Charge density analysis of two polymorphs of antimony(III) oxide

Dalton Transactions

Volumn , Issue 1, 2004, Pages 23-29

  Whitten, Andrew E ^a   Dittrich, Birger ^b   Spackman, Mark A ^a   Turner, Peter ^c   Brown, Trevor C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND   (Australia)

^b FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BOND STRENGTH (CHEMICAL); BONDING; CARRIER CONCENTRATION; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; MOLECULES; TOPOLOGY; X RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS;

ANTIMONY OXIDE; CHARGE DENSITY ANALYSIS; ELECTROSTATIC POTENTIAL; POLYMORPH; SENARMONTITE; VALENTINITE;

ANTIMONY COMPOUNDS;

EID: 1642460620     PISSN: 14779226     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1039/b312550e     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. T. Lippmann, P. Blaha, N. H. Andersen, H. F. Poulsen, T. Wolf, J. R. Schneider and K. Schwarz, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A, 2003, 59, 437
2. A. Kirfel, H.-G. Krane, P. Blaha, K. Schwarz and T. Lippmann, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A, 2001, 57, 663
3. T. Lippmann and J. R. Schneider, J. Appl. Crystallogr., 2000, 33, 156
4. T. Lippmann and J. R. Schneider, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A, 2000, 56, 575.
5. R. F. W. Bader, Atoms in Molecules - a Quantum Theory, Oxford University Pres, Oxford, 1990.
6. M. A. Spackman, Annu. Rep. Prog. Chem., Sect. C: Phys. Chem., 1997, 94, 177.
7. C. Svensson, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B, 1974, 30, 458
8. C. Wood, B. van Pelt and A. Dwight, Phys. Status Solidi B, 1972, 54, 701.
9. In the sublimation vessel, both valentine and senarmontite formed. Diffraction data on valentine (Pccn) was also collected in the same manner as described for senarmontite, but the crystal shape was anomalous and the analytical absorption correction did not model the effect well. Hence multipole refinements reconstructed the electrond density distribution poorly. The revelant structural parameters obtained from a spherical atom refinement are: a = 4.8996(3) Å, b = 12.4490(7) Å, c = 5.4103(3) Å, α = β = γ = 90°. Sb (0.04064, 0.12753, 0.17784), O(1) (1/4, 1/4, 0.0209), O(2) (0.1509, 0.0587, -0.1454). Full crystallographic details are included in the CIF file.
10. SMART, SAINT, ASTRO and XPREP: Data Collection and Processing Software for the SMART System, Bruker, Madison, WI, 1995.
11. R. H. Blessing, J. Appl. Crystallogr., 1997, 30, 421.
12. teXsan for Windows: Single crystal structure analysis software, Molecular Structure Corporation, The Woodlands, TX, 1997-1998.
13. L. J. Farrugia, J. Appl. Crystallogr., 1999, 32, 837.
14. XSHELL, Graphical interface for crystal structure refinement, Bruker, Madison, WI, 1995.
15. G. M. Sheldrick, SHELXS-97, Program for solution of crystal structures, University of Göttingen, Germany, 1997.
16. G. M. Sheldrick, SHELXL-97, Program for refinement of crystal structures, University of Göttingen, Germany, 1997.
17. C. K. Johnson, ORTEPII. Report ORNL-5138. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 1976
18. Xtal3.6 System, ed. S. R. Hall, D. J. du Boulay and R. Olthof-Hazekamp, University of Western Australia, 1999.
19. E. Clementi and C. Roetti, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 1974, 14, 177.
20. D. C. Creagh, and W. J. McAule, Section 4.2.6 in International Tables for Crystallography, Volume C: Mathematical, Physical & Chemical Tables, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995.
21. P. Coppens, X-Ray Charge Densities and Chemical Bonding, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997.
22. C. Flensburg, S. Larsen and R. F. Stewart, J. Phys. Chem., 1995, 99, 10130.
23. R. F. Stewart, M. A. Spackman and C. Flensburg, VALRAY98 Users Manual, Carnegie Mellon University & University of Copenhagen, 1998.
24. 32- were refined unconstrained.
25. P. J. Becker and P. Coppens, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A, 1974, 30, 129.
26. V. R. Saunders, R. Dovesi, C. Roetti, M. Causa, N. M. Harrison, R. Orlando and C. M. Zicovich-Wilson, CRYSTAL98 User's Manual, University of Torino, Torino, 1998.
27. N. Godbout, D. R. Salahub, J. Andzelm and E. Wimmer, Can. J. Chem., 1992, 70, 560.
28. M. D. Towler, Billy - Basis set optimization script for CRYSTAL98 calculations, University of Cambridge, UK, 2000
29. M. D. Towler, CRYSTAL 98 Resource page: (http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/-mdt26/crystal.html), 2001.
30. In comparison, Mulliken charges obtained from the CRYSTAL98 calculations are somewhat greater: for senarmontite, +1.76 on Sb, and -1.17 on O, and for valentine, +1.77 on Sb, -1.23 on O(1) and -1.15 on O(2).
31. A. F. Wells, Structural Inorganic Chemistry, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 5th edn., 1984.
32. C. Svensson, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B, 1975, 31, 2016.
33. P. A. Ashkin and V. P. Spiridonov, Zh. Strukt. Khim., 1961, 2, 542.
34. R. M. Bozorth, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1923, 45, 1621.
35. P. A. Ashkin and V. P. Spiridonov, Zh. Strukt. Khim., 1961, 2, 542
36. B. Beagly, D. W. J. Cruickshank, T. G. Hewitt and K. H. Jost, Trans. Faraday Soc., 1969, 65, 1219
37. C. S. Lu and J. Donohue, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1944, 66, 818.
38. G. V. Gibbs, A. E. Whitten, M. A. Spackman, M. Stimpf, R. T. Downs and M. D. Carducci, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2003, 107, 12996.
39. C. Gatti, TOPOND 98 Users Manual, CNR-CSRSRC, Milano, 1999.
40. R. F. W. Bader and H. Essén J. Chem. Phys., 1984, 80, 1943.
41. D. Cremer and E. Kraka, Croat. Chim. Acta, 1984, 57, 1259.
42. P. Macchi, D. M. Proserpio and A. Sironi, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1998, 120, 13429
43. R. Bianchi, G. Gervasio and D. Marabello, Inorg. Chem., 2000, 39, 2360.
44. E. Espinosa, I. Alkorta, J. Elguero and E. Molins, J. Chem. Phys., 2002, 117, 5529, and references therein.
45. F. C. Hill, G. V. Gibbs and M. B. Boisen, Phys. Chem. Mineral., 1997, 24, 582
46. G. V. Gibbs, M. B. Boisen, F. C. Hill, O. Tamada and R. T. Downs, Phys. Chem. Mineral., 1998, 25, 574.
47. Y. A. Abramov, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A, 1997, 53, 264.
48. SPARTAN version 5.0, Wavefunction Inc., 18401 Von Karman Ave., Irvine CA 92715, USA. The DN* basis set is slightly larger than the common 6-31G* basis set.
49. We note that in this study, and most likely other studieds involving heavy atoms, proper treatment of absorption is vital, and in some cases it may be a greater problem than extinction. For senarmontite, if the most heavily extinction-affected reflections were removed from the refinement very little changed, but small optimisations made to the crystal dimensions, subsequently used in the absorption correction, substantially altered the deformation density and derived properties.