Eve Toomsalu
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Eve Toomsalu has a total of 1 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Peeter Burk
Institute of Chemistry, University of Tartu, Ravila 14a, 50411 Tartu, Estonia
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 29 August 2015
- Published by Springer Nature in Journal of Molecular Modeling
- Vol. 21 (9) , 1-21
Critical test of some computational methods for prediction of NMR 1H and 13C chemical shifts
Performance of 18 DFT functionals (B1B95, B3LYP, B3PW91, B97D, BHandHLYP, BMK, CAM-B3LYP, HSEh1PBE, M06-L, mPW1PW91, O3LYP, OLYP, OPBE, PBE1PBE, tHCTHhyb, TPSSh, wB97xD, VSXC) in combinations with six basis sets (cc-pVDZ, aug-cc-pVDZ, cc-pVTZ, aug-cc-pVTZ, IGLO-II, and IGLO-III) and three methods for calculating magnetic shieldings (GIAO, CSGT, IGAIM) was tested for predicting 1H and 13C chemical shifts for 25 organic compounds, for altogether 86 H and 88 C atoms. Proton shifts varied between 1.03 ppm to 12.00 ppm and carbon shifts between 7.87 ppm to 209.28 ppm. It was found that the best method for calculating 13C shifts is PBE1PBE/aug-cc-pVDZ with CSGT or IGAIM approaches (mae = 1.66 ppm), for 1H the best results were obtained with HSEh1PBE, mPW1PW91, PBE1PBE, CAM-B3LYP, and B3PW91 functionals with cc-pVTZ basis set and with CSGT or IGAIM approaches (mae = 0.28 ppm). We found that often larger basis sets do not give better results for chemical shifts. The best basis sets for calculating 1H and 13C chemical shifts were cc-pVTZ and aug-cc-pVDZ, respectively. CSGT and IGAIM NMR approaches can perform really well and are in most cases better than popular GIAO approach.
- 29 August 2015
- Published by Springer Nature in Journal of Molecular Modeling
- Vol. 21 (9) , 1-21
Critical test of some computational methods for prediction of NMR 1H and 13C chemical shifts
Performance of 18 DFT functionals (B1B95, B3LYP, B3PW91, B97D, BHandHLYP, BMK, CAM-B3LYP, HSEh1PBE, M06-L, mPW1PW91, O3LYP, OLYP, OPBE, PBE1PBE, tHCTHhyb, TPSSh, wB97xD, VSXC) in combinations with six basis sets (cc-pVDZ, aug-cc-pVDZ, cc-pVTZ, aug-cc-pVTZ, IGLO-II, and IGLO-III) and three methods for calculating magnetic shieldings (GIAO, CSGT, IGAIM) was tested for predicting 1H and 13C chemical shifts for 25 organic compounds, for altogether 86 H and 88 C atoms. Proton shifts varied between 1.03 ppm to 12.00 ppm and carbon shifts between 7.87 ppm to 209.28 ppm. It was found that the best method for calculating 13C shifts is PBE1PBE/aug-cc-pVDZ with CSGT or IGAIM approaches (mae = 1.66 ppm), for 1H the best results were obtained with HSEh1PBE, mPW1PW91, PBE1PBE, CAM-B3LYP, and B3PW91 functionals with cc-pVTZ basis set and with CSGT or IGAIM approaches (mae = 0.28 ppm). We found that often larger basis sets do not give better results for chemical shifts. The best basis sets for calculating 1H and 13C chemical shifts were cc-pVTZ and aug-cc-pVDZ, respectively. CSGT and IGAIM NMR approaches can perform really well and are in most cases better than popular GIAO approach.