Computational Screening of Porous Organic Molecules for Xenon/Krypton Separation

2017 ◽  
Vol 121 (28) ◽  
pp. 15211-15222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcin Miklitz ◽  
Shan Jiang ◽  
Rob Clowes ◽  
Michael E. Briggs ◽  
Andrew I. Cooper ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Bennett ◽  
Filip Szczypiński ◽  
Lukas Turcani ◽  
Michael Briggs ◽  
Rebecca L. Greenaway ◽  
...  

<div>Computation is increasingly being used to try to accelerate the discovery of new materials. One specific example of this is porous molecular materials, specifically porous organic cages, where the porosity of the materials predominantly comes from the internal cavities of the molecules themselves. The computational discovery of novel structures with useful properties is currently hindered by the difficulty in transitioning from a computational prediction to synthetic realisation. Attempts at experimental validation are often time-consuming, expensive and, frequently, the key bottleneck of material discovery. In this work, we developed a computational screening workflow for porous molecules that includes consideration of the synthetic difficulty of material precursors, aimed at easing the transition between computational prediction and experimental realisation. We trained a machine learning model by first collecting data on 12,553 molecules categorised either as `easy-to-synthesise' or `difficult-to-synthesise' by expert chemists with years of experience in organic synthesis. We used an approach to address the class imbalance present in our dataset, producing a binary classifier able to categorise easy-to-synthesise molecules with few false positives. We then used our model during computational screening for porous organic molecules to bias towards precursors whose easier synthesis requirements would make them promising candidates for experimental realisation and material development. We found that even by limiting precursors to those that are easier-to-synthesise, we are still able to identify cages with favourable, and even some rare, properties. </div>


2020 ◽  
Vol 124 (44) ◽  
pp. 24105-24114
Author(s):  
Alexandra R. McNeill ◽  
Samantha E. Bodman ◽  
Amy M. Burney ◽  
Chris D. Hughes ◽  
Deborah L. Crittenden

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Bennett ◽  
Filip Szczypiński ◽  
Lukas Turcani ◽  
Michael Briggs ◽  
Rebecca L. Greenaway ◽  
...  

<div>Computation is increasingly being used to try to accelerate the discovery of new materials. One specific example of this is porous molecular materials, specifically porous organic cages, where the porosity of the materials predominantly comes from the internal cavities of the molecules themselves. The computational discovery of novel structures with useful properties is currently hindered by the difficulty in transitioning from a computational prediction to synthetic realisation. Attempts at experimental validation are often time-consuming, expensive and, frequently, the key bottleneck of material discovery. In this work, we developed a computational screening workflow for porous molecules that includes consideration of the synthetic difficulty of material precursors, aimed at easing the transition between computational prediction and experimental realisation. We trained a machine learning model by first collecting data on 12,553 molecules categorised either as `easy-to-synthesise' or `difficult-to-synthesise' by expert chemists with years of experience in organic synthesis. We used an approach to address the class imbalance present in our dataset, producing a binary classifier able to categorise easy-to-synthesise molecules with few false positives. We then used our model during computational screening for porous organic molecules to bias towards precursors whose easier synthesis requirements would make them promising candidates for experimental realisation and material development. We found that even by limiting precursors to those that are easier-to-synthesise, we are still able to identify cages with favourable, and even some rare, properties. </div>


Author(s):  
W. W. Barker ◽  
W. E. Rigsby ◽  
V. J. Hurst ◽  
W. J. Humphreys

Experimental clay mineral-organic molecule complexes long have been known and some of them have been extensively studied by X-ray diffraction methods. The organic molecules are adsorbed onto the surfaces of the clay minerals, or intercalated between the silicate layers. Natural organo-clays also are widely recognized but generally have not been well characterized. Widely used techniques for clay mineral identification involve treatment of the sample with H2 O2 or other oxidant to destroy any associated organics. This generally simplifies and intensifies the XRD pattern of the clay residue, but helps little with the characterization of the original organoclay. Adequate techniques for the direct observation of synthetic and naturally occurring organoclays are yet to be developed.


Author(s):  
Douglas L. Dorset

The quantitative use of electron diffraction intensity data for the determination of crystal structures represents the pioneering achievement in the electron crystallography of organic molecules, an effort largely begun by B. K. Vainshtein and his co-workers. However, despite numerous representative structure analyses yielding results consistent with X-ray determination, this entire effort was viewed with considerable mistrust by many crystallographers. This was no doubt due to the rather high crystallographic R-factors reported for some structures and, more importantly, the failure to convince many skeptics that the measured intensity data were adequate for ab initio structure determinations.We have recently demonstrated the utility of these data sets for structure analyses by direct phase determination based on the probabilistic estimate of three- and four-phase structure invariant sums. Examples include the structure of diketopiperazine using Vainshtein's 3D data, a similar 3D analysis of the room temperature structure of thiourea, and a zonal determination of the urea structure, the latter also based on data collected by the Moscow group.


1989 ◽  
Vol 50 (C2) ◽  
pp. C2-33-C2-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. FENYÖ ◽  
B. U.R. SUNDQVIST ◽  
B. KARLSSON ◽  
R. E. JOHNSON

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document