4.6 Article

Electron Density Characteristics in Bond Critical Point (QTAIM) versus Interaction Energy Components (SAPT): The Case of Charge-Assisted Hydrogen Bonding

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 116, 期 1, 页码 452-459

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp210940b

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Charge-assisted hydrogen bonds (CAHBs) of N-H center dot center dot center dot Cl, N-H center dot center dot center dot Br, and P-H center dot center dot center dot Cl type were investigated using advanced computational approach (MP2/aug-cc-pVTZ level of theory). The properties of electron density function defined in the framework of Quantum Theory of Atoms in Molecules (QTAIM) were estimated as a function of distance in H-bridges. Additionally, the interaction energy decomposition was performed for H-bonded complexes with different H-bond lengths using the Symmetry-Adapted Perturbation Theory (SAPT). In. this Way both QTAIM parameters and SAPT energy Components could be expressed as a function of the same variable, that is, the distance in H-bridge. A detailed analysis of the changes in QTAIM and SAPT parameters due to the changes in H center dot center dot center dot A distance revealed that over some ranges of H center dot center dot center dot A distances, electrostatic, inductive and dispersive components of the SAPT interaction energy show a linear correlation with the value of the electron density at H-BCP rho(BCP). The linear relation between the induction component, E-ind, and rho(BCP) confirms numerically the intuitive expectation that the rho(BCP) reflects directly the effects connected with the sharing of electron density. between interacting centers. These conclusions are important in view of charge density studies performed for crystals in which the distance between atoms results not only from effects connected with the interaction between atomic centers directly involved in bonding, but also from packing effects which may strongly influence the length of the H-bond.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据