Abstract:
In this lab the molecular
orbitals, dipole moment, vibrational frequencies, electrostatic
potentials and partial atomic charges were measured for
Bromine ,
Hydrogen Peroxide,
m-xylene
were calculated using GAMESS. Different leveles of theory were
used in games which included 6-21G, 6-31G, 3-21G, PM3 and DZV.
3-21G was used for bromine in place of 6-21G which was not
optimized for bromine. Overall PM3 gave the best results for
bromine while DZV gave the best results for m-xylene and was
used for the vibrational calculations. 6-21G yielded the best
results for hydrogen peroxide. Each molecule had a different
level of theory that gave the optimized geometry.
Introduction:
A molecules reactivity is predominantly determined by the electronic structure of the molecule. Vibrational frequency, polarizability, dipole moment, tendency to donate electrons and absorption of visible light are all useful properties of molecules that can be found using computer molecular orbital quantum mechanic calculations. The computer calculations ran off the basis that the lowest energy of the molecule is the most stable and therefore the best or optimized geometry of that molecule. The computer employs the variational theorem which approximates the true wavefunction with the sum of the trial wavefunctions. Molecules larger than a few atoms used to be unattainable but with the advance of high processing computers larger molecules can now be determined. The methods AM1 and PM3 use empirical data to calculate the expectation value of energy. This makes them fast and easy but the better method is ab inito. This includes 6-21G, 6-31G, 3-21G, and DZV. The size of these basis sets is much larger than AM1 and PM3 and is therefore more accurate. DZV is the largest and should give the best results.
In this experiment GAMESS was used to calculate the optimized geometry, dipole moments, bond lengths and angles, and vibrations for Bromine, Hydrogen Peroxide, and m-xylene. The PM3, 6-21G, 6-31G and DZV basis sets were used for Hydrogen Peroxide and m-xylene. Bromine used the same basis sets except it was not optimized for 6-21G so 3-21G was used instead. Jmol was then used to visualize the results of the GANESS computations.
Results: Experimental results for:
Bromine ,
Hydrogen
Peroxide,
m-xylene
Conclusion:
Each basis set generated a decent geometry
and was fairly consistent across the board. The issue was with
bond lengths and bond angles which were slightly off for all the
basis sets. Even PM3 for bromine, which was optimized for
bromine, was off by 1pm. The dipole moments were off by about
20% across the board, while vibrations looked good. Overall the
basis set DZV seemed to be the best for all of them as if it was
not the best, hydrogen peroxide and bromine, it was second best
in both. This is most likely due to it being the largest data
set giving the most accurate results.
References:
- Oberhammer, Heinz. Gas phase structure of
Peroxides: Experiments and Computational Problems. ChemPhysChem.
2015, 16, 282-290.
- Listing of Experimental Data for H2O2
(Hydrogen Peroxide)
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Name=hydrogen+peroxide&Units=SI.
Accessed October 2019.
- IR for Hydrogen Peroxide
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7722841&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC.
Accessed October 2019.
- Literature value for bond angle:
http://www.h2o2.com/technical-library/physical-chemical-properties/thermodynamic-properties/default.aspx?pid=34&name=Molecular-Data
Accessed October 2019.
- Listing of Experimental Data for Br2
(Bromine) 2019,
https://cccbdb.nist.gov/exp2x.asp?casno=7726956
accessed October 9, 2019
- Listing of experimental data for m-xylene 2019,
https://cccbdb.nist.gov/exp2x.asp?casno=108383&charge=0
accessed October 9, 2019
- IR for m-xylene 2019,
https://sdbs.db.aist.go.jp/sdbs/cgi-bin/direct_frame_top.cgi
accessed October 9, 2019