The anomalous halogen bonding interactions between chlorine and bromine with water in clathrate hydrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clathrate hydrate phases of Cl <sub>2</sub> and Br <sub>2</sub> guest molecules have been known for about 200 years. The crystal structure of these phases was recently re-determined with high accuracy by single crystal X-ray diffraction. In these structures, the water oxygen–halogen atom distances are determined to be shorter than the sum of the van der Waals radii, which indicates the action of some type of non-covalent interaction between the dihalogens and water molecules. Given that in the hydrate phases both lone pairs of each water oxygen atom are engaged in hydrogen bonding with other water molecules of the lattice, the nature of the oxygen–halogen interactions may not be the standard halogen bonds characterized recently in the solid state materials and enzyme–substrate compounds. The nature of the halogen–water interactions for the Cl <sub>2</sub> and Br <sub>2</sub> molecules in two isolated clathrate hydrate cages has recently been studied with <italic>ab initio</italic> calculations and Natural Bond Order analysis (Ochoa-Resendiz <italic>et al. J. Chem. Phys.</italic> 2016, <bold>145</bold> , 161104). Here we present the results of <italic>ab initio</italic> calculations and natural localized molecular orbital analysis for Cl <sub>2</sub> and Br <sub>2</sub> guests in all cage types observed in the cubic structure I and tetragonal structure I clathrate hydrates to characterize the orbital interactions between the dihalogen guests and water. Calculations with isolated cages and cages with one shell of coordinating molecules are considered. The computational analysis is used to understand the nature of the halogen bonding in these materials and to interpret the guest positions in the hydrate cages obtained from the X-ray crystal structures.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".