Molecular electrostatic potential of substituted aromatic compounds: Factors affecting the differences between Ab Initio and semiempirical results

The molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) distribution of anisole, chlorobenzene, and fluorobenzene obtained from STO‐3G, 3‐21G, and 6‐31G* basis set ab initio and MNDO and AM1 semiempirical wave functions is investigated to explain the differences among the MEP features obtained for polychlorodibenzo‐p‐dioxins. The main topological features as well as the absoltue and relative minima location obtained from ab initio calculations are independent from the choice of the basis set. MNDO calculations are in good agreement with the ab initio ones in the case of anisole and fluorobenzene, while they incorrectly describe the MEP of chlorobenzene. The AM1 fails to localize the absolute minimum of fluorobenzene and does not find the minimum above the chlorobenzene chlorine atom. The poor agreement of both semiempirical methods with ab initio for any kind of chlorinated compounds is confirmed by results obtained for chloreothylene and chloroethane. We hypothesize that the main problem concerning these methods is that they freeze a too large amount of electrons in the atomic core of elements belonging to the second row, which makes for a wrong description of the core–valence electron interactions. Results obtained by modifying the AM1 parameters related to these interactions confirm our hypothesis. © 1992 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[1]  F. P. Boer,et al.  The crystal and molecular structure of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin , 1972 .

[2]  Henry S. Rzepa,et al.  Ground states of molecules. 53. MNDO calculations for molecules containing chlorine , 1983 .

[3]  Peter Politzer,et al.  Chemical Applications of Atomic and Molecular Electrostatic Potentials: "Reactivity, Structure, Scattering, And Energetics Of Organic, Inorganic, And Biological Systems" , 2013 .

[4]  Eamonn F. Healy,et al.  Development and use of quantum mechanical molecular models. 76. AM1: a new general purpose quantum mechanical molecular model , 1985 .

[5]  Peter Politzer,et al.  Comparative analysis of the electrostatic potentials of dibenzofuran and some dibenzo p dioxins , 1986 .

[6]  Michael J. S. Dewar,et al.  Extension of AM1 to the halogens , 1988 .

[7]  M. Dewar,et al.  Ground States of Molecules. 38. The MNDO Method. Approximations and Parameters , 1977 .

[8]  Jacopo Tomasi,et al.  Electronic Molecular Structure, Reactivity and Intermolecular Forces: An Euristic Interpretation by Means of Electrostatic Molecular Potentials , 1978 .

[9]  A. Duben.  Necessary conditions for the calculation of useful electrostatic isopotential maps from CNDO/INDO wavefunctions , 1981 .

[10]  P. Mezey,et al.  A topological analysis of molecular electrostatic potential on van der Waals surfaces for histamine and 4‐substituted derivatives as H2‐receptor agonists , 1991 .

[11]  F. J. Luque,et al.  Comparative study of the molecular electrostatic potential obtained from different wavefunctions. Reliability of the semiempirical MNDO wavefunction , 1990 .

[12]  J. Pople,et al.  Approximate Self‐Consistent Molecular‐Orbital Theory. V. Intermediate Neglect of Differential Overlap , 1967 .

[13]  P. Politzer,et al.  Molecular electrostatic potentials: an effective tool for the elucidation of biochemical phenomena. , 1985, Environmental health perspectives.

[14]  P. Kollman,et al.  Atomic charges derived from semiempirical methods , 1990 .

[15]  Modesto Orozco,et al.  On the use of AM1 and MNDO wave functions to compute accurate electrostatic charges , 1990 .

[16]  György G. Ferenczy,et al.  Semiempirical AM1 electrostatic potentials and AM1 electrostatic potential derived charges: A comparison with ab initio values , 1989 .