4.6 Article

Why Bond Critical Points Are Not Bond Critical Points

Journal

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
Volume 24, Issue 21, Pages 5401-+

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.201705163

Keywords

bond theory; electron density; history of science; quantum theory of atoms in molecules; topological analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Equating (3,-1) critical points (CPs), derived from the topological analysis of the electron densities, to chemical bonds has triggered a lot of confusion in recent years. Part of this confusion stems from calling these CPs bond CPs (BCPs). While the origin of this terminology is traceable to the late seventies and beginning of eighties, when it sounded reasonable, new computational studies conducted on molecular electron densities cast serious doubt on the supposed universal equivalence between the chemical bonds and (3,-1) CPs. Herein, recent computational studies are briefly reviewed to demonstrate why (3,-1) CPs are not indicators of chemical bonds. It is discussed why this confusing terminology needs to be changed and reemphasized that (3,-1) CPs should be called line critical points (LCPs). The proposed terminology detaches the topological properties of molecular electron densities from any a priori chemical interpretation. Such detachment, if adopted by other authors, will hopefully prevent further misinterpretation of the data emerging from the quantum theory of atoms in molecules (QTAIM).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available