TABLE IV.
sample 1 | sample 2 | sample 3 | sample 4 | sample 5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
−18 878.6 ± 0.3 | −18 878.6 ± 0.2 | −18 876.4 ± 0.2 | −18 872.8 ± 0.2 | −18 880.5 ± 0.3 | |
X0 sample 1 | 23.7/−18 854.8 | 21.6/−18 857.0 | 17.7/−18 858.7 | 16.0/−18 856.8 | 24.7/−18 855.8 |
X0 sample 2 | 22.9/−18 855.7 | 20.8/−18 857.8 | 16.9/−18 859.5 | 15.2/−18 857.6 | 23.9/−18 856.6 |
X0 sample 3 | 20.0/−18 858.6 | 17.8/−18 860.7 | 13.9/−18 862.4 | 12.3/−18 860.5 | 20.9/−18 859.6 |
X0 sample 4 | 23.2/−18 855.3 | 21.1/−18 857.5 | 17.2/−18 859.1 | 15.5/−18 857.2 | 24.2/−18 856.3 |
X0 sample 5 | 21.7/−18 856.9 | 19.6/−18 859.0 | 15.7/−18 860.7b | 14.0/−18 858.8b | 22.6/−18 857.8 |
Avg. | −18 858.0 ± 1.9 |
See footnote a of Table III for the format of the entries. The average ΔGL→H value is reported as the “Stage” entry in Table II.
For these specific combinations, the confined structures (X0, ) are close to the minima on the L/H free energy surface based on the 2D projection [see Figs. 10(e) and 10(f)].