Elaborating a new excited state intramolecular proton transfer (ESPT) mechanism for a new π-conjugated dye 2, 2′-((5-(2-(4-methoxyphenyl)ethenyl)-benzene-1,1-diyl)-bis-(nitrilomethylylidene)-diphenol)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, the excited state dynamical behavior of a novel π-conjugated dye 2,2′-((5-(2-(4-methoxyphenyl)ethenyl)-benzene-1,1-diyl)-bis-(nitrilomethylylidene)-diphenol) (C1) has been investigated. Two intramolecular hydrogen bonds of C1 are tested to pre-existing in the ground state via AIM and reduced density gradient. Using a time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) method, it has been substantiated that the intramolecular hydrogen bonds of C1 should be strengthened in the S1 state via analyzing fundamental bond length, bond angles, and corresponding infrared vibrational modes. The most obvious variation of these two hydrogen bonds is the O4–H5···N6 bond, which might play important roles in excited state behavior for the C1 system. Furthermore, based on electronic excitation, charge transfer could occur. Just due to this kind of charge re-distribution, two hydrogen bonds should be tighter in the first excited state, which is consistent with the variation of hydrogen bond lengths. Thus, the phenomenon of charge transfer is reasonable evidence for confirming the occurrence of the excited state proton transfer (ESPT) process in the S1 state. Our theoretically constructed potential energy surfaces of C1 show that excited state single proton transfer should occur along with the O4–H5···N6 hydrogen bond rather than the O1–H2···N3 bond. We not only clarify the ESIPT mechanism for C1 but put forward new affiliation and explain a previous experiment successfully.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".