ArticleJournal of fluorescence2012
DFT/TDDFT study on the electronic structure and spectral properties of diphenyl azafluoranthene derivative.
Article in Journal of fluorescence, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Green Synthetic Approach for Synthesis of Fluorescent Carbon Dots for Lisinopril Drug Delivery System and their Confirmations in the Cells.Journal of fluorescence · 2017Article
- A New Route to Azafluoranthene Natural Products via Direct Arylation.European journal of organic chemistry · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paper reports the DFT/TDDFT study on the electronic structure and spectral properties of the five-membered annulated diphenyl azafluoranthene derivative 1,3-diphenyl-3H-indeno[1,2,3-de]pyrazolo[3,4-b]quinoline (DPIPQ) by means of polarizable continuum model (PCM) and Onsager reaction field approaches at the B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p) level of theory. The results of calculations are compared with the optical absorption and fluorescence spectra as well as with the cyclic voltammetry data. The DFT/TDDFT/PCM approaches exhibit rather good quantitative agreement regarding the spectral position of the first absorption band; the discrepancy between the experiment and theory is less than 0.06 eV (linear response approach) or 0.25 eV (state specific approach). As for the fluorescence emission the TDDFT/PCM calculations underestimate the transition energy on about of 0.7-0.8 eV. Such discrepancy should be attributed to insufficient quality of the TDDFT/PCM optimization in the excited state. Ignoring the geometrical relaxation in the excited state provides considerably better agreement between the experiment and theory; discrepancy is less than 0.1-0.22 eV depending on a solvent polarity. The dominant influence on the fluorescence emission results mainly from the solvent reorganization in the excited state whereas the solute relaxation is indeed weak and may be ignored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21853258What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.