The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Trends in R−X Bond Dissociation Energies (R = Me, Et, i-Pr, t-Bu; X = H, CH3, OCH3, OH, F): A Surprising Shortcoming of Density Functional Theory
Abstract
The performance of a variety of high-level composite procedures, as well as lower-cost density functional theory (DFT)- and second-order perturbation theory (MP2)-based methods, for the prediction of absolute and relative R-X bond dissociation energies (BDEs) was examined for R = Me, Et, i-Pr and t-Bu, and X = H, CH(3), OCH(3), OH and F. The methods considered include the high-level G3(MP2)-RAD and G3-RAD procedures, a variety of pure and hybrid DFT methods (B-LYP, B3-LYP, B3-P86, KMLYP, B1B95, MPW1PW91, MPW1B95, BB1K, MPW1K, MPWB1K and BMK), standard restricted (open-shell) MP2 (RMP2), and two recently introduced variants of MP2, namely spin-component-scaled MP2 (SCS-MP2) and scaled-opposite-spin MP2 (SOS-MP2). The high-level composite procedures show very good agreement with experiment and are used to evaluate the performance of the lower-level DFT- and MP2-based procedures. The best DFT methods (KMLYP and particularly BMK) provide very reasonable predictions for the absolute heats of formation and R-X BDEs for the systems studied. However, all of the DFT methods overestimate the stabilizing effect on BDEs in going from R = Me to R = t-Bu, leading in some cases to incorrect qualitative behavior. In contrast, the MP2-based methods generally show larger errors (than the best DFT methods) in the absolute heats of formation and BDEs, but better behavior for the relative BDEs, although they do tend to underestimate the stabilizing effect on BDEs in going from R = Me to R = t-Bu. The potentially less computationally expensive SOS-MP2 method offers particular promise as a reliable method that might be applicable to larger systems.
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
Cites
Molecular Electronic‐Structure Theory
Helgaker, T., Jørgensen, P., & Olsen, J. (2000) · doi:10.1002/9781119019572 · Cited by 2,594
Cited by
Zhao, Y., & Truhlar, D. G. (2008) · Theoretical Chemistry Accounts · doi:10.1007/s00214-007-0310-x · Cited by 30,302
Zhao, Y., & Truhlar, D. G. (2008) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/ct800246v · Cited by 1,200
Peverati, R., & Truhlar, D. G. (2014) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0476 · Cited by 734
Computational electrochemistry: prediction of liquid-phase reduction potentials
Marenich, A. V., Ho, J., Coote, M. L., Cramer, C. J., & Truhlar, D. G. (2014) · Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. · doi:10.1039/c4cp01572j · Cited by 508
Self-citationIsse, A. A., & Gennaro, A. (2010) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp100402x · Cited by 503
Metadata
- Authors
- Izgorodina, E. I., Coote, M. L., & Radom, L.
- Venue
- The Journal of Physical Chemistry A
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2005-08-01
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 33
- Pages
- 7558-7566
- ISSN
- 1089-5639 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5215
- OpenAlex
- W2042441465
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.48
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trends in R−X Bond Dissociation Energies (R = Me, Et, i-Pr, t-Bu; X = H, CH3, OCH3, OH, F): A Surprising Shortcoming of Density Functional Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jp052021r
- The paper
- Izgorodina, E. I., Coote, M. L., & Radom, L. (2005). Trends in R−X Bond Dissociation Energies (R = Me, Et, i-Pr, t-Bu; X = H, CH3, OCH3, OH, F): A Surprising Shortcoming of Density Functional Theory. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp052021r
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.