Comparative analysis of the performance of commonly available density functionals in the determination of geometrical parameters for zinc complexes

A set of 44 Zinc‐ligand bond‐lengths and of 60 ligand‐metal‐ligand bond angles from 10 diverse transition‐metal complexes, representative of the coordination spheres of typical biological Zn systems, were used to evaluate the performance of a total of 18 commonly available density functionals in geometry determination. Five different basis sets were considered for each density functional, namely two all‐electron basis sets (a double‐zeta and triple‐zeta formulation) and three basis sets including popular types of effective‐core potentials: Los Alamos, Steven‐Basch‐Krauss, and Stuttgart‐Dresden. The results show that there are presently several better alternatives to the popular B3LYP density functional for the determination of Zn‐ligand bond‐lengths and angles. BB1K, MPWB1K, MPW1K, B97‐2 and TPSS are suggested as the strongest alternatives for this effect presently available in most computational chemistry software packages. In addition, the results show that the use of effective‐core potentials (in particular Stuttgart‐Dresden) has a very limited impact, in terms of accuracy, in the determination of metal‐ligand bond‐lengths and angles in Zinc‐complexes, and is a good and safe alternative to the use of an all‐electron basis set such as 6‐31G(d) or 6‐311G(d,p). © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem 2009