Cristina
Puzzarini
*^{a} and
John F.
Stanton
*^{b}
^{a}Dipartimento di Chimica “Giacomo Ciamician”, Università di Bologna, via F. Selmi 2, 40126, Bologna, Italy. E-mail: cristina.puzzarini@unibo.it
^{b}Department of Chemistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. E-mail: johnstanton@chem.ufl.edu
First published on 12th December 2022
Rotational spectroscopy is the technique of choice for investigating molecular structures in the gas phase. Indeed, rotational constants are strongly connected to the geometry of the molecular system under consideration. Therefore, they are powerful tools for assessing the accuracy that quantum chemical approaches can reach in structural determinations. In this review article, it is shown how it is possible to measure the accuracy of a computed equilibrium geometry based on the comparison of rotational constants. But, it is also addressed what accuracy is required by computations for providing molecular structures and thus rotational constants that are useful to experiment. Quantum chemical methodologies for obtaining the “0.1% accuracy” for rotational constants are reviewed for systems ranging in size from small molecules to small polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This accuracy for systems containing two dozen or so atoms opens the way towards future applications such as the accurate characterization of non-covalent interactions, which play a key role in several biological and technological processes.
Quantum chemical composite approaches and methods are continuously under development in order to extend their applicability and/or their accuracy.^{7,28,29} Therefore, benchmarking the results they deliver with experiment is a crucial step in assessing their performance. On the other hand, advancements in gas-phase spectroscopic techniques have extended their use to larger and flexible systems (such as clusters,^{30–32} amino acids,^{33,34} DNA-scaffold ribosugars^{35}) as well as to unstable species (obtained by flash vacuum pyrolysis^{36,37} or discharge^{38}). Increasingly, complicated spectra have to be analyzed which strongly require theory for their interpretation.^{12,13,34,36,39–41} For isolated systems, rotational spectroscopy can serve to demonstrate the accuracy that can be reached by quantum chemistry and to show how much we need to push theory to obtain predictions useful to experiment. In this spectroscopic technique, rotational constants are the leading terms and strongly depend on the molecular structure.^{12,42–47} In fact, rotational constants are inversely proportional to the moments of inertia which in turn are related to the mass distribution of the molecule:
(1) |
In the equation above (in frequency units, which are those considered along this manuscript), i refers to the intertial axis (a, b or c, these leading to B^{a} = A, B^{b} = B or B^{c} = C, respectively, with A ≥ B ≥ C), and I_{ii} denotes the i-th diagonal element of the inertia tensor I:
(2) |
The focus of this contribution is on the accuracy that computational predictions should meet in order to support rotational spectroscopy. In the next section, the requirements for accuracy are introduced. Then, the relation existing between the error affecting structural parameters and the corresponding deviation in rotational constants is addressed. Finally, the performance of different computational approaches is discussed through some examples.
As briefly mentioned in the Introduction, there are two principal contributions to rotational constants.^{12} The first and simplest is the so-called equilibrium constant B_{e}, which is directly proportional to the reciprocal principal inertial moments of the equilibrium structure that is easily calculated by quantum chemistry (see eqn (1)). The second important contribution – which is much smaller in magnitude for semi-rigid molecules – comes from the interaction of vibration and rotation. This contribution is less straightforward to calculate than the equilibrium structure, and is usually approximated by means of vibrational perturbation theory carried out to second order (VPT2)^{48}:
(3) |
The magnitude of the vibrational contribution ΔB_{vib} is typically 0.1% to 0.7% that of the corresponding equilibrium rotational constant, with 0.5% being the largely dominant case in semi-rigid systems. Its calculation by the methods of quantum chemistry requires evaluation of the harmonic and (cubic) anharmonic force fields, and the error in such computations can be estimated to be comparable to that of the force constants. For a high-quality coupled-cluster calculation with an appropriate basis set, errors in force constants are usually less than 5%. For low-level calculations, errors can increase up to 20%. Consequently, the error in the vibrational contribution to the rotational constants can be estimated to be no larger than about 0.05% of the total value of the ground state constants B_{0} (a maximum of 0.1% is estimated in the case of a vibrational contribution of 0.5% evaluated with an error of 20%).
It is the equilibrium rotational constant prediction that plays the most important role for the issue at hand. For a diatomic molecule, it is very easy to show that a change in the bond length r_{e} leads to a fractional change of the rotational constant according to^{43}
(4) |
For polyatomic molecules, such an analysis is considerably more complicated. However, for bond lengths, the k fractional changes in equilibrium rotational constants (δ_{k}B_{e}/B_{e}) that arise from fractional changes in the corresponding different bond distances (δr_{k}/r_{k}) obey the surprisingly simple relationship
(5) |
In summary, it is clear that equilibrium structure predictions are valuable to rotational spectroscopy only if they are done with an accuracy that demands a very high-level quantum chemical treatment (which usually means employing composite schemes). While an accuracy of 1% for ground-state rotational constants can be achieved with relative ease, it is not particularly useful for guided searches and spectra interpretation. At the other end, accuracy rivaling that of experiments (0.01%) is beyond the reach of computation. Realistic prospects lie somewhat intermediate between these regimes with 0.1% (and slightly better than that) an achievable but still challenging goal. For diatomic and small polyatomic molecules, the requisite level of accuracy can be achieved only by means of basis-set extrapolation and high-level correlation treatments, but similar calculations for larger systems are generally not possible at this time. In this context, for medium-sized molecules, reduced-cost composite schemes have been defined.^{7,10} However, for larger systems, alternatives to brute-force computation, such as the locality-exploiting “Lego-brick” approach,^{50–53} are likely to prove more valuable in the future.
Molecule^{a} | r _{e} ^{ } (Å) | B(r_{e}) (MHz) | B(r_{e} + 0.0001)^{c} (MHz) | B(r_{e} + 0.001)^{c} (MHz) | B(r_{e} + 0.002)^{c} (MHz) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
a CN and OH are radical species, both are doublet in the electronic ground state. b Equilibrium distances at the all-CCSD(T)/cc-pCVQZ level of theory. c r _{e} + 0.0001, r_{e} + 0.001, and r_{e} + 0.002 mean equilibrium distance (r_{e}) augmented by 0.0001 Å, 0.001 Å, and 0.002 Å, respectively. In the second line, differences with respect to the equilibrium rotational constants are given in absolute and relative terms: [(B(r_{e} + Δr) − B(r_{e}))/B(r_{e})] × 100. | |||||
SiS | 1.9316 | 9077.97 | 9077.26 | 9068.57 | 9059.20 |
−0.71 (−0.008%) | −9.40 (−0.10%) | −18.77 (−0.21%) | |||
PN | 1.4913 | 23563.42 | 23560.26 | 23531.85 | 23500.34 |
−3.16 (−0.013%) | −31.57 (−0.13%) | −63.08 (−0.27%) | |||
CN | 1.1674 | 57386.18 | 57376.35 | 57287.99 | 57190.06 |
−9.83 (−0.017%) | −98.19 (−0.17%) | −196.12 (−0.34%) | |||
CO | 1.1289 | 57841.66 | 57831.41 | 57739.32 | 57637.25 |
−10.25 (−0.018%) | −102.34 (−0.18%) | −204.41 (−0.35%) | |||
HCl | 1.2736 | 318069.32 | 318019.38 | 317570.42 | 317072.69 |
−49.94 (−0.016%) | −498.90 (−0.16%) | −996.63 (−0.31%) | |||
OH | 0.9689 | 567822.08 | 567704.88 | 566651.79 | 565485.1 |
−117.20 (−0.021%) | −1170.29 (−0.21%) | −2336.96 (−0.41%) | |||
HF | 0.9158 | 629664.95 | 629527.45 | 628292.0 | 626923.6 |
−137.50 (−0.021%) | −1372.92 (−0.22%) | −2741.34 (−0.44%) |
Molecule | Parameters^{a} | A _{e} (MHz)^{b} | B _{e} (MHz)^{b} | C _{e} (MHz)^{b} | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a Equilibrium distances at the all-CCSD(T)/cc-pCVTZ level of theory. b Differences, in relative terms, with respect to the equilibrium rotational constants are given in parentheses (for definition, see footnote c of Table 1). | ||||||
H_{2}O | r(OH) | ∠(HOH) | ||||
0.9584 | 103.68 | 805164.3 | 441462.4 | 285129.3 | ||
+0.001 | — | 803486.8 (−0.21%) | 440542.6 (−0.21%) | 284535.2 (−0.21%) | ||
— | +0.1 | 806956.4 (+0.22%) | 440858.0 (−0.14%) | 285101.0 (−0.01%) | ||
+0.001 | +0.1 | 805275.1 (+0.01%) | 439939.4 (−0.34%) | 284507.0 (−0.22%) | ||
H_{2}CO | r(CO) | r(CH) | ∠(HCO) | |||
1.2043 | 1.1008 | 121.78 | 286354.8 | 38976.8 | 34307.1 | |
+0.001 | — | — | 286354.8 (—) | 38919.0 (−0.15%) | 34262.3 (−0.14%) | |
— | +0.001 | — | 285835.2 (−0.18%) | 38969.2 (−0.02%) | 34293.8 (−0.04%) | |
— | — | +0.1 | 286975.9 (+0.22%) | 38953.4 (−0.06%) | 34297.9 (−0.03%) | |
+0.001 | +0.001 | — | 285835.2 (−0.18%) | 38911.5 (−0.17%) | 34249.1 (−0.16%) | |
+0.001 | — | +0.1 | 286975.9 (+0.22%) | 38895.7 (−0.21%) | 34253.1 (−0.16%) | |
— | +0.001 | +0.1 | 286455.2 (+0.04%) | 38945.8 (−0.08%) | 34284.5 (−0.07%) | |
+0.001 | +0.001 | +0.1 | 286455.2 (+0.04%) | 38888.1 (−0.22%) | 34239.8 (−0.20%) |
Table 1 collects data for seven diatomic molecules, three of them also containing third-row atoms (SiS, PN and HCl) and two of them being radical species (CN and OH). In this table, for each molecule, the equilibrium distance and the corresponding equilibrium constant are reported together with the rotational constants resulting from increasing the bond distance by 0.0001 Å, 0.001 Å, and 0.002 Å. For the latter constants, the absolute and relative deviations from the equilibrium one are provided. Although being of limited importance to the present discussion, we note that bond distances were optimized at the CCSD(T)/cc-pCVQZ level,^{54–56} with all electrons correlated (this level of theory has been chosen because of its accuracy^{57}). Inspection of the results of Table 1 confirms the fractional change pointed out in eqn (4) and, thus, an accuracy of 0.001 Å on the bond distance leads to a deviation of 0.1% on the rotational constant for bond lengths of about 2 Å such as that of SiS and of 0.2% for distances of about 1 Å. This table makes also clear that for light molecules deviations of about 0.1% in the rotational constant mean, in absolute terms, deviations of hundreds or even thousands of MHz.
In Table 2, an analysis similar to that reported in Table 1 is extended to two simple polyatomic molecules: water and formaldehyde. In both cases, distances have been varied by 0.001 Å and angles by 0.1°. From this table, it is clear that the situation is much more complicated even for very simple molecules. In fact, we can have the variation of only one parameter, two of them or, in the case of H_{2}CO, even three of them. For evident geometrical reasons, changing only one structural parameter affects differently the three rotational constants, and the variation of two might lead to a fortuitous cancellation of error. The concomitant variation of all geometrical parameters (which might be interpreted as a systematic error affecting the structural determination) determines different changes (and thus accuracy) on the three rotational constants. However, it is noted that, no matter how many parameters are modified, the maximum relative error on each rotational constant is in line with what observed for diatomics and confirms the conclusions of the previous section.
To address the impact of the deviations discussed above on the prediction of the rotational spectrum, a fictitious diatomic molecule with a rotational constant B of 100 GHz is considered within the rigid-rotor approximation. The frequency of a generic rotational transition (from the J to J + 1 rotational energy level) is then given by the simple expression
ν = 2B(J + 1) | (6) |
In all approaches, to recover the error due to the basis-set truncation, an extrapolation to the CBS limit is performed, with different formula that can be used.^{25–27,41,68} If extrapolation to the CBS limit is carried out within the frozen-core (fc) approximation, then core-valence correlation (CV) effects need to be incorporated (as the difference of all-electron and fc calculations in the same basis set). To keep the N-electron error low, the CCSD(T) method is often used, whose good performance resulted in defining it as the “gold standard” for accurate quantum chemical calculations. Improvement in the description of energy correlation requires to go beyond the CCSD(T) model, and thus to incorporate corrections due to a full treatment of triples (fT) and quadruples (fQ). While different groups all around the world have developed and employed quantum chemical composite approaches to obtain accurate equilibrium geometries (with examples being provided by cited references along this manuscript), in the following we present results from the work of the authors and their groups.
To discuss the accuracy of different composite schemes in terms of accuracy of the corresponding rotational constants, in ref. 45, a statistical analysis was carried out for a significant set of small-sized molecular species (up to 6 atoms). Since equilibrium rotational constants only depend on the equilibrium structure, the corresponding statistical measures allows one to infer the accuracy of the computed geometries. Some of the results obtained in the framework of the analysis performed in ref. 45 are reported in Table 3, which collects the mean absolute error (MAE) and the standard deviation for different levels of theory. As well known from the literature (see, e.g., ref. 13, 69), the CCSD(T) method – within the fc approximation – in conjunction with a triple-zeta basis set does not provide accurate structures. The situation improves by enlarging the basis set and the “0.1% accuracy” target is reached once the extrapolation to the CBS limit (or a very large basis set) is combined with CV corrections. Incorporation of fT and fQ contributions further improves both the MAE and the standard deviation, but at the cost of very expensive quantum chemical computations and without reducing the error by one order of magnitude (thus still far from the 0.01% accuracy limit). Therefore, the CCSD(T)/CBS+CV approach (or simply CBS+CV)^{61} is the most cost effective scheme, among those entirely based on CC techniques, to meet the so-called “0.1% accuracy” for rotational constants for molecules up to 10 atoms.^{69}
Computational approach^{b} | Mean absolute | Standard |
---|---|---|
Error | Deviation | |
a Semi-experimental B_{e} values are obtained from experimental B_{0} values by subtracting computed vibrational and electronic contributions. Data taken from ref. 45. b VnZ stands for cc-pVnZ; fc stands for frozen-core approximation. | ||
fc-CCSD(T)/VTZ | 0.90 | 0.59 |
fc-CCSD(T)/VQZ | 0.43 | 0.30 |
fc-CCSD(T)/V5Z | 0.32 | 0.18 |
fc-CCSD(T)/V6Z | 0.30 | 0.16 |
fc-CCSD(T)/CBS | 0.28 | 0.14 |
fc-CCSD(T)/V6Z + CV | 0.06 | 0.10 |
fc-CCSD(T)/V6Z + CV + fT | 0.09 | 0.11 |
fc-CCSD(T)/V6Z + CV + fT + fQ | 0.06 | 0.07 |
fc-CCSD(T)/CBS + CV + fT + fQ | 0.04 | 0.07 |
To extend the application of composite schemes to medium-sized species such as buildings blocks of biomolecules, it is necessary to reduce the computational cost while keeping a good accuracy. In recent years, a very effective approach – denoted as “cheap” scheme (ChS) – has been introduced.^{7,10,70} Starting from fc-CCSD(T) calculations with a triple-zeta quality basis set, the ChS model incorporates the extrapolation to the CBS limit and the CV effects using Møller-Plesset second-order theory (MP2).^{71} MP2, CCSD(T) and ChS results for selected medium-sized molecules (up to 16 atoms), ranging from nucleobases to amino acids and dipeptide analogues, are collected in Table 4 and compared to the corresponding semi-experimental equilibrium rotational constants (namely experimental B_{0} values from which computed vibrational contributions have been subtracted), with the relative deviations being reported. For fc-CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ calculations, the data of Table 4 are in line with the statistical measures given in Table 3. On average, MP2/cc-pVTZ performs better than CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ, with MAE of 0.43% and 0.80%, respectively. This result is expected based on the considerations mentioned before: since basis set deficiencies tend to lead to long distances, while correlation deficiencies lead to systematically short distances, in fc-MP2/cc-pVTZ we observe a partial cancellation of errors. Moving to the ChS composite scheme, which means augmenting the fc-CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ level by CBS and CV corrections using MP2, the MAE reduces to 0.13%, thus meeting the “0.1% accuracy”.
fc-MP2/cc-pVTZ | fc-CCSD(T)/cc-pVTZ | ChS | Semi-experimental^{b} (equilibrium) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
a If applies, the conformer considered is specified in parentheses. b See also ref. 52. c Mean absolute error with respect to semi-experimental B_{e} constants. | ||||
Uracil^{10} | ||||
A _{e} | 3906.8 (−0.14%) | 3884.1 (−0.72%) | 3913.9 (+0.04%) | 3912.4 |
B _{e} | 2018.6 (−0.82%) | 2015.7 (−0.96%) | 2039.1 (+0.19%) | 2035.3 |
C _{e} | 1330.9 (−0.60%) | 1327.0 (−0.89%) | 1340.7 (+0.13%) | 1338.9 |
Thiouracil^{58} | ||||
A _{e} | 3569.7 (−0.24%) | 3550.5 (−0.78%) | 3578.6 (+0.008%) | 3578.3 |
B _{e} | 1313.6 (−0.63%) | 1306.6 (−1.16%) | 1322.4 (+0.04%) | 1321.9 |
C _{e} | 960.3 (−0.53%) | 955.1 (−1.07%) | 965.6 (+0.002%) | 965.4 |
Pyruvic acid (Tc)^{59} | ||||
A _{e} | 5502.9 (−1.01%) | 5501.8 (−1.03%) | 5564.5 (+0.09%) | 5559.3 |
B _{e} | 3625.6 (+0.11%) | 3602.4 (−0.53%) | 3611.4 (−0.29%) | 3621.5 |
C _{e} | 2214.9 (−0.33%) | 2206.3 (−0.72%) | 2219.6 (−0.13%) | 2222.4 |
Glycolic acid (sSc)^{60} | ||||
A _{e} | 10699.3 (−0.90%) | 10701.9 (−0.88%) | 10801.2 (+0.04) | 10797.3 |
B _{e} | 4092.9 (−0.12%) | 4073.0 (−0.61%) | 4102.9 (+0.12%) | 4098.0 |
C _{e} | 3015.6 (−0.33%) | 3005.3 (−0.67%) | 3029.2 (+0.12%) | 3025.5 |
Glycine (Ip)^{61} | ||||
A _{e} | 10328.0 (−0.87%) | 10328.2 (−0.86%) | 10396.6 (−0.21%) | 10418.2 |
B _{e} | 3905.0 (−0.05%) | 3884.4 (−0.58%) | 3901.1 (−0.15%) | 3906.9 |
C _{e} | 2926.2 (−0.28%) | 2915.0 (−0.66%) | 2930.4 (−0.14%) | 2934.4 |
Glycine dipeptide analogue (C_{7})^{62} | ||||
A _{e} | 4369.5 (−1.70%) | 4417.3 (−0.63%) | 4456.6 (−0.26%) | 4445.2 |
B _{e} | 1236.1 (+0.29%) | 1220.2 (−1.00%) | 1228.9 (−0.29%) | 1232.5 |
C _{e} | 1097.6 (+0.26%) | 1087.1 (−0.70%) | 1096.5 (−0.16%) | 1094.8 |
MAE^{c} | 0.43% | 0.80% | 0.13% |
For molecules larger than those discussed above such as small polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their derivatives (up to about 30 atoms), the ChS and its variants^{7,10} are not computationally affordable. Usually, one has to resort to density functional theory (DFT), with double-hybrid functionals (such as B2PLYP^{72} and rev-DSDPBEP86^{64}) providing the best results.^{52,73–77} To further improve the accuracy obtainable by DFT functionals in structural determinations, the so-called “template molecule” (TM) approach^{46} has been introduced. This model is based on the assumption that a molecular system can be seen as formed by smaller fragments for which a very accurate equilibrium structure is available and that the difference between the latter and the DFT determination can be directly applied to the larger system. Recently, this model has been extended to define the so-called “Lego-brick” approach (also denoted TM+LR or TM+LR_SE).^{51,53} Within this protocol, semi-experimental equilibrium structures are employed for the geometries of the fragments, the TM approach is exploited to account for the modifications occurring when going from the isolated fragment to the molecular system under investigation, and the “linear regression” (LR) model^{78} is used to correct the linkage between different fragments. Some results, taken from ref. 53, are reported in Table 5. This table collects computed ground-state rotational constants, which have been obtained by correcting the calculated B_{e} values (straightforwardly derived from uncorrected DFT structures as well as from TM and TM+LR geometries) for vibrational contributions (calculated using the global hybrid B3LYP functional^{79,80} in conjunction with a double-zeta basis set). The comparison with the experimental counterparts is provided in terms of relative deviations. On average, the deviation from experiment of the double-hybrid rev-DSDPBEP86 functional^{64} is 0.4%, which reduces to about 0.1% when only the TM approach is applied. A further improvement, with a MAE of about 0.05%, is noted when moving to the complete TM+LR model.^{53} Overall, the results of ref. 53 demonstrate that the “Lego-brick” approach is robust, can be extended to systems of increasing size and is able to deal some degree flexibility.
revDSD/mayTZ^{b} | TM^{c} | TM+LR^{c} | revDSD/mayTZ^{b} | TM^{c} | TM+LR^{c} | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a B _{e} values have been augmented by vibrational corrections at the B3LYP/jun-cc-pVDZ level.^{63} b B _{e} values using the double-hybrid rev-DSDPBEP86 (revDSD) functional^{64} in conjunction with the may-cc-pVTZ (mayTZ) basis set.^{63} c B _{e} values from the TM and TM+LR approaches (see text). Fragments employed in the TM approach: 9-cyanoanthracene: three benzene molecules and HCN; 9-cyanophenantrene: three benzene molecules and HCN; trans-2-naphthol: two benzene molecules and H_{2}O; cis-1-naphthol: two benzene molecules and H_{2}O; 2-ethynylpyridine: pyridine and HCN; cis-3-hydroxy-pyridine: pyridine and H_{2}O; 4-hydroxy-pyridine: pyridine and H_{2}O; Benzoic acid: benzene and trans formic acid. | |||||||
9-Cyanoanthracene | 9-Cyanophenantrene | ||||||
A _{0} | 981.590 (−0.43%) | 984.547 (−0.13%) | 985.342 (−0.05%) | A _{0} | 842.512 (−0.43%) | 845.175 (−0.06%) | 845.507 (−0.07%) |
B _{0} | 449.739 (−0.32%) | 451.174 (−0.01%) | 451.174 (−0.01%) | B _{0} | 484.613 (−0.36%) | 486.116 (−0.06%) | 486.248 (−0.03%) |
C _{0} | 308.490 (−0.36%) | 309.457 (−0.05%) | 309.535 (−0.03%) | C _{0} | 307.726 (−0.39%) | 308.687 (−0.08%) | 308.784 (−0.05%) |
trans-2-Naphthol | cis-1-Naphthol | ||||||
A _{0} | 2834.666 (−0.38%) | 2844.215 (−0.04%) | 2844.763 (−0.02%) | A _{0} | 1939.026 (−0.44%) | 1944.532 (−0.15%) | 1946.589 (−0.05%) |
B _{0} | 822.384 (−0.38%) | 824.730 (−0.10%) | 825.329 (−0.03%) | B _{0} | 1120.756 (−0.32%) | 1124.286 (+0.002%) | 1124.496 (+0.02%) |
C _{0} | 637.619 (−0.39%) | 639.512 (−0.09%) | 639.900 (−0.03%) | C _{0} | 710.552 (−0.36%) | 712.709 (−0.05%) | 713.068 (+0.004%) |
2-Ethynylpyridine | cis-3-Hydroxy-pyridine | ||||||
A _{0} | 5840.592 (−0.29%) | 5861.682 (+0.07%) | 5861.683 (+0.07%) | A _{0} | 5799.384 (−0.30%) | 5818.882 (+0.03%) | 5818.880 (+0.03%) |
B _{0} | 1575.320 (−0.40%) | 1579.432 (−0.14%) | 1581.163 (−0.03%) | B _{0} | 2677.827 (−0.44%) | 2684.360 (−0.20%) | 2688.875 (−0.03%) |
C _{0} | 1240.423 (−0.38%) | 1243.924 (−0.10%) | 1244.999 (−0.01%) | C _{0} | 1831.952 (−0.41%) | 1836.955 (−0.13%) | 1839.069 (−0.02%) |
4-Hydroxy-pyridine | cis-Benzoic acid | ||||||
A _{0} | 5969.478 (−0.35%) | 5990.387 (−0.001%) | 5990.389 (−0.001%) | A _{0} | 3855.244 (−0.44%) | 3872.310 (+0.001%) | 3872.312 (+0.001%) |
B _{0} | 2621.113 (−0.41%) | 2627.396 (−0.17%) | 2631.857 (+0.001%) | B _{0} | 1221.700 (−0.46%) | 1224.776 (−0.21%) | 1226.332 (−0.08%) |
C _{0} | 1821.369 (−0.40%) | 1826.347 (−0.12%) | 1828.504 (−0.01%) | C _{0} | 928.230 (−0.46%) | 930.991 (−0.17%) | 931.889 (−0.07%) |
Section 4 provides an overview, based on the work carried out in our groups, on how to meet the target accuracy for rotational constants of 0.1% for molecular systems ranging in size from a few atoms to few dozen. However, several challenges still remain open and these mainly concern small biomolecules and large intermolecular complexes. In the last decade, we have witnessed crucial developments in the field of rotational spectroscopy. Introduction of chirped-pulsed microwave spectrometers^{81,82} have allowed for covering broadband spectral regions, and – once combined with fast-mixing nozzles – have permitted the investigation of non-covalent interactions in large systems.^{83–85} Furthermore, the introduction of the laser ablation technique – which allows laser to vaporize solids without decomposing molecules – has extended the field toward the investigation to solid compounds,^{86} and in particular to building blocks of biomolecules.^{33,87} However, the application of composite schemes to non-covalent intermolecular complexes is limited and still requires further extension,^{7,88,89} while the TM and TM+LR approaches have not been developed yet for non-covalent adducts. Furthermore, for flexible systems, interpretation of the experimental data often requires the accurate computational characterization of complex potential energy surfaces showing several low-energy minima and interconversion routes.^{34}
This journal is © the Owner Societies 2023 |