ArticleJournal of the American Chemical Society2020
Unifying Conceptual Density Functional and Valence Bond Theory: The Hardness-Softness Conundrum Associated with Protonation Reactions and Uncovering Complementary Reactivity Modes.
Article in Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experimental and Theoretical Insights on the Use of Expired Furosemide as Corrosion Inhibition for Cu in NaCl.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Substituent Effects in the Thermal Decomposition of 1,2,4-Triazol-3(2H)-Ones and Their Thione Analogues: A DFT Study with Functional Performance.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Grand Canonical General-Purpose Reactivity Indicator: A Conceptual DFT Approach to Predict Molecular Reactivity and Experimental Electrophilicity and Nucleophilicity Scales.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2025Article
- Comparative Study of Predicting Radical CH Functionalization Sites in Nitrogen Heteroarenes Using a Radical General-Purpose Reactivity Indicator and the Radical Fukui Function.Journal of computational chemistry · 2025Article
- Article
- A rare isocyanide derived from an unprecedented neutral yttrium(ii) bis(amide) complex.Chemical science · 2023Article
- Highs and Lows of Bond Lengths: Is There Any Limit?Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we address the long-standing issue-arising prominently from conceptual density functional theory (CDFT)-of the relative importance of electrostatic, i.e., "hard-hard", versus spin-pairing, i.e., "soft-soft", interactions in determining regiochemical preferences. We do so from a valence bond (VB) perspective and demonstrate that VB theory readily enables a clear-cut resolution of both of these contributions to the bond formation/breaking process. Our calculations indicate that appropriate local reactivity descriptors can be used to gauge the magnitude of both interactions individually, e.g., Fukui functions or HOMO/LUMO orbitals for the spin-pairing/(frontier) orbital interactions and molecular electrostatic potentials (and/or partial charges) for the electrostatic interactions. In contrast to previous reports, we find that protonation reactions cannot generally be classified as either charge- or frontier orbital-controlled; instead, our results indicate that these two bonding contributions generally interplay in more subtle patterns, only giving the impression of a clear-cut dichotomy. Finally, we demonstrate that important covalent, i.e., spin pairing, reactivity modes can be missed when only a single spin-pairing/orbital interaction descriptor is considered. This study constitutes an important step in the unification of CDFT and VB theory.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.