Density functional theory based model calculations for accurate bond dissociation enthalpies. 3. A single approach for X-H, X-X, and X-Y (X, Y = C, N, O, S, halogen) bonds

Journal of Physical Chemistry A

Volumn 107, Issue 46, 2003, Pages 9953-9963

  Johnson, Erin R ^a,b   Clarkin, Owen J ^a,b   DiLabio, Gino A ^b  

^a CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALCULATIONS; DISSOCIATION; ELECTRON ENERGY LEVELS; ENTHALPY; ERRORS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MOLECULES; PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION; SET THEORY;

BOND DISSOCIATION ENTHALPIES; DENSITY FUNCTIONAL THEORY;

CHEMICAL BONDS;

EID: 0344272337     PISSN: 10895639     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jp035315q     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Carleton University.
2. (a) SIMS-NRC
3. (b) NINT-NRC.
4. (a) For a recent experimental work see: Blanksby, S. J.; Ellison, G. B. Acc. Chem. Res. 2003, 36, 255-263.
5. (b) For an interesting paper that discusses the use of Pauling's electronegativity equation to calculate BDEs see: Matsunaga, N.; Rogers, D. W.; Zavitsas, A. A. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 68, 3158-3172.
6. Becerra, R.; Walsh, R. In The Chemistry of Organic Silicon Compounds; Rappoport, Z., Apeloig, Y., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1998; Vol. 2, pp 153-180.
7. (a) Wright, J. S.; Johnson, E. R.; DiLabio, G. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 1173-1183.
8. (b) Pratt, D. A.; DiLabio, G. A.; Brigati, G.; Valgimigli, L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 4625-2626.
9. (c) Valgimigli, L.; Brigati, G.; Pedulli, G. F.; DiLabio, G. A.; Mastragostino, M.; Abrizzani, C.; Pratt, D. A. Chem. Eur. J. 2003, 9, 4997-5010.
10. Wijtmans, M.; Pratt, D. A.; Valgimigli, L.; DiLabio, G. A.; Pedulli, G. F.; Porter, N. A. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 4370-4373.
11. Kruse, P.; Johnson, E. R.; DiLabio, G. A.; Wolkow, R. A. Nano Lett. 2002, 2, 807-810.
12. DiLabio, G. A.; Pratt, D. A.; LoFaro, A. D.; Wright, J. S. J. Phys. Chem. A 1999, 103, 1653-1661.
13. Dewar, M. J. S.; Zoebisch, E. G.; Healy, E. F.; Stewart, J. J. P. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1985, 107, 3902-3909.
14. Becke, A. D. J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 98, 5648-5652.
15. Lee, C.; Yang, W.; Parr, R. G. Phys. Rev. B 1988, 37, 785-789.
16. DiLabio, G. A.; Pratt, D. A. J. Phys. Chem. A 2000, 104, 1938-1943.
17. Curtiss, L. A.; Redfern, P. C.; Raghavachari, K.; Pople, J. A. J. Chem. Phys. 1998, 109, 42-55.
18. Perdew, J. P. Phys. Rev. B 1986, 33, 8822-8824.
19. Perdew, J. P.; Chevary, J. P.; Vosko, S. H.; Jackson, K. A.; Pederson, M. R.; Singh, D. J.; Fiolhais, C. Phys. Rev. B 1992, 46, 6671-6687.
20. Using the BH and HLYP functional as implemented in the Gaussian 98 package.
21. Frisch, M. J.; Trucks, G. W.; Schlegel, H. B.; Scuseria, G. E.; Robb, M. A.; Cheeseman, J. R.; Zakrzewski, V. G.; Montgonery, J. A., Jr.; Stratmann, R. E.; Burant, J. C.; Dapprich, S.; Millam, J. M.; Daniels, A. D.; Kudin, K. N.; Strain, M. C.; Farkas, O.; Tomasi, J.; Barone, V.; Cossi, M.; Cammi, R.; Mennucci, B.; Pomelli, C.; Adamo, C.; Clifford, S.; Ochterski, J.; Petersson, G. A.; Ayala, P. Y.; Cui, O.; Morokuma, K.; Malick, D. K.; Rabuck, A. D.; Raghavachari, K.; Foresman, J. B.; Cioslowski, J.; Ortiz, J. V.; Baboul, A. G.; Stefanov, B. B.; Liu, G.; Liashenko, A.; Piskorz, P.; Komaromi, I.; Gomperts, R.; Martin, R. L.; Fox, D. J.; Keith, T.; Al-Laham, M. A.; Peng, C. Y.; Nanayakkara, A.; Challacombe, M.; Gill, P. M. W.; Johnson, B.; Chen, W.; Wong, M. W.; Andres, J. L.; Gonzalez, C.; Head-Gordon, M.; Replogle, E. S.; Pople, J. A. Gaussian 98, revision A.9; Gaussian, Inc.: Pittsburgh PA, 1998.
22. Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 3865-3868. This function is implemented in Gaussian 98, revision A.10, and later.
23. Adamo, C.; Barone, V. J. Chem. Phys. 1998, 108, 664-675.
24. If one is also interested in properties such as charge or spin densities then care should be taken in the selection of the geometry optimization method used.
25. Stewart, J. P. P. J. Comput. Chem. 1989, 10, 209-220.
26. Scott, A. P.; Radom, L. J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 16502-16513.
27. McQuarrie, D. A. Statistical Mechanics; Harper and Row: New York, 1976.
28. Curtiss, L. A.; Redfern, P. C.; Raghavachari, K.; Rassolov, V.; Pople, J. C. J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 110, 4703-4709.
29. el.
30. Dunning, T. H.; Winter, N. W. J. Chem. Phys. 1975, 63, 1847-1855.
31. 6 where PM3 predicts a very poor structure for the radical.
32. Curtiss, L. A.; Raghavachari, K.; Redfern, P. C.; Pople, J. A. J. Chem. Phys. 1997, 106, 1063-1079.
33. Afeefy, H. Y.; Liebman, J. F.; Stein, S. E. Neutral Thermochemical Data. In NIST Chemistry WebBook; NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69; Linstrom, P. J., Mallard, W. G., Eds.; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg MD, 20899, July 2001 (http://webbook.nist.gov)
34. We did not calculate the C-O BDE for dimethyl ether to avoid the problems associated with calculating a (nearly) degenerate wave function with a single-configuration approach.
35. 5, Benson lists a value of 77 ± 1.5 kcal/mol, which is in substantial diagreement with the value of 72.5 kcal/mol derived from NIST data.
36. Benson, S. W. Chem. Rev. 1978, 78, 23-35.
37. Calculated using the G2 heats of formation tabulated in ref. 27.
38. Our calculated HS-SH BDE using the G2 approach is 62.8 kcal/mol.
39. Korth, H.-G.; Sicking, W. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1997, 715-719.
40. Chandra, A. K.; Uchimaru, T. J. Phys. Chem. A 2000, 104, 9244-9249.
41. (a) Senosiain, J. P.; Han, J. H.; Musgrave, C. B.; Golden, D. M. J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 2001, 119, 173-189.
42. (b) Kang, J. K.; Musgrave, C. B. J. Chem. Phys. 2001, 115, 11040-11051.
43. For this subset of bonds the empirical correction, prescribed in ref 36a, to the BDEs amounts to +0.1 kcal/mol for X-halogen bonds and -3.2 kcal/mol for all of the other bonds.
44. Incidentally, because the mB3LYP approach (as described in ref 37a) includes empirical corrections for the difference in the number of α- and β-electrons and the number of lone-pairs and π-bonds, it is impossible to use the method consistently over a reaction coordinate where the number of these types of electrons is changing. For example, mB3LYP cannot be used to describe the reaction coordinate associated with the addition of the methyl radical to ethylene because the π-bond is lost at an underfined point along the reaction coordinate.
45. DiLabio, G. A. J. Phys. Chem. A 1999, 103, 11414-11424.
46. Lopinski, G. P.; Wayner, D. D. M.; Wolkow, R. A. Nature 2000, 406, 48-51.
47. Woodcock, H. L.; Schaefer, H. F.; Schreiner, P. R. J. Phys. Chem. A 2002, 106, 11923-11931.
48. Pratt, D. A.; Mills, J. H.; Porter, N. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 5801-5810.
49. Lynch, B. J.; Fast, P. L.; Harris, M.; Truhlar, D. G. J. Phys. Chem. A 2000, 104, 4811-4814.
50. Feng, Y.; Liu, L.; Wang, J.-T.; Huang, H.; Guo, Q.-X. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, ASAP articles