Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Noncovalent Interactions between Graphene Sheets and in Multishell (Hyper)Fullerenes

Grimme, Stefan, Mück-Lichtenfeld, Christian, Antony, Jens·2007·The Journal of Physical Chemistry C
DOI 10.1021/jp0720791
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The intershell and interlayer interaction (complexation) energies of C 60 inside C 240 (C 60 @C 240 ) and of graphene sheets are investigated by all-electron density functional theory (DFT) using generalized gradient approximation (GGA) functionals and a previously developed empirical correction for dispersion (van der Waals) effects (DFT−D method). Large Gaussian basis sets of polarized triple-ζ quality that provide very small basis set superposition errors (<10% of Δ E ) are employed. The theoretical approach is first applied to graphene sheet model dimers of increasing size (up to (C 216 H 36 ) 2 ). The interaction energies are extrapolated to infinite lateral size of the sheets. The value of −66 meV/atom obtained for the interaction energy of two sheets supports the most recent experimental estimate for the exfoliation energy of graphite (−52 ± 5 meV/atom). The interlayer equilibrium distance (334 ± 3 pm) is also obtained accurately. The binding energy of C 60 inside C 240 is calculated to be −184 kcal mol -1 which is about 89% of the corresponding value of a similarly sized graphene sheet model dimer. Geometric relaxation of the monomers upon complexation and nonadditivity (multilayer) effects are found to be negligible. The various contributions to the binding (Pauli exchange repulsion, electrostatic and induction, dispersion) are comparatively analyzed for the sheets and for C 60 @C 240 . The binding in both systems is that of typical van der Waals complexes; that is, the dispersion contributions play a major role as also indicated by the fact that conventional GGA functionals yield purely repulsive interactions. The plots of the electrostatic potential of the fragments often used as tools for analysis lead here to qualitatively wrong conclusions. The relatively large binding energy of C 60 @C 240 can be explained by favorable dispersion, induction, and charge-transfer interaction contributions but reveals no special role of the π orbitals. According to population analyses, about 0.67 electrons are transferred from the inner to the outer cage in C 60 @C 240 upon complex formation.

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/jp0720791

Cites

42 of 42 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 258

Metadata

Authors
Grimme, S., Mück-Lichtenfeld, C., & Antony, J.
Venue
The Journal of Physical Chemistry C
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2007-07-06
Volume
111
Issue
30
Pages
11199-11207
ISSN
  • 1932-7447 (ISSN-L)
  • 1932-7455
DOI
10.1021/jp0720791
OpenAlex
W1986606172
Cited by
258
References
42
FWCI
9.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.