DFT Study of Uranyl Peroxo Complexes with H<sub>2</sub>O, F<sup>–</sup>, OH<sup>–</sup>, CO<sub>3</sub><sup>2-</sup>, and NO<sub>3</sub><sup>–</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structural and electronic properties of monoperoxo and diperoxo uranyl complexes with aquo, fluoride, hydroxo, carbonate, and nitrate ligands have been studied using scalar relativistic density functional theory (DFT). Only the complexes in which the peroxo ligands are coordinated to the uranyl moiety in a bidentate mode were considered. The calculated binding energies confirm that the affinity of the peroxo ligand for the uranyl group far exceeds that of the F(-), OH(-), CO3(2-), NO3(-), and H2O ligands. The formation of the monoperoxo complexes from UO2(H2O)5(2+) and HO2(-) were found to be exothermic in solution. In contrast, the formation of the monouranyl-diperoxo, UO2(O2)2X2(4-) or UO2(O2)2X(4-/3-) (where X is any of F(-), OH(-), CO3(2-), or NO3(-)), complexes were all found to be endothermic in aqueous solution. This suggests that the monoperoxo species are the terminal monouranyl peroxo complexes in solution, in agreement with recent experimental work. Overall, we find that the properties of the uranyl-peroxo complexes conform to well-known trends: the coordination of the peroxo ligand weakens the U-O(yl) bonds, stabilizes the σ(d) orbitals and causes a mixing between the uranyl π- and peroxo σ- and π-orbitals. The weakening of the U-O(yl) bonds upon peroxide coordination results in uranyl stretching vibrational frequencies that are much lower than those obtained after the coordination of carbonato or hydroxo ligands.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".