| Literature DB >> 32640764 |
Valentin Diez-Cabanes1, Giacomo Prampolini2, Antonio Francés-Monerris1,3, Antonio Monari1, Mariachiara Pastore1.
Abstract
Recently synthetized iron complexes have achieved long-lived excited states and staEntities:
Keywords: chemical environment; force field molecular dynamics; iron complex; time-dependent density functional theory.
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32640764 PMCID: PMC7411876 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25133084
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Chemical structure of the FeIII complex [Fe(phtmeimb)2]+ studied in this work. The iron center is coordinated with six imidazole rings through six Fe-C bonds. The rings in the background are shown in light gray.
Figure 2(a) DFT optimized GS structure of the iron complex in acetonitrile. Carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, boron and iron atoms are displayed with gray, blue, white, pink and violet spheres, respectively and the atom labeling used in Table 1 is also reported; (b) Top view of the GS structure with a scheme showing the origin of the 60° periodicity of the δ torsional profile shown in Figure S1, with the imidazole hydrogens evidenced in green. Dihedral definition in the investigated iron complex: (c) flexible dihedrals δ and ϕ, ruling the rotation of the phenyl and methyl pendants, respectively; (d) stiff dihedral ξ, governing the coplanarity of four carbon atoms connected to the metal. ξ’ and ξ’’ can be defined exploiting the other two carbon quadruplets; (e) stiff dihedral ζ, governing the coplanarity of the four nitrogen atoms of two co-planar imidazole units. As for ξ, other two similar dihedrals can be defined exploiting symmetry; (f) stiff dihedral ψ, defining the plane formed by two nitrogen and two carbon atoms, as evidenced by the violet rectangle.
Main geometrical parameters (bond distances and angles) defining the octahedral coordination of the complex, as obtained from the QM (DFT), MM (Joyce and GbFF) relaxed structures and from XRD measurements performed in [PF6] and [BPh4] counterion single-crystals, as reported in ref. [37]. The adopted atom labeling is depicted in Figure 2a. The level of theory adopted for the DFT calculations was B3LYP*/6-311G* (see Section 3.3).
| Atoms | DFT |
J | GbFF | XRD [PF6] 1 | XRD [BPh4] 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fe-C1 | 2.041 | 2.040 | 2.055 | 2.008 | 1.984 | |
| Bond distances (Å) | Fe-C2 | 2.027 | 2.026 | 2.052 | 2.002 | 1.979 |
| Fe-C3 | 1.998 | 1.999 | 2.048 | 1.979 | 1.971 | |
| Fe-B | 3.215 | 3.215 | 3.421 | 3.202 | 3.182 | |
| Bond angles (°) | C1-Fe-C2 | 85.57 | 85.64 | 82.31 | 86.49 | 86.47 |
| C1-Fe-C3 | 86.77 | 86.67 | 83.36 | 87.00 | 86.86 | |
| C2-Fe-C3 | 87.47 | 87.53 | 84.52 | 87.24 | 86.86 | |
| Fe-B-C4 | 173.4 | 173.4 | 175.5 | 173.7 | 174.4 |
1 Data taken from Kjær et al. [37].
Figure 3Comparison of the DFT vs Joyce/GbFF relaxed geometrical properties: (a) correlation plot between QM vs MM/Joyce and MM/GbFF structures vibrational frequencies as computed at the B3LYP*/6-311G* level of theory for low (0–500 cm−1), medium (600–1700 cm−1) and high (3050–3350 cm−1) frequencies from left to right top panels. It might be worth noticing that the x,y scale in last panel was increased with respect to the former, to better appreciate Joyce and GbFF differences; (b) Top and (c) side views of the overlap of QM (dark grey) and MM/Joyce (red) and MM/GbFF (blue) optimized geometries.
RMSD values of the internal coordinates for the MM relaxed geometries with Joyce and GbFF methods, which are obtained by taking the DFT GS geometry as reference.
| FF Method | Bond Length (Å) | Bending Angle (°) | Dihedrals (°) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
J | 0.00 | 0.07 | 15.89 |
| GbFF | 0.03 | 2.75 | 22.13 |
Figure 4Distribution of flexible (top) and stiff (bottom) dihedral angles as defined in Figure 2c–f, during the MD runs performed with Joyce (continuous) and GbFF (dashed line) methods. In the top panel an insert caption of the graph with a lower y-scale is displayed on the top right part for the sake of visualization of the periodicity for the ϕ.
Figure 5Atomic pair correlation functions gαβ, computed along the Joyce (red) and GbFF (blue) MD simulation runs, between the solute (β) atoms (Fe, B, N and H from –CH3 group) of the complex as indicated in the (α-β) legend, and either the N (left part) or H (right part graphs) atoms of the acetonitrile solvent (α).
Figure 6Absorption properties for the zero temperature structures: (a) Simulated spectra for the complex geometries obtained upon DFT (black), MM based Joyce (red) and GbFF (blue) energy relaxations. (b) NTOs of the main transition involved in the (2LMCT) band of the DFT optimized spectrum as highlighted by the black arrow on the left graph. Purple/magenta colors are used to visualize the holes/electrons isosurfaces, which were plotted with an isovalue equal to 0.02 a.u. All vertical excitations have been computed at the TD-B3LYP*/6-311G* level of theory.
Excitonic properties for the lowest-energy most intense transition involved in the (2LMCT) band of the static DFT, Joyce and GbFF simulated spectra represented in Figure 6: state involved (D), wavelengths (nm) and energies (eV, within parenthesis), oscillator strengths (f); and fraction of the hole (h+) and electron (e−) localizations on the central metal ion (Fe) and equivalent carbene ligands (CL) fragment as obtained from Mulliken population analysis of the NTOs. Note that the hole/electron fraction localized along the boron atoms and phenyl groups are not reported here due to their negligible values. All excitonic properties have been estimated at the TD-B3LYP*/6-311G* level.
| Method | State | λ(nm) |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fe | 0.007 | 0.328 | ||||
| CL1 | 0.306 | 0.188 | ||||
| DFT | D4 | 451 | 0.071 | CL2 | 0.266 | 0.3 |
| CL3 | 0.414 | 0.177 | ||||
| ΣCL | 0.985 | 0.666 | ||||
| Fe | 0.008 | 0.332 | ||||
| CL1 | 0.306 | 0.193 | ||||
| Joyce | D4 | 449 | 0.073 | CL2 | 0.263 | 0.292 |
| CL3 | 0.414 | 0.176 | ||||
| ΣCL | 0.984 | 0.661 | ||||
| Fe | 0.018 | 0.31 | ||||
| CL1 | 0.454 | 0.169 | ||||
| GbFF | D7 | 531 | 0.048 | CL2 | 0.24 | 0.246 |
| CL3 | 0.271 | 0.253 | ||||
| ΣCL | 0.965 | 0.668 |
Figure 7Calculated thermalized absorption spectra obtained for MD runs performed with Joyce (red) and GbFF (blue) methods, when employing solvent (continuous) and solvent+ion (dashed lines) QM/MM layers; together with the reference static DFT (black) and experimental (dashed grey line) spectra, which has been adapted from reference [37]. All vertical excitations have been computed at the TD-B3LYP*/6-311G* level of theory.
Figure 8Atom types employed in all Joyce parameterization performed for the ground states of the investigated iron complex.