scholarly journals Roby-Gould bond indices as a tool for understanding chemical bonding from a mathematical and quantum mechanical perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 100053
Author(s):  
Khidhir Alhameedi ◽  
Graham S. Chandler ◽  
Dylan Jayatilaka
Molecules ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (14) ◽  
pp. 4227
Author(s):  
Alessandro Cossard ◽  
Silvia Casassa ◽  
Carlo Gatti ◽  
Jacques K. Desmarais ◽  
Alessandro Erba

The chemistry of f-electrons in lanthanide and actinide materials is yet to be fully rationalized. Quantum-mechanical simulations can provide useful complementary insight to that obtained from experiments. The quantum theory of atoms in molecules and crystals (QTAIMAC), through thorough topological analysis of the electron density (often complemented by that of its Laplacian) constitutes a general and robust theoretical framework to analyze chemical bonding features from a computed wave function. Here, we present the extension of the Topond module (previously limited to work in terms of s-, p- and d-type basis functions only) of the Crystal program to f- and g-type basis functions within the linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO) approach. This allows for an effective QTAIMAC analysis of chemical bonding of lanthanide and actinide materials. The new implemented algorithms are applied to the analysis of the spatial distribution of the electron density and its Laplacian of the cesium uranyl chloride, Cs2UO2Cl4, crystal. Discrepancies between the present theoretical description of chemical bonding and that obtained from a previously reconstructed electron density by experimental X-ray diffraction are illustrated and discussed.


2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (40) ◽  
pp. 13826-13826
Author(s):  
Oliver Pecher ◽  
Bernhard Mausolf ◽  
Kevin Lamberts ◽  
Dirk Oligschläger ◽  
Carina Niewieszol (née Merkens) ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 3448-3449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus C. Durrant

The Lewis and quantum mechanical theories of chemical bonding are compared and contrasted, with a view to clarifying the relationship between Harcourt’s ‘increased valence’ quantum approach and the recently proposed quantitative definition of hypervalency.


ChemInform ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (43) ◽  
pp. no-no
Author(s):  
Oliver Pecher ◽  
Marco Esters ◽  
Arno Goerne ◽  
Bernhard Mausolf ◽  
Alim Ormeci ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Clark ◽  
Martin G Hicks

The everyday language of chemistry uses models, particularly of bonding, that are not contained in the quantum mechanical description of chemical systems. To date, this everyday language has overlapped strongly with that (the ontology) of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). Within the everyday language, the model nature of these concepts is not always clear to practicing chemists, so that controversial discussions about the merits of alternative models often arise. However, the extensive use of AI and ML in chemistry will require that these models be extended to cover all relevant properties and characteristics of chemical systems. This in turn imposes conditions such as completeness, compactness, computational efficiency and non-redundancy on the extensions to the almost universal Lewis and VSEPR bonding models. Thus, AI and ML are likely to be important in rationalizing and standardizing chemical bonding models. This will not affect the everyday language of chemistry but may help understand the unique basis of chemical language.


2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (40) ◽  
pp. 13971-13982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Pecher ◽  
Bernhard Mausolf ◽  
Kevin Lamberts ◽  
Dirk Oligschläger ◽  
Carina Niewieszol (née Merkens) ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
John A. Tossell ◽  
David J. Vaughan

An understanding of chemical bonding in a system can be gained through calculations based on the theoretical approaches outlined in the previous chapter, or through experimentation. In a much more limited way, it is also possible to gain some understanding of the bonding in a system by a “phenomenological” application of (qualitative) theory given certain properties of the system (e.g., chemical composition, crystal or molecular structure, magnetic and electrical behavior, etc.). Ideally these approaches should be combined so as to gain a unified understanding of the bonding in a particular system. It is very important that the results of quantum-mechanical calculations are compared with experimental data so as to assess their validity. Conversely, the results of calculations may be used in the interpretation of the data from experiments. In this chapter, the wide range of experimental methods that can provide information on chemical bonding in geochemical systems is reviewed. Following a very brief summary of the principles of each technique, some examples are given of its application to minerals (or other systems of geochemical interest, such as melts, glasses, or aqueous solutions). The objective is to draw attention to techniques of importance and to show their relevance to bonding studies and their relationships both to quantum-mechanical calculations and to other experimental methods. No attempt is made to explain the theoretical background of these techniques fully or the practical problems involved in their application. Indeed, each of them has spawned a substantial literature, including books and review articles, some of which are cited here for the reader requiring further details. The experimental methods to be discussed have been divided into five major categories—diffraction effects, electron and x-ray spectroscopies, optical (uv-visible-near-ir) spectroscopy, vibrational spectroscopy, and nuclear spectroscopy. A number of techniques are also discussed in the sixth category—”other methods.” Nevertheless, the range of techniques discussed is very far from complete, and a fuller listing is given in Appendix B. This Appendix also serves to provide some useful references on each technique and a key to the numerous acronyms and abbreviations used throughout the literature to refer to these techniques.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document