A recent article by Pan and Frenking challenges our assignment of the oxidation state of low valent group 2 compounds. With this reply, we show that our assignment of Be(+2) and Mg(+2) oxidation states in Be(cAACDip)2 and Mg(cAACDip)2 is fully consistent with our data. Some of the arguments exposed by Pan and Frenking were based on visual inspection of our figures, rather than a thorough numerical analysis. We discuss with numerical proof that some of the statements made by the authors concerning our reported data are erroneous. In addition, we provide further evidence that the criterion of the lowest orbital interaction energy in the energy decomposition analysis (EDA) method is unsuitable as a general tool to assess the valence state of the fragments. Other indicators based on natural orbitals for chemical valence (NOCV) deliver a more reliable bonding picture. We also emphasize the importance of using stable wavefunctions for any kind of analysis, including EDA.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.