A Theoretical Investigation On The Corrosion Inhibition of Copper by Quinoxaline Derivatives in Nitric Acid Solution
A Theoretical Investigation On The Corrosion Inhibition of Copper by Quinoxaline Derivatives in Nitric Acid Solution
A Theoretical Investigation On The Corrosion Inhibition of Copper by Quinoxaline Derivatives in Nitric Acid Solution
e
q
= (3)
Thus the fraction of electrons transferred from the inhibitor to metallic surface, N, is given by
[25]:
( ) 2
Cu inh
Cu inh
N
_ _
q q
A =
+
(4)
In order to calculate the fraction of electrons transferred, a theoretical value for the
electronegativity of bulk copper was used
Cu
= 4.48 eV/mol [23], and a global hardness of ,
Cu
= 0
eV/mol by assuming that for a metallic bulk I = A [26] because they are softer than the neutral metallic
atoms.
Quantum chemical parameters obtained from the calculations which are responsible for the
inhibition efficiency of inhibitors, such as the highest occupied molecular orbital (E
HOMO
), energy of
lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (E
LUMO
), HOMOLUMO energy gap (E
H-L
), dipole moment ()
and total energy (TE), electronegativity (), electron affinity (A), global hardness (), softness (),
ionization potential (I), The global electrophilicity (), the fraction of electrons transferred from the
inhibitor to iron surface (N) and the total energy (TE) , are collected in Table 2.
Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., Vol. 7, 2012
6358
Table 2. Calculated quantum chemical parameters of the studied compounds.
Quantum parameters Q5 Q6
HOMO
E
(eV)
-5.4378 -5.540
LUMO
E
(eV)
-2.17812 -1.964
E A
gap (eV)
3.259 3.576
(debye)
8.1609 9.6768
EI (%) 82.9 71.9
HOMO
I E =
(eV)
5.4378 5.540
LUMO
A E =
(eV)
2.17812 1.964
2
A I +
= _
(eV)
3.80796 3.752
2
A I
= q
(eV)
1.62984 1.788
q
o
1
=
0.61356 0.55928
2
2
e
q
=
20.43154 26.18581
( ) 2
Cu inh
Cu inh
N
_ _
q q
A =
+
0.54766 0.65083
TE (eV) -1185.3283101 -1188.9302589
In Fig. 3, we have presented the frontier molecule orbital density distributions of the studied
compounds: HOMO (right); LUMO (left). Analysis of Fig. 3 shows that the distribution of two
energies HOMO and LUMO, we can see that the electron density of the HOMO location in the
Quinoxaline molecules is mostly distributed near the nitrogen (NH) and oxygen (= O) atoms and
quinoxaline ring indicating that these are the favorite sites for adsorption, while the density LUMO
was distributed almost of the entire molecules.
HOMO LUMO
Q5
Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., Vol. 7, 2012
6359
Q6
Figure 3. Schematic representation of HOMO and LUMO molecular orbital of studied molecules.
According to the frontier molecular orbital theory (FMO) of chemical reactivity, transition of
electron is due to interaction between highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and lowest
unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of reacting species [27]. E
HOMO
is a quantum chemical
parameter which is often associated with the electron donating ability of the molecule. High value of
E
HOMO
is likely to a tendency of the molecule to donate electrons to appropriate acceptor molecule of
low empty molecular orbital energy [28]. The inhibitor does not only donate electron to the
unoccupied d orbital of the metal ion but can also accept electron from the d-orbital of the metal
leading to the formation of a feed back bond. The highest value of E
HOMO
-5.4378 (eV) of Q5 indicates
the better inhibition efficiency.
It has also been found that an inhibitor does not only donate an electron to the unoccupied d
orbital of the metal ion but can also accept electrons from the d orbital of the metal leading to the
formation of a feedback bond. Therefore, the tendency for the formation of a feedback bond would
depend on the value of E
LUMO
. The lower the E
LUMO
, the easier is the acceptance of electrons from the
d orbital of the metal [21]. Based on the values of E
LUMO
, the order obtained for the decrease in
inhibition efficiency (Q5 > Q6) was also similar to the one obtained from experimental results.
The separation energy, E = E
LUMO
- E
HOMO
is an important parameter as a function of
reactivity of the inhibitor molecule towards the adsorption on metallic surface. As E decreases, the
reactivity of the molecule increases leading to increase the inhibition efficiency of the molecule. The
results obtained from quantum chemical calculation are listed in Table 2. The calculations indicate that
Q5 has the lowest value which means the highest reactivity among the other inhibitor and accordingly
the highest inhibition efficiency which agrees well with the experimental observations. The order of
reactivity in this case will be:
Q5 > Q6.
Absolute hardness and softness are important properties to measure the molecular stability and
reactivity. It is apparent that the chemical hardness fundamentally signifies the resistance towards the
deformation or polarization of the electron cloud of the atoms, ions or molecules under small
perturbation of chemical reaction. A hard molecule has a large energy gap and a soft molecule has a
small energy gap [29]. In our present study Q5 with low hardness value 1.62984 (eV) compared with
Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., Vol. 7, 2012
6360
other compound have a low energy gap. Normally, the inhibitor with the least value of global hardness
(hence the highest value of global softness) is expected to have the highest inhibition efficiency [30].
For the simplest transfer of electron, adsorption could occur at the part of the molecule where softness
(), which is a local property, has a highest value [19]. Q5 with the softness value of 0.61356 has the
highest inhibition efficiency.
The most widely used quantity to describe the polarity is the dipole moment of the molecule
[31]. Dipole moment is the measure of polarity of a polar covalent bond. It is defined as the product of
charge on the atoms and the distance between the two bonded atoms. The total dipole moment,
however, reflects only the global polarity of a molecule. For a complete molecule the total molecular
dipole moment may be approximated as the vector sum of individual bond dipole moments. The dipole
moment ( in Debye) is another important electronic parameter that results from non uniform
distribution of charges on the various atoms in the molecule. The high value of dipole moment
probably increases the adsorption between chemical compound and metal surface [32]. The energy of
the deformability increases with the increase in , making the molecule easier to adsorb at the Cu
surface. The volume of the inhibitor molecules also increases with the increase of . This increases the
contact area between the molecule and surface of copper and increasing the corrosion inhibition ability
of inhibitors. In our study, there is no direct relationship between the E
I
(%) and the dipole moment.
In literature it has been reported that the values of N show inhibition effect resulted from
electrons donation [23, 33]. According to Lukovitss study [33], if the value of N < 3.6, the inhibition
efficiency increased with increasing electron donating ability of inhibitor at the metal surface. Also it
was observed [34] that inhibition efficiency increased with increase in the values of N. However, our
study reveals that there is no regular trend in the inhibition efficiency by increasing values of N.
The total energy calculated by quantum chemical methods is also a beneficial parameter. The
total energy of a system is composed of the internal, potential, and kinetic energy. Hohenberg and
Kohn [35] proved that the total energy of a system including that of the many body effects of electrons
(exchange and correlation) in the presence of static external potential (for example, the atomic nuclei)
is a unique functional of the charge density. The minimum value of the total energy functional is the
ground state energy of the system. The electronic charge density which yields this minimum is then the
exact single particle ground state energy. In our study the total energy of the best inhibitor Q5 is equal
to -1185.3283101 eV, this value is lower than that of the compound Q6.
Analysis of charge repartition of compounds Q5 and Q6
The comparison of the reparation atomic charge (Fig. 4) of Q5 and Q6 shows no evident and
apparent difference but the look for lowest energy conformer of Q5 and Q6 lead us to conformers1
which have respective energy of 97.02 and 92.38 Kcal/mol (Fig. 5).
Crystalline structure analysis of compound Q5
The crystalline structure of Q5 (Fig. 6) is fully in agreement with the structures proposed for
conformer 1 with lowest energy. The molecule is quasi-planar [36] with a C symmetry axis: the
external phenyl rings are twisted by 25 .
Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., Vol. 7, 2012
6361
Q5 Q6
Q5 Q6
Figure 4. Charge repartition of quinoxalines Q5 and Q6.
Q5 (Conf-1)
Energy: 97.02 Kcal/mol
Q5 (Conf-2)
Energy: 125.88 Kcal/mol
Q5 (Conf-3)
Energy: 152.69 Kcal/mol
Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., Vol. 7, 2012
6362
Q6 (Conf-1)
Energy: 92.38 Kcal/mol
Q6 (Conf-2)
Energy: 93.8 Kcal/mol
Q6 (Conf-3)
Energy : 93.97 Kcal/mol
Figure 5. Lowest and highest energy conformers of quinoxalines Q5 and Q6.
The nitrogen atom N(1) is trivalent with an N(1)-H(1) bond length of about 0.88 A, confirming
the position of the acidic proton. In addition, N(1), C(2), C(8a) and H(1) are perfectly coplanar,
resulting from the sp2 hybridization of the nitrogen atom due to the conjugation with the delocalized
pi-system. The C(9)-C(10) and C(2)-C(3) distances [1.431(2) and 1.482(3) A, respectively] lie in
between single and double bond lengths, confirming the high electronic delocalization. The H(1) ---
O(1) distance of about 1.8 A. and the N(1), H(1), O(1) angle of ca. 15, suggests an intra-molecular
N(1)-H(1) --- O(1) hydrogen bond in accordance with the strong NMR deshielding of H(1) [15.0
ppm].[37]
Figure 6. ORTEP drawing of compound Q5.
Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., Vol. 7, 2012
6363
4. CONCLUSION
The correlation between the quantum chemical parameters and inhibition efficiency of some
quinoxaline compounds was investigated using DFT/B3LYP calculations. The inhibition efficiency of
the inhibitor are closely related to the quantum chemical parameters, the highest occupied molecular
orbital (E
HOMO
), energy of lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (E
LUMO
), HOMOLUMO energy gap
(E
H-L
), the hardness (), the softness () and the fraction of electrons transferred (N) for the neutral
inhibitors and no significant relationship was found with parameters, dipole moment () and the total
energy (TE).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Prof. S.S. Al-Deyab and Prof B. Hammouti extend their appreciation to Deanship of Scientific
Research at King Saud University for funding the work through the research group project 089.
References
1. C.R. Hammond, The elements, in: Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CRC Press, (2004).
2. A. Zarrouk, A. Dafali, B. Hammouti, H. Zarrok, S. Boukhris, M. Zertoubi, Int. J. Electrochem.
Sci., 5 (2010) 46.
3. A. Zarrouk, T. Chelfi, A. Dafali, B. Hammouti, S.S. Al-Deyab, I. Warad, N. Benchat, M. Zertoubi,
Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., 5 (2010) 696.
4. A. Zarrouk, I. Warad, B. Hammouti, A Dafali, S.S. Al-Deyab, N. Benchat, Int. J. Electrochem.
Sci., 5 (2010) 1516.
5. A. S. Fouda, H. A. Wahed, Arab. J. Chem., (2011)
6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2011.02.014.
7. A. Zarrouk, B. Hammouti, A. Dafali, H. Zarrok, Der Pharma Chim., 3 (2011) 266.
8. L. Malki Alaoui, B. Hammouti, A. Bellaouchou, A. Benbachir, A. Guenbour, S. Kertit, Der
Pharma Chim., 3 (2011) 353.
9. D. P. Schweinsberg, G.A. Nanayakkara, D.A. Steinert, Corros. Sci., 28 (1988) 33.
10. F. Kandemirli, S. Sagdinc, Corros. Sci., 49 (2007) 2118.
11. M. Parac, S. Grimme, J. Phys. Chem. A., 106 (2003) 6844.
12. A. Zarrouk, B. Hammouti, R. Touzani, S.S. Al-Deyab, M. Zertoubi, A. Dafali, S. Elkadiri, Int. J.
Electrochem. Sci., 6 (2011) 4939.
13. A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 96 (1992) 9489.
14. A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 98 (1993) 1372.
15. C. Lee, W. Yang, R.G. Parr, Phys. ReV. B., 37 (1988) 785.
16. M.J. Frisch, G.W. Trucks, H.B. Schlegel, G.E. Scuseria, M.A. Robb, J.R. Cheeseman, J.A.
Montgomery Jr., T. Vreven, K.N. Kudin, J.C. Burant, J.M. Millam, S.S. Iyengar, J. Tomasi, V.
Barone, B. Mennucci, M. Cossi, G. Scalmani, N. Rega, G.A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, M. Hada, M.
Ehara, K. Toyota, R. Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y. Honda, O. Kitao, H. Nakai,
M. Klene, X. Li, J.E. Knox, H.P. Hratchian, J.B. Cross, C. Adamo, J. Jaramillo, R. Gomperts, R.E.
Stratmann, O. Yazyev, A.J. Austin, R. Cammi, C. 870 H. Ju et al. / Corrosion Science 50 (2008)
865871 Pomelli, J.W. Ochterski, P.Y. Ayala, K. Morokuma, G.A. Voth, P. Salvador, J.J.
Dannenberg, V.G. Zakrzewski, S. Dapprich, A.D. Daniels, M.C. Strain, O. Farkas, D.K. Malick,
A.D. Rabuck, K. Raghavachari, J.B. Foresman, J.V. Ortiz, Q. Cui, A.G. Baboul, S. Clifford, J.
Cioslowski, B.B. Stefanov, G. Liu, A. Liashenko, P. Piskorz, I. Komaromi, R.L. Martin, D.J. Fox,
T. Keith, M.A. Al- Laham, C.Y. Peng, A. Nanayakkara, M. Challacombe, P.M.W. Gill, B.
Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., Vol. 7, 2012
6364
Johnson, W. Chen, M.W. Wong, C. Gonzalez, J.A. Pople, Gaussian 03, Revision C.02, Gaussian
Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.
17. F. B. Growcock, Corrosion., 45 (1989) 1003.
18. A. Domenicano, I. Hargittai, Accurate Molecular Structures, Their Determination and Importance,
Oxford University Press, New York, (1992).
19. W. Li, X. Zhao, F. Liu, J. Deng, B. Hou, Mater. Corros., 60 (2009) 287.
20. R. Hasanov, M. Sadikoglu, S. Bilgic, Appl. Surf. Sci., 253 (2007) 3913.
21. M.A. Amin, K.F. Khaled, S.A. Fadl-Allah, Corros. Sci., 52 (2010) 140.
22. H. Wang, X. Wang, H. Wang, L. Wang, A. liu, J. Mol. Model., 13 (2007) 147.
23. R.G. Pearson, Inorg. Chem. 27 (1988) 734.
24. V.S. Sastri, J.R. Perumareddi, Molecular orbital theoretical studies of some organic corrosion
inhibitors, Corrosion., 53 (1997) 671.
25. R. G. Parr, L.Szentpaly, S. Liu, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 121 (1999) 1922.
26. S. Martinez, Inhibitory mechanism of mimosa tannin using molecular modeling and substitutional
adsorption isotherms, Mater. Chem. Phys., 77 (2002) 97
27. M. J. S. Dewar, W. Thiel, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 99 (1977) 4899.
28. A.Y. Musa, A. H. Kadhum, A. B. Mohamad, A.b. Rohoma, H. Mesmari, J. Mol. Struct., 969
(2010) 233.
29. G. Gece, S. Bilgic, Corros. Sci., 51 (2009) 1876.
30. N.O. Obi-Egbedi, I.B. Obot, M.I. El-Khaiary, S.A. Umoren, E.E. Ebenso, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci.,
6 (2011) 5649.
31. E.E. Ebenso, D.A. Isabirye, N.O. Eddy, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 11 (2010) 2473.
32. O. Kikuchi, Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat., 6 (1987) 179.
33. X. Li, S. Deng, H. Fu, T. Li, Electrochim. Acta., 54 (2009) 4089.
34. I. Lukovits, E. Kalman, F. Zucchi, Corrosion., 57 (2001) 3.
35. H. Ju, Z.P. Kai, Y. Li, Corros. Sci., 50 (2008) 865.
36. P. Hohenberg, W. Kohn, Inhomogeneous electron gas, Phys. Rev., 136 (1964) 864.
37. R. Touzani, T.B. Hadda, S. Elkadiri, A. Ramdani, O. Maury, H. Le Bozec, L. Toupet
and P. H.
Dixneuf . New J. Chem., 25 (2001) 391.
38. For a statistical study of NH --- OC bonds, see : (a) R. Taylor, O. Kennard and W. Versichel, J.
Am. Chem. Soc., 105 (1983) 5761; (b) For other example, see : F. H. Beijer, R. P. Sijbsma, H.
Kooijman, A. K. Spek and E. W. Meijer, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 120 (1998) 6761.
2012 by ESG (www.electrochemsci.org)