Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39208255›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2024

van der Waals Radii of Free and Bonded Atoms from Hydrogen (Z = 1) to Oganesson (Z = 118).

Jorge Charry, Alexandre Tkatchenko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Closing the Loop: High-Precision 3D Photofabrication in Living Tissues.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  3. Extending the Python RESP Framework for Extra Point Charge Fitting.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jorge CharryDepartment of Physics and Materials Science, University of Luxembourg, L-1511 Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0003-3069-2522
Alexandre TkatchenkoDepartment of Physics and Materials Science, University of Luxembourg, L-1511 Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0002-1012-4854

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reliable numerical values of van der Waals (vdW) radii are required for constructing empirical force fields, vdW-inclusive density functional, and quantum-chemical methods, as well as for implicit solvent models. However, multiple definitions exist for vdW radii, involving either equilibrium or the closest contact distances between free or bonded atoms within molecules or crystals. For the paradigmatic case of the hydrogen atom, its reported vdW radius fluctuates between 2.15 and 3.70 Bohr depending on the definition, leading to a high uncertainty in calculations and different conceptual interpretations of noncovalent interactions. In this work, we systematically review different definitions and methodologies to establish the free and bonded vdW radii for hydrogen, based on equilibrium vdW distances in noncovalently bonded molecules, enveloping electron density cutoffs, noncovalent positron bonds in hydrogen anion dimer, vacuum virtual photon cloud caused by the hydrogen atom, and atomic dipole polarizability. By doing so, we show that the vdW radius of the free hydrogen atom is 3.16 ± 0.06 Bohr. By employing the most general and elegant definition of atomic vdW radius as a function of the atomic polarizability, we tabulate consistent values of vdW radii for all atoms in the periodic table up to

Identifiers

PMID39208255
PMCPMC11391583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.