4.4 Article

Origin of structure and stability of M@C18 (M = Cu, Ag, and Au) complexes with D9h point group

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY
卷 44, 期 21, 页码 1786-1794

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.27127

关键词

cyclo[18]carbon; energy decomposition analysis (EDA); localized orbital locator (LOL); M@C-18 complexes; quantum theory of atoms in molecules (QTAIM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The structure, stability, and properties of M@C-18 complexes were investigated using DFT calculations. The results showed that Cu@C-18, Ag@C-18, and Au@C-18 complexes preserve the ground state structure of C-18 to a substantial extent. Among them, only Au@C-18 has a stable D-9h structure.
Theoretical predictions and recent experimental studies lead to the discovery of an exciting new member of the carbon allotrope family polyynic cyclo[18]carbon (C-18). Present investigation aims to probe the structure, stability, and properties of coinage metal (M)@C-18 complexes using density functional theory (DFT) calculations. The DFT results unequivocally show that even Cu@C-18, Ag@C-18, and Au@C-18 complexes substantially preserve the ground state polyynic structure of C-18. It is also worth to mention that only Au@C-18 is a stable D-9h structure, however the symmetry is distorted in the case of Cu@C-18 and Ag@C-18. Due to computational limitations, in this investigation the M@C-18 complexes were scrutinized using the C-2v sub abelian group of D-9h. The highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of D-9h conformers are a singlet a(1) and two same value singlets a(1) ? b(1) generated from doublet e, respectively. The non-covalent interaction index (NCI), quantum theory of atoms in molecule (QTAIM), and energy decomposition analysis (EDA) vividly explains the interaction between a coinage metal atom and C-18 ring. It is found from the results that the stability of Cu@C-18 Ag@C-18, and Au@C-18 is governed by the attractive electrostatic, orbital and dispersion interaction.

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

4.4
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