From: Mark Mascal <mjmascal@ucdavis.edu>
Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:18 AM
Subject: RE: hydrogen bond
To: Arunan <arunan@ipc.iisc.ernet.in>




Dear Arunan

Thanks. Yes, I read Desiraju's piece in Angewandte where he noted the
issue with D. But the symbol X is still used pretty widely for halogens,
and I think it could be mistaken at least as much as D-H for deuterium
hydride. I thought maybe about A-H...A', where A are simply defined as
atoms, but that has its own potential problems.

Another comment I had that Jylian didn't include was the use of the
terms "molecular" and "molecule." This seems restrictive, since we would
never call an H-bonding ammonium ion an "ammonium molecule." Likewise for
halides and complex anions. I know the verbiage which follows the
definition mentions anions, but its important to make the definition
itself as clear as possible. Most won't read the whole report.

Finally, the "attractive interaction...in which there is evidence of bond
formation" also seemed a little redundant to me. Are there any attractive
interactions in which there is no evidence of bond formation? Desiraju
states in the article that "interaction" and "bond" could be used
interchangably. Applying that principle, you could contract the beginning
and end of the definition to "an attractive interaction...in which there
is evidence of attractive interaction formation!"

I know these are just semantics. While I was delighted with the spirit of
the definition, I think it could still use some linguistic polishing.

Just some thoughts.

Mark