4.7 Article

Broken symmetry approach to density functional calculation of zero field splittings including anisotropic exchange interactions

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 139, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4828727

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the collaborative research center SFB/TRR 88 3met

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The broken symmetry approach to the calculation of zero field splittings (or magnetic anisotropies) of multinuclear transition metal complexes is further developed. A procedure is suggested how to extract spin Hamiltonian parameters for anisotropic exchange from a set of broken symmetry density functional calculations. For isotropic exchange coupling constants J(ij), the established procedure is retrieved, and anisotropic (or pseudodipolar) exchange coupling tensors D-ij are obtained analogously. This procedure only yields the sum of the individual single-ion zero field splitting tensors D-i. Therefore, a procedure based on localized orbitals has been developed to extract the individual single-ion contributions. With spin Hamiltonian parameters at hand, the zero field splittings of the individual spin multiplets are calculated by an exact diagonalization of the isotropic part, followed by a spin projection done numerically. The method is applied to the binuclear cation [LCr(OH)(3)CrL](3) + (L = 1,4,7-trimethyl-1,4,7-triazanonane) for which experimental zero field splittings for all low-energy spin states are known, and to the single-molecule magnet [Fe-4(CH3C(CH2O)(3))(2)(dpm)(6)] (Hdpm = 2,2,6,6-tetramethylheptane-3,5-dione). In both these 3d compounds, the single-ion tensors mainly come from the spin-orbit interaction. Anisotropic exchange is dominated by the spin-dipolar interaction only for the chromium compound. Despite the rather small isotropic exchange couplings in the iron compound, spin-orbit and spin-dipolar contributions to anisotropic exchange are of similar size here. (C) 2013 AIP Publishing LLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据