrate structure. We performed molecular dynamics simulations of Br2 and Cl2 clathrate hydrates using our previously developed five-site charge models for the dihalogen molecules [Dureckova et al. Can. J. Chem. 93, 864 (2015)] which reproduce the computed electrostatic potentials of the dihalogens and account for the electropositive σ-hole of the halogen bond donor (the dihalogen). Analysis of the radial distribution functions, enthalpies of encapsulation, velocity and orientation autocorrelation functions, and polar angle distributions are carried out for Br2 and Cl2 guests in various cages to contrast the properties of these guests in the TS-I and CS-I phases. Quantum chemical partial geometry optimizations of Br2 and Cl2 guests in the hydrate cages using the M06-2X functional give short halogen-water distances compatible with values observed in X-ray diffraction experiments. NCI plots of guest-cage structures are generated to qualitatively show the relative strength of the non-bonding interactions between dihalogens and water molecules. The differences between behaviors of Br2 and Cl2 guests in the hydrate cages may explain why bromine forms the unique TS-I phase.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".