Raphael M Jay1, Vinícius Vaz da Cruz1, Sebastian Eckert1, Mattis Fondell2, Rolf Mitzner2, Alexander Föhlisch1,2. 1. Universität Potsdam, Institut für Physik und Astronomie, Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 24/25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany. 2. Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie GmbH, Institute for Methods and Instrumentation for Synchrotron Radiation Research, Albert-Einstein-Straße 15, 12489 Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
In order to tailor solution-phase chemical reactions involving transition metal complexes, it is critical to understand how their valence electronic charge distributions are affected by the solution environment. Here, solute-solvent interactions of a solvatochromic mixed-ligand iron complex were investigated using X-ray absorption spectroscopy at the transition metal L2,3-edge. Due to the selectivity of the corresponding core excitations to the iron 3d orbitals, the method grants direct access to the valence electronic structure around the iron center and its response to interactions with the solvent environment. A linear increase of the total L2,3-edge absorption cross section as a function of the solvent Lewis acidity is revealed. The effect is caused by relative changes in different metal-ligand-bonding channels, which preserve local charge densities while increasing the density of unoccupied states around the iron center. These conclusions are corroborated by a combination of molecular dynamics and spectrum simulations based on time-dependent density functional theory. The simulations reproduce the spectral trends observed in the X-ray but also optical absorption experiments. Our results underscore the importance of solute-solvent interactions when aiming for an accurate description of the valence electronic structure of solvated transition metal complexes and demonstrate how L2,3-edge absorption spectroscopy can aid in understanding the impact of the solution environment on intramolecular covalency and the electronic charge distribution.
In order to tailor solution-phase chemical reactions involving transition metal complexes, it is critical to understand how their valence electronic charge distributions are affected by the solution environment. Here, solute-solvent interactions of a solvatochromic mixed-ligand iron complex were investigated using X-ray absorption spectroscopy at the transition metal L2,3-edge. Due to the selectivity of the corresponding core excitations to the iron 3d orbitals, the method grants direct access to the valence electronic structure around the iron center and its response to interactions with the solvent environment. A linear increase of the total L2,3-edge absorption cross section as a function of the solvent Lewis acidity is revealed. The effect is caused by relative changes in different metal-ligand-bonding channels, which preserve local charge densities while increasing the density of unoccupied states around the iron center. These conclusions are corroborated by a combination of molecular dynamics and spectrum simulations based on time-dependent density functional theory. The simulations reproduce the spectral trends observed in the X-ray but also optical absorption experiments. Our results underscore the importance of solute-solvent interactions when aiming for an accurate description of the valence electronic structure of solvated transition metal complexes and demonstrate how L2,3-edge absorption spectroscopy can aid in understanding the impact of the solution environment on intramolecular covalency and the electronic charge distribution.
Rationalizing
electronic charge distributions of transition metal
(TM) complexes is a fundamental challenge in order to tailor their
properties to applications in catalysis[1] and sustainable energy research.[2] This
is particularly the case for the liquid phase, where a fluctuating
solvent network can critically determine (photo-) chemical reactivity.
In this context, it is crucial to understand how intermolecular interactions
with the solvent reshape the electronic charge distribution of the
solute and thus determine its catalytic capabilities. On an intramolecular
level, the valence electronic structure of TM complexes is generally
described by relative contributions of donation and backdonation channels
that constitute the metal–ligand bond. These covalent mechanisms
in turn shape the total electronic charge distribution and can be
expected to be impacted by varying intermolecular interactions with
a solvent. Such effects resulting from solvation are known to, for
example, mediate electron transfer[3,4] and can govern
photochemical properties on a quantitative[5,6] as
well as qualitative level.[7−9]To study the impact of solvation
on the electronic structure of
TM complexes on a fundamental level, iron (Fe) cyanides are well-suited
model systems, since their electronic structure has been thoroughly
investigated.[10−13] In a study on solvent effects, Penfold et al. performed Kα
resonant inelastic X-ray scattering (RIXS) experiments and used molecular
dynamics (MD) simulations to qualitatively interpret the spectroscopic
features for different solvents.[14] Similarly,
Ross et al. employed various spectroscopies across a wide range of
energies from the infrared to the X-ray regime. The study highlighted
the importance of explicitly treating the solvent in quantum chemical
simulations in order to ensure an accurate modeling of the electronic
structure of iron cyanides.[15] Both studies
particularly found a strong hydrogen-bonding interaction between protic
solvents and the cyanide (CN–) ligands, which impacts
intramolecular covalency. More specifically, the hydrogen bond has
been reported to withdraw charge from the CN– ligands,
which is compensated for by a concomitant increase in π-backdonation.[14] This mechanism has also been used to explain
the solvatochromism of mixed-ligand Fe complexes involving cyanide
ligands[16,17] as well as their solvent-dependent photochemical
pathways.[8,9,18]In order
to study such trends in the covalency of TM complexes,
X-ray absorption spectroscopy[19] (XAS) at
the TM L2,3-edge provides the most direct access to the
relevant frontier orbitals. For third-row TM complexes, the underlying
metal 2p → 3d excitations probe the unoccupied metal 3d orbitals.[20,21] Thereby, their composition and thus role in covalent metal–ligand
interactions can be directly evaluated. In terms of sensitivity to
the solvent, however, L2,3-edge absorption spectroscopy
is rather underexplored, and experimental studies are scarce. Bonhommeau
et al. studied how Fe(II) and Fe(III) ions form complexes with different
alcohols, thereby deducing a polarity-dependence of the covalent solute–solvent
interactions.[22] Hua et al. on the other
hand performed a theoretical study targeting the solvation of Fe polypyridyl
complexes in acetonitrile[23] and compared
their simulations to previously published data.[24,25] Explicit solute–solvent interactions were found to be minimal,
and the subsequent analysis was focused on structural effects.In this work, we use XAS at the Fe L2,3-edge to study
the impact of solute–solvent interactions on the valence electronic
structure of the mixed-ligand Fe(II) complex [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– (bpy = 2,2′-bipyridine). The experiment
is performed using a transmission flatjet endstation[26] that allows absolute X-ray absorption cross sections to
be measured[27] for different solvents without
the need to invoke edge jump normalizations as in yield-based approaches.[11,20,28−30] Solvent-dependent
changes in π-backdonation are revealed as well as compensating
donation effects that maintain local charge densities at the Fe center.
These conclusions are confirmed by a combination of MD and time-dependent
density functional theory (TD-DFT) that allow the observed spectroscopic
trends to be reproduced. The study demonstrates a non-negligible interaction
between CN–-containing TM complexes and the solvent
that must be considered in future L2,3-edge spectrum simulations
of metal cyanides in order to accurately describe the underlying valence
electronic structure. Furthermore, the combination of MD and TD-DFT
simulations can be established as an approach that reasonably accounts
for the relevant interactions between closed-shell TM complexes and
their solution environment.
Methods
Chemicals and Materials
K2[Fe(bpy)(CN)4]·3H2O was
purchased from HetCat and directly
dissolved in deionized water for the measurement in aqueous solution.
To dissolve the complex in ethanol (EtOH) and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO),
the K+ counterions of the initial sample were exchanged
with [N(C4H9)4]+ following
the procedures by Schilt[31] and Takasugi.[16] In short, the K+ ions were first
exchanged with H+ by adding an excess of hydrochloric acid
to a cooled solution of aqueous K2[Fe(bpy)(CN)4]·3H2O. The precipitated H2[Fe(bpy)(CN)4] was then filtered, washed, dried, and reacted with 2·[N(C4H9)4]OH in methanol. Finally, the solvent
was evaporated under low pressure, and the product of the ion exchange
was dissolved in DMSO and EtOH.
Experimental Details
The X-ray absorption data were
measured at the UE52-SGM beamline[32] of
the BESSY II light source using a transmission flatjet system described
by Fondell et al.[26] Complementary measurements
have been performed at the EDAX@UE49-SGM experiment. The sample is
delivered into the experimental chamber by two colliding round jets
with a diameter of about 30 μm. Thereby, a free-flowing liquid
leaf is formed under vacuum conditions.[33] The leaf exhibits a thickness of several μm, which allows
for the transmission of X-rays at 3d L2,3-edges,[27] while the constant sample replenishment prevents
potential X-ray-induced sample damage.[34] Depending on the solvent, different flow rates are required to keep
the jet stable. The flow rate was 2.0 mL/min for water, 1.3 mL/min
for EtOH, and 1.6 mL/min for DMSO. The intensity transmitted through
the sample was detected as the average current of a gallium arsenide
photodiode and recorded as a function of the X-ray photon energy.
The bandwidth of the incident X-ray radiation was 0.3 meV at 700 eV
of excitation energy. Details on experimental procedures and data
treatment can be found in the Supporting Information.
Computational Details
All molecular dynamics simulations
were carried out with the Gromacs2019 package.[35] The SPC/F[36] force-field (FF) was adopted for the simulations in water,
while the OPLS-aa[37] FF was used for EtOH
and DMSO. The parameters describing intermolecular interactions for
the K+ counterions were taken from ref (38). To describe the bonded
interactions of the solute, a specific parametrization was carried
out via the JOYCE procedure.[39] The fitting
was based on the optimized structure and the Hessian of the complex
in the gas phase, which were obtained at the DFT/B3LYP[40,41] level with the def2-TZVP(-f)[42] basis
set, employing the D3BJ dispersion correction.[43,44] The RIJCOSX[45] approximation was used
with the def2-TZV/J auxiliary basis set[46] as implemented in the ORCA quantum chemistry package.[47] To describe the nonbonded interactions, the
Lennard-Jones parameters for Fe were transferred from ref (48), while for C and N, the
parameters from ref (49) were adopted (analogously to ref (50)). For the Coulomb interaction term, point charges
were derived using the CHELPG[51] fitting
procedure in the Multiwfn[52] program. See
the Supporting Information for the full
set of parameters used in the MD simulations along with additional
details.The spectra in the liquid phase were calculated as
the sum of spectra from 50 uncorrelated snapshots taken from the MD
simulations, however, with a reduced number of explicit solvent molecules.
The details of the solvation model adopted for each solvent will be
given further in the text. In addition, the bulk solvation effects
were accounted for implicitly via the conductor-like polarizable continuum
model (CPCM).[53] The spectra for each snapshot
were computed with linear response TD-DFT. For the optical excitations,
the lowest 50 singlet states were computed. The core-level spectra
were obtained by restricting the excitation orbital window to include
only the Fe 2p orbitals, and then, 100 singlet and 100 triplet core-states
were computed. Finally, the spin–orbit coupling was taken into
account perturbatively via the mean-field spin–orbit operator
as described in ref (54). All spectrum calculations utilized the hybrid M06[55] exchange and correlation functional, which was benchmarked
to best reproduce the optical MLCT band as well as L2,3-edge spectra. A more detailed discussion on functional choice and
a comparison with other popular functionals is shown in the Supporting Information.In order to disentangle
the orbital contributions to the metal–ligand
bond, a fragment decomposition of the molecular orbitals of the system
was carried out using the charge decomposition analysis scheme[56,57] (CDA). To minimize nonphysical populations (due to the Mulliken
partition), the smaller, closely related def2-SV(P) basis set was
employed for the decomposition. This analysis was carried out with
the Multiwfn program.[52] Details regarding
the analyzed orbitals can be found in the Supporting Information.
Results and Discussion
Figure a shows
the molecular structure of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2–. The complex is coordinated with four CN– and
one 2,2′-bipyridine (bpy) group, which allows the complex to
be approximated as octahedral and its properties to be discussed within
the notation of the O point group. The corresponding valence electronic structure is shown
in Figure b in terms
of a molecular orbital diagram. [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– can be described as a nominal Fe(II) closed-shell singlet with the
Fe-3d-derived orbitals being the fully filled t2g- and
completely unoccupied eg-orbitals. The complex furthermore
exhibits unoccupied ligand π*-orbitals from the bpy as well
as CN– groups. Due to the underlying selection rules
and as indicated in the scheme, the different unoccupied ligand π*-orbitals
can be independently accessed by either optical or X-ray absorption
spectroscopy. Here, the two experimental techniques therefore serve
as complementary probes of the valence electronic structure.
Figure 1
(a) Gas-phase
molecular structure and (b) valence electronic structure
of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– as well as a schematic
single-electron representation of the optical and X-ray absorption
processes.
(a) Gas-phase
molecular structure and (b) valence electronic structure
of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– as well as a schematic
single-electron representation of the optical and X-ray absorption
processes.The optical absorption spectra
of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– dissolved in water,
EtOH, and DMSO are displayed
in Figure a. The two
bands can be attributed to Fe t2g → bpy π*-metal-to-ligand
charge-transfer (MLCT) excitations, whose energies shift as a function
of the solvent. The MLCT energies have been shown to scale linearly
with the acceptor number (AN),[16] which
constitutes an empirical measure of the solvent Lewis acidity. Thereby,
the AN accounts for both nonspecific interactions like the solvent
polarizability as well as the hydrogen bond donation ability.[58] Within this framework, the solvatochromic behavior
of the complex has been rationalized by negative charge being withdrawn
(accepted) by the solvent from the CN– ligands via
nonspecific interactions as well as hydrogen-bonding (depending on
the solvent). The resulting charge deficiency is compensated for by
an increase in π-backdonation from the metal center onto the
CN– ligands. This stabilizes the t2g-orbitals
and subsequently linearly increases MLCT excitation energies with
higher Lewis acidity.[16] Due to their sensitivity
to intramolecular bonds, a similar linearity for metal–cyanide
complexes has been revealed by IR spectroscopy.[17]
Figure 2
(a) Optical absorption spectra of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– in water, EtOH, and DMSO exhibiting the previously
reported solvent-dependent shift of the MLCT bands. (b) Fe L2,3-edge X-ray absorption spectra of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– in water, EtOH, and DMSO measured with a transmission flatjet. The
decrease of the Fe 2p → CN– 2π*-transition
is a signature of reduced π-backdonation in solvents with low
Lewis acidity. (c) Integrated intensities of the spectra in (b) across
the full spectral range, yielding a linear-dependence of the solvent
AN.
(a) Optical absorption spectra of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– in water, EtOH, and DMSO exhibiting the previously
reported solvent-dependent shift of the MLCT bands. (b) Fe L2,3-edge X-ray absorption spectra of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– in water, EtOH, and DMSO measured with a transmission flatjet. The
decrease of the Fe 2p → CN– 2π*-transition
is a signature of reduced π-backdonation in solvents with low
Lewis acidity. (c) Integrated intensities of the spectra in (b) across
the full spectral range, yielding a linear-dependence of the solvent
AN.The complementary transmission
X-ray absorption measurements at
the Fe L2,3-edge are displayed in Figure b for [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– in the same three solvents. The recorded signals are background-corrected
for solvent absorption by a linear fit of the pre-edge region (Ephoton < 703 eV) as well as continuum excitations
from 2p3/2 and 2p1/2 core holes by two arctangent
functions following procedures by Wasinger et al.[20] and Cho et al.[25] Each spectrum
is then normalized to the sample concentration and the thickness of
the respective liquid leaf (deduced from the absorption at 700 eV
in comparison to tabulated values[59]). In
analogy to optical absorption spectroscopy, this yields the extinction
coefficient as the final entity independent of experimental parameters.
In contrast to the optical regime, however, the extinction coefficient
in this case is displayed in the unit of M–1 μm–1 corresponding to typical attenuation lengths in the
soft X-ray regime.The general shape of all three X-ray absorption
spectra is very
similar to previous partial fluorescence yield measurements of aqueous
[Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– by the authors.[60] There, the two main transitions at the L3-edge could be assigned to be of predominantly Fe 2p →
eg (708.7 eV) and Fe 2p → CN– π*
(711 eV) excitation character. When comparing the three spectra presented
here, the former resonance appears to be rather insensitive to the
solvent environment, and the visible differences are well within the
margin of error resulting from the normalization procedure and background
subtraction (see Supporting Information). This is consistent with the Fe-centric character of the 2p →
eg-excitation. In contrast, substantial differences can
be observed at the Fe 2p → CN– π*-excitation.
The underlying transition effectively probes the Fe 3d character of
the CN– π*-system locally at the metal center.
Consequently, the feature has previously been identified as a “direct
probe of back-bonding”.[11] The measurements
clearly show an increasing peak height in solvents with higher Lewis
acidity (in the direction of DMSO, EtOH, water). This spectral trend
therefore provides direct evidence for the previously reported enhancement
of π-backdonation by strong Lewis acids in agreement with the
results from optical and IR spectroscopy.[16,17]As mentioned before, these studies additionally established
linear
trends between their spectroscopic observables and the solvent Lewis
acidity. Figure c
therefore shows the integrated L2,3-edge intensity over
the measured spectral range. It can be seen that the resulting total
X-ray absorption cross section exhibits a similar dependence to the
solvent Lewis acidity. The total L2,3-edge absorption decreases
linearly once the Lewis acidity (corresponding ANs taken from ref (58)) of the solvent is reduced.
When extrapolating this trend, one can acquire the corresponding cross
section for the gas-phase complex or within a noninteracting solvent
(e.g., hexane). L2,3-edge absorption cross sections have
been shown to scale with the number of nominally unoccupied d orbitals
as well as the covalency of the complex.[11,20,27] As we compare an Fe(II) complex with unchanged
3d occupation within different solvents, the linear increase of the
absorption cross section can therefore be expected to directly reflect
changes in covalency as a function of the solvent Lewis acidity.To substantiate these interpretations, we performed MD simulations
to, in a first step, acquire information on the structural arrangements
of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– within the three
different solvents. The main results of these simulations in terms
of solvation structures are presented in Figure . Due to the mixed-ligand character of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2–, the solvation of the complex exhibits
varying degrees of asymmetry in the different solvents. Figure a shows the pair correlation
functions between the N sites of the CN– groups
with the H and O atoms of water and EtOH. In the case of DMSO, pair
correlation functions between the CN– N sites and
the S and O atoms are shown. In the case of the two protic solvents,
the hydrogen-bonding causes a pronounced solvation shell with the
first maxima being located at N–H bond distances of 1.7 and
1.8 Å in water and EtOH, respectively. Due to the absence of
hydrogen-bonding in the case of DMSO, the coordination is significantly
less structured at largely increased average solute–solvent
bond distances.
Figure 3
(a) N–H and N–O pair correlation functions
between
the CN– groups and the solvent for water (top) and
EtOH (middle) as well as N–S and N–O pair correlation
functions for DMSO (bottom). (b) H–O and H–H pair correlation
functions between the bpy group and the solvents for water (top) and
EtOH (middle) as well as H–O and H–S pair correlation
functions for DMSO (bottom).
(a) N–H and N–O pair correlation functions
between
the CN– groups and the solvent for water (top) and
EtOH (middle) as well as N–S and N–O pair correlation
functions for DMSO (bottom). (b) H–O and H–H pair correlation
functions between the bpy group and the solvents for water (top) and
EtOH (middle) as well as H–O and H–S pair correlation
functions for DMSO (bottom).A closer look at the hydrogen-bonding properties of the complex
reveals that, on average, the cyanide ligands experience 2.5 ±
0.4 hydrogen bonds in water and 1.8 ± 0.4 hydrogen bonds in ethanol
(number of hydrogen bonds defined for rN–O < 3 Å and ∠NHO < 20°). It should also be
noted that there are some inhomogeneities in the solvation shell of
the cyanides with the axial ligands displaying a slightly higher average
number of hydrogen bonds than the ones lying in the bpy plane, (The
full analysis is available in the Supporting Information.)A different picture, however, is given from the perspective
of
the bpy group. Figure b shows the pair correlation functions between the H atoms of the
bpy group and O and H atoms of the two protic solvents. For the case
of DMSO, pair correlation functions between the bpyH atoms and the
O and S atoms are shown. Judging from the comparably unstructured
coordination in all three solvents, solute–solvent interactions
between the bpy group and the two protic solvents seem to be much
smaller than at the CN– side, while a similarly
small interaction is observed for the case of DMSO. In order to build
a realistic but manageable solvation model for the simulation of the
experimental spectra, it therefore seems reasonable to make the following
approximations. For the case of water and EtOH, molecules of the first
solvation shell around the CN– ligands are explicitly
included. The bulk solvent beyond that as well as the molecules coordinating
with the bpy group are modeled implicitly by a CPCM approach. Due
to the absence of coordinated solute–solvent interactions between
[Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– and DMSO, we only consider
the structural evolution of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– in DMSO but model the solvent solely with a CPCM approach.The results of the simulations for the optical regime are presented
in Figure , There,
the previously introduced experimental absorption spectra in the three
different solvents (a) are compared to the spectrum simulations (b).
All simulated spectra represent an average of over 50 TD-DFT calculations
on uncorrelated snapshots of our MD simulations with the structures
being reduced as previously described. Each calculated transition
is convoluted with a 0.2 eV Gaussian function to account for an estimated
broadening due to vibronic contributions as well as an undersampling
by the used 50 snapshots. Due to the comparably long lifetime of the
valence-excited final states, a Lorentzian broadening is neglected.
The calculated spectrum in water is normalized to the maximum of the
low-energy MLCT band in the experimental spectrum and shifted by 0.4
eV. The calculated spectra for EtOH and DMSO are scaled and shifted
accordingly. When comparing the experimental and theoretical optical
absorption spectra in Figure a,b, the model fully reproduces the experimentally observed
shift in energy of the two MLCT bands with only a slight underestimation
of the shift for the case of DMSO. Our simulations further confirm
previous notions[8,9,16] that
this shift is caused by, on average, lower t2g-orbital
energies in water than in EtOH and DMSO. These findings as well as
the agreement with the experimental spectra thus allow it to be concluded
that the applied model represents a reasonable description of the
solute–solvent interactions in the three different solvents.
It should further be emphasized that it is crucial to explicitly include
water and EtOH molecules, since neglecting the associated hydrogen-bonding
does not allow the experimentally observed spectral shifts to be reproduced
(see Supporting Information).
Figure 4
(a) Optical
absorption spectra of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– in water, EtOH, and DMSO compared to (b) simulated
spectra based on sampled TD-DFT calculations reproducing the experimentally
observed shift of the MLCT bands.
(a) Optical
absorption spectra of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– in water, EtOH, and DMSO compared to (b) simulated
spectra based on sampled TD-DFT calculations reproducing the experimentally
observed shift of the MLCT bands.We therefore proceed to the X-ray regime, where the results of
the simulations are presented in Figure . Analogously to the optical spectra, the
simulations are based on 50 TD-DFT snapshots. It should be noted that
TD-DFT cannot be expected to fully account for 3d–3d and 2p–3d
correlation effects in the core-excited final state of the L2,3-edge absorption process. However, the approach has successfully
been implemented previously to model the L3-edge absorption
spectra of closed-shell Ru[61,62] as well as Fe complexes.[23]
Figure 5
(a) Measured solvent-dependent Fe L2,3-edge
X-ray absorption
spectra of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– compared
to (b) simulated spectra based on sampled TD-DFT calculations as well
as a single-structure calculation of the gas-phase molecule (scaled
by a factor of 0.71 to the maximum of the water spectrum).
(a) Measured solvent-dependent Fe L2,3-edge
X-ray absorption
spectra of [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– compared
to (b) simulated spectra based on sampled TD-DFT calculations as well
as a single-structure calculation of the gas-phase molecule (scaled
by a factor of 0.71 to the maximum of the water spectrum).Similarly to the optical absorption spectra, all calculated
X-ray
transitions in Figure b are convoluted with an experimental Gaussian broadening of 0.3
eV as determined from the beamline bandwidth at a photon energy of
700 eV. An additional broadening of 0.2 eV is deduced by comparison
to the calculations by Hua et al.,[23] which
accounts for vibronic contributions to the spectra. Furthermore, a
broadening of 0.5 eV is estimated to again account for the supposed
undersampling. Lastly, a 0.4 eV Lorentzian broadening is applied to
account for the lifetime of the 2p core hole.[63] All calculated spectra are shifted by 10.3 eV to match the experimental
spectra. It is important to note that in analogy to the absolute absorption
cross sections measured in the experiment, each simulated spectrum
for the three different solvents is displayed based on absolute oscillator
strengths, which are only normalized to the number of snapshots and
broadened according to the previously described procedure. Thereby,
the very similar intensities of the eg-resonance at 708.7
eV are reproduced. This verifies the experimentally deduced insensitivity
of its metal-centric character to the solvent environment. This comparability,
however, does not necessarily hold for the spectrum of the optimized
gas-phase structure, which is additionally shown. Due to the absence
of intermolecular interactions in the gas-phase, the applied broadening
(which is the same as for the spectra of the solvated complex) overestimates
the structural variations of an isolated molecule, which are expected
to be lower than in the case of a solvated molecule. For comparability,
the gas-phase spectrum is therefore scaled to the maximum of the sampled
spectrum in water.When comparing the four simulated X-ray absorption
spectra, a decrease
of the second resonance can be observed in the series of decreasing
Lewis acidities from water to the gas-phase, however, with DMSO as
an outlier. We attribute this to the insufficient treatment of our
solvation model, where in contrast to the optical absorption, the
modeling with a CPCM approach seems to not fully account for the solute–solvent
interaction. We expect a full explicit treatment of DMSO molecules
of the first solvation shell around the CN– as well
as the bpy ligands to account for this discrepancy. When again evaluating
the correlation functions of DMSO displayed in Figure , the coordination structure around the ligands,
though significantly smaller than in the two protic solvents, appears
to be more crucial for the description of the X-ray absorption spectra
than expected. An explicit treatment of the full first solvation shell
of DMSO in the simulations is, however, computationally unfeasible
at the employed level of theory. Nevertheless, the failure of the
model for the X-ray regime, although reproducing the optical spectra,
emphasizes the particular sensitivity of L2,3-edge absorption
spectroscopy to the solvent environment.Despite the discrepancies
for the case of DMSO, the model reproduces
the spectral trends observed for the two protic solvents and with
respect to the gas phase. We therefore proceed to rationalize the
underlying mechanism with the proposed solvation model as a starting
point and by comparing the case of water to the gas phase. It should
be noted that the solvation model is, in order to reproduce the ensemble
average detected within the measurements, based on a manifold of structures.
For the sake of simplicity, we therefore employ a reduced model that
still captures the essential properties of the water environment.
It is based on the gas-phase structure of the complex, however, embedded
in an idealized solvent structure, as determined from the MD simulations.
Deduced from the previously presented hydrogen bond analysis of the
complex in water, this amounts to approximately three hydrogen bonds
between each CN– group and the surrounding waters
with respect to the CN– group. The positions of
the water molecules were chosen to mimic the first solvation shell
of the cyanides, based on bond lengths and angles from the MD simulation
(see Supporting Information), however,
with the additional requirement that C2 symmetry was preserved, to ease the comparison to
the gas-phase complex. This model therefore neglects structural differences
but allows effects caused by interaction with the solvent to be isolated.The exemplified structure is shown in Figure a. It is displayed as a charge-density difference,
where the density of the solvated structure ρsol is
compared to the gas-phase charge-density ρgas. The
charge density of the eight water molecules ρH, which is calculated without the presence of the complex,
is additionally subtracted. The displayed charge density is therefore
calculated as ρ = ρsol – ρgas – ρH. It can be clearly
seen that the introduction of solvent molecules causes a manifold
of charge redistribution effects throughout the CN– ligands as well as the Fe center. Our qualitative analysis is, however,
restricted to a single CN– group as displayed in Figure b, since analogous
effects (however, to a smaller degree for the axial ligands) can be
seen for the other CN– ligands. In order to rationalize
the observed changes also in terms of changes to the metal–ligand
bond, Table shows
a decomposition of a selected set of molecular orbitals into contributions
from different molecular fragments (see Computational
Details and Supporting Information). In the discussion below, metal-centered 3d orbitals are referred
to as Fe 3d orbitals and ligand-centered orbitals as either CN–(π), (π*), (σ), and bpy(π*).
Approximate O labels
are used for simplicity, instead of the strict C2 notation shown in the Supporting Information.
Figure 6
(a) Charge-density difference between
the reduced solvation model
and the gas-phase complex plotted at an isovalue of 0.0025. (b) Single-ligand
picture yielding an increase in π-backdonation as well a decrease
in σ-donation. (c) Charge density of the solvated complex as
a function of the radius from the Fe center. Charge density below
1 Å corresponds to Fe charge density and is marked in gray. (d)
Charge-density difference between the solvated and the gas-phase molecule
as a function of the radius showing only marginal changes around the
Fe center (the charge density of the water molecules is additionally
subtracted). (e) Integrated charge-density difference yielding a net
change in charge of about 1% at the Fe center.
Table 1
Percentage-wise Orbital Decomposition
of the Occupied Fe 3d Orbitals Yielding Changes in π-Backdonation
and π-Bonding between the Gas Phase and the Reduced Solvation
Modela
occ.
Fe 3d
occ. CN–(σ)
Fe(t2g)
CN–(π*)
CN–(π)
bpy(π*)
Fe(eg)
gas phase
74.4
4.2
11.0
6.3
10.8
solvated
78.4
5.7
7.5
3.2
5.2
Changes in σ-donation are
presented as the Fe eg-contribution to a set of CN– orbitals of dominantly σ-character.
(a) Charge-density difference between
the reduced solvation model
and the gas-phase complex plotted at an isovalue of 0.0025. (b) Single-ligand
picture yielding an increase in π-backdonation as well a decrease
in σ-donation. (c) Charge density of the solvated complex as
a function of the radius from the Fe center. Charge density below
1 Å corresponds to Fe charge density and is marked in gray. (d)
Charge-density difference between the solvated and the gas-phase molecule
as a function of the radius showing only marginal changes around the
Fe center (the charge density of the water molecules is additionally
subtracted). (e) Integrated charge-density difference yielding a net
change in charge of about 1% at the Fe center.Changes in σ-donation are
presented as the Fe eg-contribution to a set of CN– orbitals of dominantly σ-character.Starting from the solvent, it can
be observed how the water molecules
are polarized in a way that negative charge accumulates on one side
and a positively charged hydrogen points toward the ligand. This allows
the N site of the CN– group to accommodate additional
electronic charge within a π-shaped orbital similar to observations
of the HCN molecule in the presence of an electric dipole.[64] We interpret this as the signature of increased
π-backdonation, as deduced from the experimental X-ray absorption
spectra. This interpretation is in full agreement with the increased
CN–(π*) contribution to the occupied Fe 3d
orbitals (see Table ). The fragment decomposition furthermore reveals a decrease in π-bonding,
the mixing between occupied CN–(π) and Fe
3d orbitals, which has been suggested previously.[9] Since this mechanism constitutes the mixture between two
occupied orbitals, it does, however, not affect the overall charge
distribution. Interestingly, the increase in charge density at the
N site is not at the expense of the t2g-character of the
occupied Fe 3d orbitals, as one would intuitively expect from the
backdonation process, since it is usually referred to as a delocalization
of metal t2g-electronic charge onto the ligand. On the
contrary, an increase of t2g-like charge density can be
seen. This is due to a concomitant decrease of π-backdonation
onto the bpy ligands, which can be seen in Figure a from the decrease in π-shaped charge
density on the bpy ligand and is confirmed by the fragment decomposition,
which yields a reduced admixture of bpy(π*) character to the
occupied Fe 3d orbitals (compare Table ). The depletion of the t2g-character of
the occupied Fe 3d orbitals due to the increase in π-backdonation
onto the CN– ligands is thereby overcompensated
and results in a net increase of t2g-charge density. Spectroscopically,
this effect can, however, not be observed, since the corresponding
core excitations into the bpy(π*) orbitals are buried under
the intense transitions into the metal-centric eg-orbitals.A loss of metal charge density can instead be found in the eg-manifold. This can be understood as a compensating mechanism
that maintains local charge densities similar to effects observed
for charge-transfer excitations[18,30] and oxidation/reduction
processes[65] in covalent Fe complexes. As
σ-density additionally localizes at the C site, this compensating
effect can therefore be interpreted as a reduced degree of σ-donation.
This conclusion is again confirmed by the orbital decomposition (see Table ), where a decrease
of Fe eg-contribution to occupied CN– orbitals of dominantly σ-character can be observed. Lastly,
it should be noted that additional effects such as the decrease in
charge density at the C site can be observed that are most likely
caused by differences in the weight of π- and σ-like contributions
to the occupied CN– orbitals as well as the significant
mixing of, in particular, occupied CN–(π)
orbitals with water upon solvation (see Supporting Information). Additional measurements at the N K-edge[64] could further elucidate the effects of this
behavior on the intraligand-bonding by providing the complementary
ligand perspective of the underlying changes in orbital character.In order to quantify the effect of the revealed changes in metal–ligand
covalency on the overall charge distribution, Figure c shows the charge density of the solvated
complex as a function of the radius R from the Fe
center (in analogy to previous work by the authors[18] as well as Johansson et al.[65] and Kubin et al.[66]). At radii below 1
Å, the Fe L and M shells can be seen, while at bigger distances
from the Fe center, the charge density can be attributed to the different
ligands as well as the water molecules. The charge-density difference
between the solvated complex and the gas-phase molecule is shown in Figure d. Only a marginal
change can be observed in the Fe M shell in the case of the solvated
complex. When integrated (compare Figure e), this amounts to an increase of ∼1%
of an electronic charge at the Fe center. Changes in local metal charge
are traditionally expected to be accompanied by shifts in the absorption
onset of L2,3-edge spectra.[60,67,68] An increase/decrease in negative charge would therefore
lower/raise the excitation energy due to variations of the effective
screening of the 2p core hole. The absence of any observable onset
shift for the measurements in the three different solvents (compare Figure a) therefore is in
agreement with the quantitive analysis of the reduced model, which
revealed only a negligible change in local charge. This demonstrates
how the solvent environment introduces sufficient degrees of freedom
to allow for a full compensation of local charge-density variations
around the Fe center. This is facilitated by the previously described
charge-density rearrangements between the σ- and π-manifolds,
however, to varying degrees in the different solvents. It is important
to note that the constant absorption onset for the three different
solvents is fully reproduced by the spectrum simulations, thereby
again reinforcing the validity of the applied model underlying the
spectrum calculations of the solvated complex (compare Figure b). The gas-phase spectrum,
however, exhibits a slight shift of the absorption onset with respect
to the spectra of the solvated molecule. Since the reduced model in Figure yields only marginal
changes in local charge at the Fe center, this is therefore more likely
the result of structural effects induced by solvation. This potentially
has an impact on the associated orbital energies, which in turn can
affect the configuration interaction between core-excited states within
the eg-manifold.Within this framework of charge-density
compensation effects, we
can finally also qualitatively rationalize the linear increase of
the total absorption cross section with higher solvent Lewis acidity
as shown in Figure c. As previously discussed, the increase in t2g-like charge
density can be attributed to a reduction in π-backdonation onto
the bpy ligand. In order to compensate for this excess of negative
electronic charge, a concomitant decrease in σ-donation can
be observed, which lowers the Fe eg-content in occupied
CN–(σ) orbitals and thus decreases Fe eg-like charge density at the metal center. This could be interpreted
as an effective increase of the density of unoccupied states around
the metal center. Within this reasoning, the overall higher absorption
cross sections for higher solvent Lewis acidity would then correspond
to an increase of unoccupied states as seen through the 2p core electron.
This interpretation might seem contradictory to the orbital-based
interpretation of the two resonances in the L2,3-edge absorption
spectrum, which would consequently predict changes in the eg in addition to the ones in the CN– π*-resonance.
It should be noted, however, that the final states of the two transitions
are not fully independent, resulting in limitations of the applied
single-electron picture. It has been shown previously for the case
of [Fe(CN)6]4– that the CN– π*-resonance can “borrow” intensity from the
eg-resonance by configuration interaction in the core-excited
final state, where the degree of mixing is determined by the energy
separation between the two resonances.[11] To a small extent, this can be also observed in the experimental
spectra. The CN– π*-resonance, at least for
the case of DMSO, clearly exhibits a small shift to higher energies
with respect to the spectrum in water (see inset in Figure a). This effect is also captured
by our calculations, where the shifts to higher energies are however
overestimated. This has been also observed in previous DFT calculations
on [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2– based on the restricted
open-shell configuration singles method.[18,69] It should also be pointed out that the energy separation between
the eg- and π*-resonances is quite sensitive to the
amount of Hartree–Fock exchange included in the functional
(see Supporting Information). Lastly, simulations
based on single-determinant reference methods like TD-DFT can, however,
not be expected to fully account for the underlying final state effects
of the core-excited state, since even restricted active space spectrum
calculations struggle to correctly reproduce the energy of the CN– π*-resonance of Fe cyanides.[13,70] Future ab-initio efforts[13,70−73] that are capable of explicitly accounting for the solvent environment
will be necessary to fully rationalize the underlying mechanisms.
Conclusion
In this work, we have demonstrated how L2,3-edge absorption
spectroscopy can be sensitive to charge rearrangements in TM complexes
resulting from a varying solution environment. For the case of the
mixed-ligand solvatochromic complex [Fe(bpy)(CN)4]2–, we have revealed an increase in π-backdonation
as a function of the solvent Lewis acidity, which can be directly
inferred from the experimental L2,3-edge absorption spectrum.
Furthermore, a linear increase of the absorption cross section can
be observed, which is caused by a concomitant decrease in σ-donation
that maintains the absolute local charge densities around the Fe center.Our findings can serve as a benchmark for generally describing
the interaction of TM cyanide complexes with a solution environment
and how this interaction alters the valence electronic structure to
a varying degree depending on the solvent’s Lewis acidity.
Furthermore, the combination of MD and TD-DFT simulations could be
established as a framework that is capable to qualitatively account
for the dominant spectral changes in L2,3-edge absorption
measurements of closed-shell systems caused by solute–solvent
interactions. This was achieved by explicitly considering the solvent
as a part of the total molecular entity, which allowed charge rearrangements
to be followed throughout the solute–solvent interface. Further
theoretical developments based on multiconfigurational approaches
will be necessary, however, in order to achieve a more quantitative
agreement between simulation and experiment. This will further allow
final state effects within the core-excited state to be fully rationalized
as well as the framework to be expanded to a wider range of systems
including the important class of open-shell TM complexes.
Authors: Raphael M Jay; Jesper Norell; Sebastian Eckert; Markus Hantschmann; Martin Beye; Brian Kennedy; Wilson Quevedo; William F Schlotter; Georgi L Dakovski; Michael P Minitti; Matthias C Hoffmann; Ankush Mitra; Stefan P Moeller; Dennis Nordlund; Wenkai Zhang; Huiyang W Liang; Kristjan Kunnus; Katharina Kubiček; Simone A Techert; Marcus Lundberg; Philippe Wernet; Kelly Gaffney; Michael Odelius; Alexander Föhlisch Journal: J Phys Chem Lett Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 6.475
Authors: Erik C Wasinger; Frank M F de Groot; Britt Hedman; Keith O Hodgson; Edward I Solomon Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2003-10-22 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Benjamin E Van Kuiken; Marat Valiev; Stephanie L Daifuku; Caitlin Bannan; Matthew L Strader; Hana Cho; Nils Huse; Robert W Schoenlein; Niranjan Govind; Munira Khalil Journal: J Phys Chem A Date: 2013-05-17 Impact factor: 2.781
Authors: T J Penfold; M Reinhard; M H Rittmann-Frank; I Tavernelli; U Rothlisberger; C J Milne; P Glatzel; M Chergui Journal: J Phys Chem A Date: 2014-09-25 Impact factor: 2.781
Authors: Raphael M Jay; Sebastian Eckert; Vinícius Vaz da Cruz; Mattis Fondell; Rolf Mitzner; Alexander Föhlisch Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Diana Bregenholt Zederkof; Klaus B Møller; Martin M Nielsen; Kristoffer Haldrup; Leticia González; Sebastian Mai Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 16.383