4.7 Article

Quantitative prediction of gas-phase 19F nuclear magnetic shielding constants

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
Volume 128, Issue 24, Pages -

Publisher

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.2943145

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Benchmark calculations of F-19 nuclear magnetic shielding constants are presented for a set of 28 molecules. Near-quantitative accuracy (ca. 2 ppm deviation from experiment) is achieved if (1) electron correlation is adequately treated by employing the coupled-cluster singles and doubles (CCSD) model augmented by a perturbative correction for triple excitations [CCSD(T)], (2) large (uncontracted) basis sets are used, (3) gauge-including atomic orbitals are used to ensure gauge-origin independence, (4) calculations are performed at accurate equilibrium geometries [obtained from CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ calculations correlating all electrons], and (5) vibrational averaging and temperature corrections via second-order vibrational perturbation theory (VPT2) are included. For the CCSD(T)/13s9p4d3f calculations corrected for vibrational effects, mean and standard deviation from experiment are -1.9 and 1.6 ppm, respectively. Less elaborate theoretical treatments result in larger errors. Consideration of relative shifts can reduce the mean deviation (through an appropriately chosen reference compound), but does not change the standard deviation. Density-functional theory calculations of absolute and relative F-19 nuclear magnetic shielding constants are found to be, at best, as accurate as the corresponding Hartree-Fock self-consistent-field calculations and are not improved by consideration of vibrational effects. Molecular systems containing fluorine-oxygen, fluorine-nitrogen, and fluorine-fluorine bonds are found to be more challenging than the other investigated molecules for the considered theoretical methods. (C) 2008 American Institute of Physics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available