Furthermore, our data analysis allows to identify the contactangle dependencies in vdW radii. A representative example is the interhalogen interactions C-Hal1•••Hal2-C, Hal = Cl, Br, I (X-bonds, XBs), which are usually classified as types I and II. ). The CH•••O contacts are shorter by 0.18 Å than CH•••N and very similar to CH•••F (Figure ), although an opposite trend can be seen in the Csp2•••O/N/F contacts (Figure ). Such deviation of Dmax from the sum of Rmax imply that CH•••O contacts are highly specific and their structure forming role is more significant than that of the other CH•••X contacts, including CH•••F, despite the similar electrostatic nature of these contact types. The sterically hindered CCR4•••O contacts formed by quaternary carbon exceed by 0.30 Å the corresponding Rmax sum, which, in turn, cohere well with the Dmax values for the C•••O contacts formed by primary (CMe) and tertiary (CHR3) carbon atoms (Figure ). Such a shift of the CCR4•••O vdW peak is in line with the expected significant steric repulsions between the neighbors of the interacting carbon atom and the oxygen atom. This means that one should distinguish vdW radii of atoms in different environments. The atoms confined in tetrahedral or octahedral environments (e.g. Si, Bi, most of d, f-elements, and other elements considered by Alvarez in Ref. [10]) would show an increased effective size due to the unaccounted steric effects. The corresponding Dmax values will merely indicate the position of the first maximum of radial distribution function and make little sense in terms of noncovalent interactions. Only the atoms in an "open" environment such as trigonal, square planar or square pyramidal configurations can be used to determine RvdW from contact distance distributions without shielding effects to be crucial. These examples illustrate that despite all advantages, the element-defined Rmax radii still fail to generally define the "energy minimum position" of intermolecular interactions. The preferred and more accurate approach is to directly utilize Dmax values determined for the given atom pair contact rather than the sum of vdW radii. In this way, the structural analysis will automatically account for the specificity of the analyzed interactions, their anisotropy, and the impact of steric effects. We have developed an algorithm and implemented it in a script (deposited at the GitHub ) that allows searching the CSD for intermolecular contacts with certain geometry (ConQuest output) with their subsequent classification as line-of-sight or shielded contacts (Figure ). The produced datasets can readily be used for the determination of the Dmax using any standard table processing or data analysis software. Such Dmax values obtained for specific contacts with a certain geometry can be used to create highthroughput geometry-based descriptors of intermolecular interactions, applicable e.g. to high-throughput screening of heterogeneous catalysts. Although the described approach is statistical, it can be used for the analysis of specific systems. In this case, one needs to compare the length of an intermolecular contact with Dmax of the distribution of the corresponding contacts. Detailization of atom environment of interacting atoms and geometry of an interaction eliminates the bias caused by differences in nature of atoms and anisotropy of the interaction. As a result, one can analyze the potential energy surface of the specific condensed system using experimental structural data. The same outcome can be achieved by analyzing potential energy surface by means of quantum chemical modelling, however, its application to condensed systems is qualitative and not straightforward. As representative example of the approach we provide the analysis of the short F•••F contact in crystalline pentafluorobenzoic acid (PFBA, CSD refcode PFBZAC01). It is 2.63 Å long, and both C-F•••F are equal to 155°. This is much shorter than the sum of the element-specific Rmax (3.10 Å) suggesting that such a contact should be forced and potentially repulsive in nature. However, this conclusion does not hold when atom-type specific radii are utilized for the analysis. The interatomic contact cannot anymore be regarded as an ultrashort one when considering Dmax for linear F•••F contacts (2.90 Å), or, even more specifically, the aromatic C3F3 fragments (2.78 Å). (Figure ). Unfortunately, further refinement of the fluorine-containing fragments is currently not possible due to the small amount of available structural data. However, given that the fluorine environment in PFBA is more electronegative than in more common C6F5 groups, we can assume that the most probable r(F•••F) in PFBA is even smaller than 2.78 Å. This implies that such "ultrashort" contact are the intrinsic characteristics of the molecule itself and the role of the packing features for their occurrence is only minor if any.