The influence of the intermolecular potential on predicted growth morphologies is investigated. We compare the morphologies calculated with the attachment energy model for ε-caprolactam ( C 2/ c ), β-succinic acid ( P 2 1 / c ), hexamethylene tetramine ( I 4̄3 m ), pentaerythritol ( I 4̄), and urea ( P 4̄2 1 m ). Five different model potentials that have been developed for modeling organic crystal structures are used. These show a progressive improvement in the accuracy of the electrostatic model and a variety of empirical parametrizations of the repulsion−dispersion terms. Although the lattice energies and absolute attachment energies vary quite significantly, there are only minor variations in the predicted morphologies. The assumptions in the attachment energy model generally contribute more to any discrepancy between the predicted and observed morphologies than the variations between different model potentials that could be considered appropriate for modeling. However, the attachment energy model readily provides a reasonable estimate of the dominant faces of the vapor-grown habit, suitable for most chemical engineering purposes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brunsteiner et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: