Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 605

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why Are Ionic Liquids Liquid? A Simple Explanation Based on Lattice and Solvation Energies

Open access
Krossing, Ingo, Slattery, John M., Daguenet, Corinne, Dyson, Paul J., Oleinikova, Alla, Weingärtner, Hermann·2006·Journal of the American Chemical Society

Abstract

We have developed a simple and quantitative explanation for the relatively low melting temperatures of ionic liquids (ILs). The basic concept was to assess the Gibbs free energy of fusion (Delta(fus)G) for the process IL(s) --> IL(l), which relates to the melting point of the IL. This was done using a suitable Born-Fajans-Haber cycle that was closed by the lattice (i.e., IL(s) --> IL(g)) Gibbs energy and the solvation (i.e., IL(g) --> IL(l)) Gibbs energies of the constituent ions in the molten salt. As part of this project we synthesized and determined accurate melting points (by DSC) and dielectric constants (by dielectric spectroscopy) for 14 ionic liquids based on four common anions and nine common cations. Lattice free energies (Delta(latt)G) were estimated using a combination of Volume Based Thermodynamics (VBT) and quantum chemical calculations. Free energies of solvation (Delta(solv)G) of each ion in the bulk molten salt were calculated using the COSMO solvation model and the experimental dielectric constants. Under standard ambient conditions (298.15 K and 10(5) Pa) Delta(fus)G degrees was found to be negative for all the ILs studied, as expected for liquid samples. Thus, these ILs are liquid under standard ambient conditions because the liquid state is thermodynamically favorable, due to the large size and conformational flexibility of the ions involved, which leads to small lattice enthalpies and large entropy changes that favor melting. This model can be used to predict the melting temperatures and dielectric constants of ILs with good accuracy. A comparison of the predicted vs experimental melting points for nine of the ILs (excluding those where no melting transition was observed and two outliers that were not well described by the model) gave a standard error of the estimate (s(est)) of 8 degrees C. A similar comparison for dielectric constant predictions gave s(est) as 2.5 units. Thus, from very little experimental and computational data it is possible to predict fundamental properties such as melting points and dielectric constants of ionic liquids.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ja0619612

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 605

Metadata

Authors
Krossing, I., Slattery, J. M., Daguenet, C., Dyson, P. J., Oleinikova, A., & Weingärtner, H.
Venue
Journal of the American Chemical Society
Published
2006-09-22
Volume
128
Issue
41
Pages
13427-13434
ISSN
  • 0002-7863 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5126
OpenAlex
W2033279894
Cited by
605
References
1
FWCI
11.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.