↓ Skip to main content

Saturated vs. unsaturated hydrocarbon interactions with carbon nanostructures

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Chemistry, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Saturated vs. unsaturated hydrocarbon interactions with carbon nanostructures
Published in
Frontiers in Chemistry, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fchem.2014.00075
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deivasigamani Umadevi, G. Narahari Sastry

Abstract

The interactions of various acyclic and cyclic hydrocarbons in both saturated and unsaturated forms with the carbon nanostructures (CNSs) have been explored by using density functional theory (DFT) calculations. Model systems representing armchair and zigzag carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and graphene have been considered to investigate the effect of chirality and curvature of the CNSs toward these interactions. Results of this study reveal contrasting binding nature of the acyclic and cyclic hydrocarbons toward CNSs. While the saturated molecules show stronger binding affinity in acyclic hydrocarbons; the unsaturated molecules exhibit higher binding affinity in cyclic hydrocarbons. In addition, acyclic hydrocarbons exhibit stronger binding affinity toward the CNSs when compared to their corresponding cyclic counterparts. The computed results excellently corroborate the experimental observations. The interaction of hydrocarbons with graphene is more favorable when compared with CNTs. Bader's theory of atoms in molecules has been invoked to characterize the noncovalent interactions of saturated and unsaturated hydrocarbons. Our results are expected to provide useful insights toward the development of rational strategies for designing complexes with desired noncovalent interaction involving CNSs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Bangladesh 1 6%
Unknown 14 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Other 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 4 25%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 6 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2014.
All research outputs
#18,378,085
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Chemistry
#2,197
of 5,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,454
of 237,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Chemistry
#21
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,897 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 237,864 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.