| Literature DB >> 35055126 |
Alexey V Eroshin1, Arseniy A Otlyotov1,2, Ilya A Kuzmin1, Pavel A Stuzhin1, Yuriy A Zhabanov1.
Abstract
The electronic and molecular structures of metal-free tetrabenzoporphyrin (H2TBP) and its complexes with zinc, cadmium, aluminum, gallium and indium were investigated by density functional theory (DFT) calculations with a def2-TZVP basis set. A geometrical structure of ZnTBP and CdTBP was found to possess D4h symmetry; AlClTBP, GaClTBP and InClTBP were non-planar complexes with C4v symmetry. The molecular structure of H2TBP belonged to the point symmetry group of D2h. According to the results of the natural bond orbital (NBO) analysis, the M-N bonds had a substantial ionic character in the cases of the Zn(II) and Cd(II) complexes, with a noticeably increased covalent contribution for Al(III), Ga(III) and In(III) complexes with an axial -Cl ligand. The lowest excited states were computed with the use of time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) calculations. The model electronic absorption spectra indicated a weak influence of the nature of the metal on the Q-band position.Entities:
Keywords: DFT study; chemical bonding; molecular and electronic structure; tetrabenzoporphyrin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35055126 PMCID: PMC8781462 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23020939
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Molecular models of metal-free tetrabenzoporphyrin (a), its complexes MTBP with Zn, Cd (b), MClTBP with Al, Ga, In (c).
Molecular parameters 1 of H2-tetrabenzoporphyrin and its metal complexes optimized at PBE0/def2-TZVP level.
| H2TBP | ZnTBP | CdTBP | AlClTBP | GaClTBP | InClTBP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symmetry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Distances | ||||||
| M-N | 1.012 (2.340) 2 | 2.063 | 2.152 | 2.044 | 2.075 | 2.184 |
| M-Cl | - | - | - | 2.154 | 2.196 | 2.360 |
| N…Nopp | 4.268 (4.106) | 4.125 | 4.304 | 4.006 | 4.060 | 4.195 |
| N…Nadj | 2.961 | 2.917 | 3.043 | 2.833 | 2.871 | 2.966 |
| N-Cα | 1.362 (1.353) | 1.363 | 1.355 | 1.370 | 1.366 | 1.361 |
| Cα-Cβ | 1.439 (1.457) | 1.446 | 1.453 | 1.440 | 1.441 | 1.446 |
| Cβ-Cβ | 1.407 (1.399) | 1.401 | 1.409 | 1.395 | 1.397 | 1.404 |
| Cβ-Cγ | 1.394 (1.389) | 1.393 | 1.391 | 1.394 | 1.393 | 1.392 |
| Cγ-Cδ | 1.379 (1.385) | 1.381 | 1.383 | 1.380 | 1.380 | 1.381 |
| Cδ-Cδ | 1.404 (1.398) | 1.402 | 1.399 | 1.403 | 1.402 | 1.401 |
| Cα-Cm | 1.379 (1.390) | 1.383 | 1.398 | 1.373 | 1.376 | 1.387 |
| Cα-Cm-Cα | 128.0 | 127.4 | 130.3 | 125.3 | 126.0 | 128.3 |
| r(M-X) 3 | - | 0 | 0 | 0.407 | 0.453 | 0.678 |
| Bond angles | ||||||
| N-Cα-Cm | 126.2 (125.9) | 125.6 | 125.6 | 125.6 | 125.8 | 125.8 |
| N-Cα-Cβ | 106.3 (110.7) | 109.5 | 107.6 | 110.6 | 109.9 | 108.6 |
| A 4 | 180.0 | 180.0 | 180.0 | 176.3 | 176.4 | 171.6 |
1 All internuclear distances are in Angstroms (Å), valence angle are in degrees (°). 2 The values in parentheses correspond to the corresponding values for the isoindolenine fragments of the metal-free tetrabenzoporphyrin. 3 X is a dummy atom located in the center between N atoms. 4 α is the dihedral angle between planes of opposite pyrrole rings.
Figure 2Schemes of the dominant donor–acceptor interactions between Zn and the TBP ligand. (a) The result of the orbital interaction of the type LP(N) → 4s(Zn) (E(2) = 42.6 kcal mol−1); (b) the result of the orbital interaction of the type LP(N) → 4p(Zn) (E(2) = 35.5 kcal mol−1). Only one of the four corresponding interactions is demonstrated.
Figure 3Schemes of the dominant donor–acceptor interactions between the Al and TBP ligand. (a) The result of the orbital interaction of the type LP(N) → 3s(Al) (E(2) = 40.7 kcal mol−1); (b) the result of the orbital interaction of the type LP(N) → 3py(Al) (E(2) = 60.0 kcal mol−1); (c) the result of the orbital interaction of the type LP(N) → 3pz(Al) (E(2) = 12.2 kcal mol−1). Only one of the four corresponding interactions is demonstrated.
Selected parameters of MTBP complexes from NBO calculations.
| ZnTBP | CdTBP | AlClTBP | GaClTBP | InClTBP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −5.06 | −5.13 | −5.19 | −5.22 | −5.30 | |
| −2.34 | −2.38 | −2.54 | −2.55 | −2.62 | |
| ∆ | 2.72 | 2.75 | 2.65 | 2.67 | 2.68 |
| 1.304 | 1.333 | 1.776 | 1.673 | 1.718 | |
| −0.573 | −0.570 | −0.607 | −0.584 | −0.579 | |
| −0.574 | −0.545 | −0.563 | |||
| configuration | 4s0.353d9.974p0.37 | 5s0.415d9.955p0.31 | 3s0.423p0.76 | 4s0.554p0.76 | 5s0.545p0.73 |
| ∑ | 312.2 | 303.8 | 451.7 | 495.6 | 471.9 |
| 0.283 | 0.274 | 0.320 | 0.335 | 0.330 | |
| 2.063 | 2.152 | 2.044 | 2.075 | 2.184 |
Figure 4Calculated TDDFT electronic absorption spectra for H, MTBP and MClTBP complexes.
Calculated composition of the lowest excited states and corresponding oscillator strengths for H2TBP and MTBP complexes.
| State | Composition (%) | λ, nm | f | exp λ, nm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 11B1u | 578 | 0.11 | 663.5 (Py) [ | |
| 11B2u | 568 | 0.23 | ||
| 21B1u | 387 | 1.24 | 431.8 (Py) [ | |
| 21B2u | 372 | 1.10 | 416.1 (Py) [ | |
| 31B1u | 332 | 0.35 | ||
| 31B2u | 331 | 0.15 | ||
|
| ||||
| 11 Eu | 563 | 0.19 | 613(Ar matrix) [ | |
| 21 Eu | 372 | 1.17 | 433.3(Py) [ | |
| 31 Eu | 326 | 0.13 | ||
|
| ||||
| 11Eu | 560 | 0.18 | 628 (Py) [ | |
| 21 Eu | 376 | 1.21 | 434 (Py) [ | |
| 31Eu | 320 | 0.08 | ||
|
| ||||
| 11E | 580 | 0.18 | ||
| 21E | 382 | 1.01 | ||
| 31E | 329 | 0.14 | ||
|
| ||||
| 11E | 577 | 0.17 | ||
| 21E | 385 | 0.99 | ||
| 31E | 326 | 0.10 | ||
|
| ||||
| 11E | 577 | 0.17 | ||
| 21E | 388 | 1.03 | ||
| 31E | 322 | 0.07 |
Figure 5Shapes of the frontier molecular orbitals.
Figure 6Molecular orbital (MO) level diagram for H2TBP and MTBP complexes. The values of higher occupied molecular orbital–lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (HOMO–LUMO) gaps are given in eV.