The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessment of Experimental Bond Dissociation Energies Using Composite ab Initio Methods and Evaluation of the Performances of Density Functional Methods in the Calculation of Bond Dissociation Energies
Abstract
Composite ab initio CBS-Q and G3 methods were used to calculate the bond dissociation energies (BDEs) of over 200 compounds listed in CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (2002 ed.). It was found that these two methods agree with each other excellently in the calculation of BDEs, and they can predict BDEs within 10 kJ/mol of the experimental values. Using these two methods, it was found that among the examined compounds 161 experimental BDEs are valid because the standard deviation between the experimental and theoretical values for them is only 8.6 kJ/mol. Nevertheless, 40 BDEs listed in the Handbook may be highly inaccurate as the experimental and theoretical values for them differ by over 20 kJ/mol. Furthermore, 11 BDEs listed in the Handbook may be seriously flawed as the experimental and theoretical values for them differ by over 40 kJ/mol. Using the 161 cautiously validated experimental BDEs, we then assessed the performances of the standard density functional (DFT) methods including B3LYP, B3P86, B3PW91, and BH&HLYP in the calculation of BDEs. It was found that the BH&HLYP method performed poorly for the BDE calculations. B3LYP, B3P86, and B3PW91, however, performed reasonably well for the calculation of BDEs with standard deviations of about 12.1-18.0 kJ/mol. Nonetheless, all the DFT methods underestimated the BDEs by 4-17 kJ/mol in average. Sometimes, the underestimation by the DFT methods could be as high as 40-60 kJ/mol. Therefore, the DFT methods were more reliable for relative BDE calculations than for absolute BDE calculations. Finally, it was observed that the basis set effects on the BDEs calculated by the DFT methods were usually small except for the heteroatom-hydrogen BDEs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Free Radical Scavenging by Natural Polyphenols: Atom versus Electron Transfer
Di Meo, F., Lemaur, V., Cornil, J., Lazzaroni, R., Duroux, J.-L., Olivier, Y., & Trouillas, P. (2013) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry A · doi:10.1021/jp3116319 · Cited by 294
Ess, D. H., Jones, G. O., & Houk, K. N. (2006) · Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis · doi:10.1002/adsc.200600431 · Cited by 285
How Accurate Are DFT Treatments of Organic Energies?
Wodrich, M. D., Corminboeuf, C., Schreiner, P. R., Fokin, A. A., & Schleyer, P. V. R. (2007) · Organic Letters · doi:10.1021/ol070354w · Cited by 268
Beste, A., & Buchanan, A. C. (2009) · The Journal of Organic Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jo9001307 · Cited by 168
Computational Study of Bond Dissociation Enthalpies for Substituted β‐O‐4 Lignin Model Compounds
Younker, J. M., Beste, A., & Buchanan, A. C. (2011) · ChemPhysChem · doi:10.1002/cphc.201100477 · Cited by 106
Metadata
- Authors
- Feng, Y., Liu, L., Wang, J.-T., Huang, H., & Guo, Q.-X.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2003-08-13
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2005-2013
- ISSN
- 0095-2338 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2058676923
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.