4.6 Article

Establishing the accuracy of density functional approaches for the description of noncovalent interactions in ionic liquids

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 23, 期 45, 页码 25558-25564

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1cp03888e

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union under the program FEDER-FSE Lorraine et Massif des Vosges 2014-2020
  2. COMETE project (COnception in silico de Materiaux pour l'EnvironmenT et l'Energie)
  3. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-18-CE09-0018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tests various dispersion corrected versatile Generalized Gradient Approximation (GGA) and meta-GGA functionals for predicting interactions of ionic liquids, finding that most can predict energies accurately. Additionally, it shows that PBE calculations and GTO methods have negligible differences in evaluating ionic liquids. Furthermore, explicit van der Waals density functionals show higher success rates compared to traditional dispersion models, indicating a need for improvements in low-cost dispersion correction models for ions.
We test a number of dispersion corrected versatile Generalized Gradient Approximation (GGA) and meta-GGA functionals for their ability to predict the interactions of ionic liquids, and show that most can achieve energies within 1 kcal mol(-1) of benchmarks. This compares favorably with an accurate dispersion corrected hybrid, omega B97X-V. Our tests also reveal that PBE (Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof GGA) calculations using the plane-wave projector augmented wave method and Gaussian Type Orbitals (GTOs) differ by less than 0.6 kJ mol(-1) for ionic liquids, despite ions being difficult to evaluate in periodic cells - thus revealing that GTO benchmarks may be used also for plane-wave codes. Finally, the relatively high success of explicit van der Waals density functionals, compared to elemental and ionic dispersion models, suggests that improvements are required for low-cost dispersion correction models of ions.

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