4.5 Article

Assessment of density functionals for the high-spin/low-spin energy difference in the low-spin iron(II) tris(2,2′-bipyridine) complex

期刊

CHEMPHYSCHEM
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 1393-1410

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cphc.200400584

关键词

density functional calculations; iron(II) complexes; time-resolved spectroscopy; high-spin-low-spin relaxation; spin crossover

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the iron(II) low-spin complex [Fe(bpy)(3)](2+), the zero-point energy difference between the T-5(2g)(t(2g)(4)e(g)(2)) high-spin and the (1)A(1g)(t(2g)(6)) low-spin states, Delta E-HL(0), is estimated to lie in the range of 2500-5000 cm(-1). This estimate is based on the low-temperature dynamics of the high-spin -> low-spin relaxation following the light-induced population of the high-spin state and on the assumption that the bond-length difference between the two states Delta r(HL) is equal to the average value of approximate to 0.2 angstrom, as found experimentally for the spin-crossover system. Calculations based on density functional theory (DFT) validate the structural assumption insofar as the low-spin-state optimised geometries are found to be in very good agreement with the experimental X-ray structure of the complex and the predicted high-spin geometries are all very close to one another for a whole series of common GGA (PB86, PW91, PBE, RPBE) and hybrid (BAYP B3LYP*, PBE1PBE) functionals. This confirmation of the structural assumption underlying the estimation of Delta E-HL(0) from experimental relaxation rate constants permits us to use this value to assess the ability of the density functionals for the calculation of the energy difference between the HS and LS states. Since the different functionals give values from -1000 to 12000 cm(-1), the comparison of the calculated values with the experimental estimate thus provides a stringent criterion for the performance of a given functional. Based on this comparison the RPBE and B3LYP* functionals give the best agreement with experiment.

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

4.5
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