4.6 Article

Electronic couplings for molecular charge transfer: benchmarking CDFT, FODFT and FODFTB against high-level ab initio calculations. II

Journal

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
Volume 17, Issue 22, Pages 14342-14354

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c4cp04749d

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. EPSRC [EP/J015571/1, EP/F067496, EP/L000202]
  2. IMPACT PhD studentship - University College London
  3. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
  4. Landesgraduiertenforderung Baden-Wurttemberg
  5. Alexander v. Humboldt foundation
  6. state of Bavaria (grant solar technologies go hybrid)
  7. Royal Society for a University Research Fellowship
  8. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/J015571/1, EP/L000202/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. EPSRC [EP/L000202/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A new database (HAB7-) of electronic coupling matrix elements (H-ab) for electron transfer in seven medium-sized negatively charged pi-conjugated organic dimers is introduced. Reference data are obtained with spin-component scaled approximate coupled cluster method (SCS-CC2) and large basis sets. Assessed DFT-based approaches include constrained density functional theory (CDFT), fragment-orbital DFT (FODFT), self-consistent charge density functional tight-binding (FODFTB) and the recently described analytic overlap method (AOM). This complements the previously reported HAB11 database where only cationic dimers were considered. The CDFT method in combination with a functional based on PBE and including 50% of exact exchange (HFX) was found to provide best estimates, with a mean relative unsigned error (MRUE) of 8.2%. CDFT couplings systematically increase with decreasing fraction of HFX as a consequence of increasing delocalisation of the SOMO orbital. The FODFT method is found to be very robust underestimating electronic couplings by 28%. The FODFTB and AOM methods, although orders of magnitude more efficient in terms of computational effort than the DFT approaches, perform well with reasonably small errors of 54% and 29%, respectively, translating in errors in the nonadiabatic electron transfer rate of a factor of 2.4 and 1.7, respectively. We discuss carefully various sources of errors and the scope and limitations of all assessed methods taking into account the results obtained for both HAB7- and HAB11 databases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available