Critical Test of Some Computational Chemistry Methods for Prediction of Gas-Phase Acidities and Basicities

Abstract

Gas-phase acidities and basicities were calculated for 64 neutral bases (covering the scale from 139.9 kcal/mol to 251.9 kcal/mol) and 53 neutral acids (covering the scale from 299.5 kcal/mol to 411.7 kcal/mol). The following methods were used: AM1, PM3, PM6, PDDG, G2, G2MP2, G3, G3MP2, G4, G4MP2, CBS-QB3, B1B95, B2PLYP, B2PLYPD, B3LYP, B3PW91, B97D, B98, BLYP, BMK, BP86, CAM-B3LYP, HSEh1PBE, M06, M062X, M06HF, M06L, mPW2PLYP, mPW2PLYPD, O3LYP, OLYP, PBE1PBE, PBEPBE, tHCTHhyb, TPSSh, VSXC, X3LYP. The addition of the Grimmes empirical dispersion correction (D) to B2PLYP and mPW2PLYP was evaluated, and it was found that adding this correction gave more-accurate results when considering acidities. Calculations with B3LYP, B97D, BLYP, B2PLYPD, and PBE1PBE methods were carried out with five basis sets (6-311G**, 6-311+G**, TZVP, cc-pVTZ, and aug-cc-pVTZ) to evaluate the effect of basis sets on the accuracy of calculations. It was found that the best basis sets when considering accuracy of results and needed time were 6-311+G** and TZVP. Among semiempirical methods AM1 had the best ability to reproduce experimental acidities and basicities (the mean absolute error (mae) was 7.3 kcal/mol). Among DFT methods the best method considering accuracy, robustness, and computation time was PBE1PBE/6-311+G** (mae = 2.7 kcal/mol). Four Gaussian-type methods (G2, G2MP2, G4, and G4MP2) gave similar results to each other (mae = 2.3 kcal/mol). Gaussian-type methods are quite accurate, but their downside is the relatively long computational time