4.7 Article

Scalar Relativistic Computations of Nuclear Magnetic Shielding and g-Shifts with the Zeroth-Order Regular Approximation and Range-Separated Hybrid Density Functionals

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL THEORY AND COMPUTATION
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 3278-3292

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ct200408j

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-SC0001136]
  2. Computational Research (CCR) at the University at Buffalo
  3. U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research located at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
  4. Department of Energy by the Battelle Memorial Institute [DE-AC06-76RLO-1830]
  5. DOE BES Heavy Element Chemistry Program
  6. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, and NWChem development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Density functional theory (DFT) calculations of NMR chemical shifts and molecular g tensors with Gaussian-type orbitals are implemented via second-order energy derivatives within the scalar relativistic zeroth order regular approximation (ZORA) framework. Nonhybrid functionals, standard (global) hybrids, and range-separated (Coulomb-attenuated, long-range corrected) hybrid functionals are tested. Origin invariance of the results is ensured by use of gauge-including atomic orbital (GIAO) basis functions. The new implementation in the NWChem quantum chemistry package is verified by calculations of nuclear shielding constants for the heavy atoms in HX (X = F, Cl, Br, I, At) and H2X (X = O, S, Se, Te, Po) and Te-125 chemical shifts in a number of tellurium compounds. The basis set and functional dependence of g-shifts is investigated for 14 radicals with light and heavy atoms. The problem of accurately predicting F-19 NMR shielding in UF6-nCln, n = 1-6, is revisited. The results are sensitive to approximations in the density functionals, indicating a delicate balance of DFT self-interaction vs correlation. For the uranium halides, the range-separated functionals are not clearly superior to global hybrids.

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