4.4 Article

Predicting Core Level Binding Energies Shifts: Suitability of the Projector Augmented Wave Approach as Implemented in VASP

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 38, Issue 8, Pages 518-522

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.24704

Keywords

X-ray photoemission; core level binding energy shifts; projector augmented wave; density functional theory; molecular dataset

Funding

  1. Spanish MINECO/FEDER [CTQ2015-64618-R]
  2. Generalitat de Catalunya [2014SGR97, XRQTC]
  3. ICREA Academia Award for Excellence in University Research
  4. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the Cluster of Excellence - Engineering of Advanced Materials located in Erlangen, Germany
  5. European Union [676580]
  6. MINECO [RYC-2012-10129]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Here, we assess the accuracy of various approaches implemented in Vienna ab initio simulation package code to estimate core-level binding energy shifts (DBEs) using a projector augmented wave method to treat core electrons. The performance of the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) and the Tao-Perdew-Staroverov-Scuseria (TPSS) exchange-correlation density functionals is examined on a dataset of 68 molecules containing B -> F atoms in diverse chemical environments, accounting for 185 different 1s core level binding energy shifts, for which both experimental gas-phase X-ray photoemission (XPS) data and accurate all electron Delta BEs are available. Four procedures to calculate core-level shifts are investigated. Janak-Slater transition state approach yields mean absolute errors of 0.37 (0.21) eV at PBE (TPSS) level, similar to highly accurate all electron Delta SCF approaches using same functionals, and close to XPS experimental accuracy of 0.1 eV. The study supports the use of these procedures to assign Delta BEs of molecular moieties on material surfaces of interest in surface science, nanotechnology, and heterogeneous catalysis. (C) 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available