Literature DB >> 15267959

Comparison of density functionals for energy and structural differences between the high- [5T2g: (t2g)4(eg)2] and low- [1A1g: (t2g)6(eg)0] spin states of the hexaquoferrous cation [Fe(H2O)6]2+.

Antony Fouqueau1, Sébastien Mer, Mark E Casida, Latevi Max Lawson Daku, Andreas Hauser, Tsonka Mineva, Frank Neese.   

Abstract

A comparison of density functionals is made for the calculation of energy and geometry differences for the high- [(5)T(2g): (t(2g))(4)(e(g))(2)] and low- [(1)A(1g): (t(2g))(6)(e(g))(0)] spin states of the hexaquoferrous cation [Fe(H(2)O)(6)](2+). Since very little experimental results are available (except for crystal structures involving the cation in its high-spin state), the primary comparison is with our own complete active-space self-consistent field (CASSCF), second-order perturbation theory-corrected complete active-space self-consistent field (CASPT2), and spectroscopy-oriented configuration interaction (SORCI) calculations. We find that generalized gradient approximations (GGAs) and the B3LYP hybrid functional provide geometries in good agreement with experiment and with our CASSCF calculations provided sufficiently extended basis sets are used (i.e., polarization functions on the iron and polarization and diffuse functions on the water molecules). In contrast, CASPT2 calculations of the low-spin-high-spin energy difference DeltaE(LH)=E(LS)-E(HS) appear to be significantly overestimated due to basis set limitations in the sense that the energy difference of the atomic asymptotes ((5)D-->(1)I excitation of Fe(2+)) are overestimated by about 3000 cm(-1). An empirical shift of the molecular DeltaE(LH) based upon atomic calculations provides a best estimate of 12 000-13 000 cm(-1). Our unshifted SORCI result is 13 300 cm(-1), consistent with previous comparisons between SORCI and experimental excitation energies which suggest that no such empirical shift is needed in conjunction with this method. In contrast, after estimation of incomplete basis set effects, GGAs with one exception underestimate this value by 3000-4000 cm(-1) while the B3LYP functional underestimates it by only about 1000 cm(-1). The exception is the GGA functional RPBE which appears to perform as well as or better than the B3LYP functional for the properties studied here. In order to obtain a best estimate of the molecular DeltaE(LH) within the context of density functional theory (DFT) calculations we have also performed atomic excitation energy calculations using the multiplet sum method. These atomic DFT calculations suggest that no empirical correction is needed for the DFT calculations. (c) 2004 American Institute of Physics.

Entities:  

Year:  2004        PMID: 15267959     DOI: 10.1063/1.1710046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Phys        ISSN: 0021-9606            Impact factor:   3.488


  7 in total

1.  A critical evaluation of DFT, including time-dependent DFT, applied to bioinorganic chemistry.

Authors:  Frank Neese
Journal:  J Biol Inorg Chem       Date:  2006-07-05       Impact factor: 3.358

2.  Fundamental reaction pathways for cytochrome P450-catalyzed 5'-hydroxylation and N-demethylation of nicotine.

Authors:  Dongmei Li; Yong Wang; Keli Han; Chang-Guo Zhan
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 2.991

3.  Multiple States of Nitrile Hydratase from Rhodococcus equi TG328-2: Structural and Mechanistic Insights from Electron Paramagnetic Resonance and Density Functional Theory Studies.

Authors:  Natalia Stein; Natalie Gumataotao; Natalia Hajnas; Rui Wu; K P Wasantha Lankathilaka; Uwe T Bornscheuer; Dali Liu; Adam T Fiedler; Richard C Holz; Brian Bennett
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 3.162

4.  The McClure and Weiss models of Fe-O2 bonding for oxyhemes, and the HbO2 + NO reaction.

Authors:  Richard D Harcourt
Journal:  J Biol Inorg Chem       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 3.358

5.  The metal bonding domain of the antitumor drug Fe(II)-bleomycin: a DFT investigation.

Authors:  Anna Karawajczyk; Francesco Buda
Journal:  J Biol Inorg Chem       Date:  2004-12-01       Impact factor: 3.358

6.  Iron-catalysed transformation of molecular dinitrogen into silylamine under ambient conditions.

Authors:  Masahiro Yuki; Hiromasa Tanaka; Kouitsu Sasaki; Yoshihiro Miyake; Kazunari Yoshizawa; Yoshiaki Nishibayashi
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 14.919

7.  Seeing Is Believing: Experimental Spin States from Machine Learning Model Structure Predictions.

Authors:  Michael G Taylor; Tzuhsiung Yang; Sean Lin; Aditya Nandy; Jon Paul Janet; Chenru Duan; Heather J Kulik
Journal:  J Phys Chem A       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 2.781

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.