Not only are partial charge assignments method dependent, but some partial charge assignment methods give charges that are also dependent on the input conformer as well as the hardware the method is run on. Partial charge methods which rely on quantum chemical calculations (including the AM1-BCC method tested here) are sensitive to the input conformer because such methods rely on the molecular geometry (potentially after optimization) to estimate the electrostatics of the molecule. Conformers with strong intramolecular interactions or other geometric factors which impact the electronic structure can result in significantly di erent partial charges. As an example of a strong intramolecular interaction, consider an interaction between an oxygen and a hydrogen that are quite close to one another and not covalently bonded, in a scenario where the oxygen bears a negative partial charge and the hydrogen bears a positive partial charge. Following charge assignment, such a conformer will often result in di erent partial charges for the molecule than in conformers where the oxygen and hydrogen are rotated away from each other and not significantly interacting (Figure ). Often, partial charge assignment methods also involve numerical analysis which could be impacted by floating point precision and exact choice of computational algorithms. For example, Mulliken population analysis, used in some charge assignment methods, including AM1 and related approaches, is known to converge relatively poorly ). Thus, compute hardware choice could potentially impact the resulting partial charge values, as we further examine in this work.