4.4 Article

Comparative studies of quasi-relativistic density functional methods for the description of lanthanide and actinide complexes

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 850-858

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.10228

关键词

actinide complexes; quantum chemistry for very heavy metals; metal-ligand interaction in f-element complexes; quasi-relativistic DFT methods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a comparative Density Functional Theory (DFT) study based on two different implementations of relativistic effects within the Kohn-Sham (KS) approach, to describe the metal-ligand interaction in 1,M-L complexes (L = NH3, NCCH3, CO and M = La, Nd, U). In the first model, the scalar corrections were included by a quasi-relativistic approach (QR) via the so-called ZORA or Pauli Hamiltonians, while in the second, these effects are taken into account in a quasi-Relativistic Effective Core Potential (RECP). These relativistic approaches were used in conjunction with various gradient corrected (GGA) or hybrid (SCH) functionals. The structural parameters obtained from geometry optimizations have been compared to experimental structural trends, and rationalized by a KS orbital analysis. Both approaches provide similar results for mainly ionic metal-ligand bonds (e.g., for the sigma-donor ligand L = NH3). For the pi-acceptor ligands (NCCH3, CO), the QR approach is in agreement with experimental trends and consistent with the presence of a backbonding interaction between U(III) and the neutral ligand, which does not exist in the lanthanide homologues. The GGA/RECP methods also reproduce this phenomenon, while the SCH/RECP scheme fails to describe this interaction. The role of the RECP, of its size, and of additional polarization functions has also been examined. Finally, the failure of the SCH/RECP approach was interpreted as a consequence of a bad estimation of frontier orbital energy levels in the uranium and ligand species. (C) 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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