Abstract
From an academic and practical point of view, it is desirable to be able to assess the possibility of the proton exchange of a given molecular system just by knowing the positions of the proton acceptor and the proton donor. This study addresses the difference between intramolecular hydrogen bonds in 2,2 & PRIME;-bipyridinium and 1,10-phenanthrolinium. Solid-state N-15 NMR and model calculations ...
Abstract
From an academic and practical point of view, it is desirable to be able to assess the possibility of the proton exchange of a given molecular system just by knowing the positions of the proton acceptor and the proton donor. This study addresses the difference between intramolecular hydrogen bonds in 2,2 & PRIME;-bipyridinium and 1,10-phenanthrolinium. Solid-state N-15 NMR and model calculations show that these hydrogen bonds are weak; their energies are 25 kJ/mol and 15 kJ/mol, respectively. Neither these hydrogen bonds nor N-H stretches can be responsible for the fast reversible proton transfer observed for 2,2 & PRIME;-bipyridinium in a polar solvent down to 115 K. This process must have been caused by an external force, which was a fluctuating electric field present in the solution. However, these hydrogen bonds are the grain that tips the scales precisely because they are an integral part of a large system of interactions, including both intramolecular interactions and environmental influence.
Altmetric