Multiwfn official website: //www.umsyar.com/multiwfn. Multiwfn forum in Chinese: http://bbs.keinsci.com/wfn
You are not logged in.
Dear Prof. Lu
I have calculated the binding energy of a dimer of a palladium(II) complex considering two monomers at the optimized dimer geometry using BP86-D3 functional with def2-TZVP basis set. The binding energy calculation has given the value -30.34 kcal/mol. The QTAIM topology analysis shows two N-H...O HBs in the dimer with several other weak HB interactions and ring CPs. The HB binding energy calculations using the equation BE≈−223.08×rho(rBCP)+0.7423 (for neutral HB) proposed by you and your collaborators show that the energy of the two N-H...O HB binding energies as -5.50 and 7.07 kcal/mol. The sum of these energies is far from the computed total binding energy of the dimer. I cannot account for this difference (17.77 kcal/mol). What may be the possible reason behind these observations? Any advice from your side will be highly appreciated.
With best regards
Jis
Offline
Dear Jis,
There are many possible reasons, for example:
(1) The binding energy you evaluated using BP86-D3/def2-TZVP may be not accurate enough. In particular, BSSE should be taken into account.
(2) The prediction formula given in my JCC paper was fitted for B3LYP-D3(BJ)/ma-TZVPP level, which is different to the one you used.
(3) The contribution from other interactions is notable and thus cannot be simply ignored.
(4) The two H-bonds have evident coupling and therefore their contributions to binding energy cannot be simply summed up. I cannot talk more about this without your geometry.
Best regards,
Tian
Offline
Dear Prof. Lu
Thank u so much for the reply.
Jis
Offline