First and Second Reductions in an Aprotic Solvent: Comparing Computational and Experimental One-Electron Reduction Potentials for 345 Quinones

Using reference reduction potentials of quinones recently measured relative to the saturated calomel electrode (SCE) in N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF), we benchmark absolute one-electron reduction potentials computed for 345 Q/Q(center dot-) and 265 Q(center dot-)/Q(2-) half-reactions using adiabatic electron affinities computed with density functional theory and solvation energies computed with four continuum solvation models: IEF-PCM, C-PCM, COSMO, and SM12. Regression analyses indicate a strong linear correlation between experimental and absolute computed Q/Q(center dot-) reduction potentials with Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) between 0.95 and 0.96 and the mean absolute error (MAE) relative to the linear fit between 83.29 and 89.51 mV for different solvation methods when the slope of the regression is constrained to 1. The same analysis for Q(center dot-)/Q(2-) gave a linear regression with r between 0.74 and 0.90 and MAE between 95.87 and 144.53 mV, respectively. The y-intercept values obtained from the linear regressions are in good agreement with the range of absolute reduction potentials reported in the literature for the SCE but reveal several sources of systematic error. The y-intercepts from Q(center dot-)/Q(2-) calculations are lower than those from Q/Q(center dot-) by around 320-410 mV for IEF-PCM, C-PCM, and SM12 compared to 210 mV for COSMO. Systematic errors also arise between molecules having different ring sizes (benzoquinones, naphthoquinones, and anthraquinones) and different substituents (titratable vs nontitratable). SCF convergence issues were found to be a source of random error that was slightly reduced by directly optimizing the solute structure in the continuum solvent reaction field. While SM12 MAEs were lower than those of the other solvation models for Q/Q(center dot-), SM12 had larger MAEs for Q(center dot-)/Q(2-) pointing to a larger error when describing multiply charged anions in DMF. Altogether, the results highlight the advantages of, and further need for, testing computational methods using a large experimental data set that is not skewed (e.g., having more titratable than nontitratable substituents on different parent groups or vice versa) to help further distinguish between sources of random and systematic errors in the calculations.