Assessment of electronic structure methods for the determination of the ground spin states of Fe(II), Fe(III) and Fe(IV) complexes

Pragya Verma, Z. Varga, Johannes E.M.N. Klein, Christopher J. Cramer, Lawrence Que, Donald G. Truhlar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Our ability to understand and simulate the reactions catalyzed by iron depends strongly on our ability to predict the relative energetics of spin states. In this work, we studied the electronic structures of Fe2+ ion, gaseous FeO and 14 iron complexes using Kohn-Sham density functional theory with particular focus on determining the ground spin state of these species as well as the magnitudes of relevant spin-state energy splittings. The 14 iron complexes investigated in this work have hexacoordinate geometries of which seven are Fe(II), five are Fe(III) and two are Fe(IV) complexes. These are calculated using 20 exchange-correlation functionals. In particular, we use a local spin density approximation (LSDA) - GVWN5, four generalized gradient approximations (GGAs) - BLYP, PBE, OPBE and OLYP, two non-separable gradient approximations (NGAs) - GAM and N12, two meta-GGAs - M06-L and M11-L, a meta-NGA - MN15-L, five hybrid GGAs - B3LYP, B3LYP∗, PBE0, B97-3 and SOGGA11-X, four hybrid meta-GGAs - M06, PW6B95, MPW1B95 and M08-SO and a hybrid meta-NGA - MN15. The density functional results are compared to reference data, which include experimental results as well as the results of diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC) calculations and ligand field theory estimates from the literature. For the Fe2+ ion, all functionals except M11-L correctly predict the ground spin state to be quintet. However, quantitatively, most of the functionals are not close to the experimentally determined spin-state splitting energies. For FeO all functionals predict quintet to be the ground spin state. For the 14 iron complexes, the hybrid functionals B3LYP, MPW1B95 and MN15 correctly predict the ground spin state of 13 out of 14 complexes and PW6B95 gets all the 14 complexes right. The local functionals, OPBE, OLYP and M06-L, predict the correct ground spin state for 12 out of 14 complexes. Two of the tested functionals are not recommended to be used for this type of study, in particular M08-SO and M11-L, because M08-SO systematically overstabilizes the high spin state, and M11-L systematically overstabilizes the low spin state.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)13049-13069
Number of pages21
JournalPhysical Chemistry Chemical Physics
Volume19
Issue number20
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Electronic structure
Iron
electronic structure
functionals
Electron energy levels
gradients
approximation
Ions
iron
Density functional theory
Ligands
Geometry
ions
density functional theory
ligands
energy
estimates
geometry

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physics and Astronomy(all)
  • Physical and Theoretical Chemistry

Cite this

Assessment of electronic structure methods for the determination of the ground spin states of Fe(II), Fe(III) and Fe(IV) complexes. / Verma, Pragya; Varga, Z.; Klein, Johannes E.M.N.; Cramer, Christopher J.; Que, Lawrence; Truhlar, Donald G.

In: Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, Vol. 19, No. 20, 01.01.2017, p. 13049-13069.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Verma, Pragya ; Varga, Z. ; Klein, Johannes E.M.N. ; Cramer, Christopher J. ; Que, Lawrence ; Truhlar, Donald G. / Assessment of electronic structure methods for the determination of the ground spin states of Fe(II), Fe(III) and Fe(IV) complexes. In: Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 2017 ; Vol. 19, No. 20. pp. 13049-13069.
@article{023d3a5e32c04530809d1f69e10571ba,
title = "Assessment of electronic structure methods for the determination of the ground spin states of Fe(II), Fe(III) and Fe(IV) complexes",
abstract = "Our ability to understand and simulate the reactions catalyzed by iron depends strongly on our ability to predict the relative energetics of spin states. In this work, we studied the electronic structures of Fe2+ ion, gaseous FeO and 14 iron complexes using Kohn-Sham density functional theory with particular focus on determining the ground spin state of these species as well as the magnitudes of relevant spin-state energy splittings. The 14 iron complexes investigated in this work have hexacoordinate geometries of which seven are Fe(II), five are Fe(III) and two are Fe(IV) complexes. These are calculated using 20 exchange-correlation functionals. In particular, we use a local spin density approximation (LSDA) - GVWN5, four generalized gradient approximations (GGAs) - BLYP, PBE, OPBE and OLYP, two non-separable gradient approximations (NGAs) - GAM and N12, two meta-GGAs - M06-L and M11-L, a meta-NGA - MN15-L, five hybrid GGAs - B3LYP, B3LYP∗, PBE0, B97-3 and SOGGA11-X, four hybrid meta-GGAs - M06, PW6B95, MPW1B95 and M08-SO and a hybrid meta-NGA - MN15. The density functional results are compared to reference data, which include experimental results as well as the results of diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC) calculations and ligand field theory estimates from the literature. For the Fe2+ ion, all functionals except M11-L correctly predict the ground spin state to be quintet. However, quantitatively, most of the functionals are not close to the experimentally determined spin-state splitting energies. For FeO all functionals predict quintet to be the ground spin state. For the 14 iron complexes, the hybrid functionals B3LYP, MPW1B95 and MN15 correctly predict the ground spin state of 13 out of 14 complexes and PW6B95 gets all the 14 complexes right. The local functionals, OPBE, OLYP and M06-L, predict the correct ground spin state for 12 out of 14 complexes. Two of the tested functionals are not recommended to be used for this type of study, in particular M08-SO and M11-L, because M08-SO systematically overstabilizes the high spin state, and M11-L systematically overstabilizes the low spin state.",
author = "Pragya Verma and Z. Varga and Klein, {Johannes E.M.N.} and Cramer, {Christopher J.} and Lawrence Que and Truhlar, {Donald G.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1039/c7cp01263b",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "13049--13069",
journal = "Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics",
issn = "1463-9076",
publisher = "Royal Society of Chemistry",
number = "20",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of electronic structure methods for the determination of the ground spin states of Fe(II), Fe(III) and Fe(IV) complexes

AU - Verma, Pragya

AU - Varga, Z.

AU - Klein, Johannes E.M.N.

AU - Cramer, Christopher J.

AU - Que, Lawrence

AU - Truhlar, Donald G.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Our ability to understand and simulate the reactions catalyzed by iron depends strongly on our ability to predict the relative energetics of spin states. In this work, we studied the electronic structures of Fe2+ ion, gaseous FeO and 14 iron complexes using Kohn-Sham density functional theory with particular focus on determining the ground spin state of these species as well as the magnitudes of relevant spin-state energy splittings. The 14 iron complexes investigated in this work have hexacoordinate geometries of which seven are Fe(II), five are Fe(III) and two are Fe(IV) complexes. These are calculated using 20 exchange-correlation functionals. In particular, we use a local spin density approximation (LSDA) - GVWN5, four generalized gradient approximations (GGAs) - BLYP, PBE, OPBE and OLYP, two non-separable gradient approximations (NGAs) - GAM and N12, two meta-GGAs - M06-L and M11-L, a meta-NGA - MN15-L, five hybrid GGAs - B3LYP, B3LYP∗, PBE0, B97-3 and SOGGA11-X, four hybrid meta-GGAs - M06, PW6B95, MPW1B95 and M08-SO and a hybrid meta-NGA - MN15. The density functional results are compared to reference data, which include experimental results as well as the results of diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC) calculations and ligand field theory estimates from the literature. For the Fe2+ ion, all functionals except M11-L correctly predict the ground spin state to be quintet. However, quantitatively, most of the functionals are not close to the experimentally determined spin-state splitting energies. For FeO all functionals predict quintet to be the ground spin state. For the 14 iron complexes, the hybrid functionals B3LYP, MPW1B95 and MN15 correctly predict the ground spin state of 13 out of 14 complexes and PW6B95 gets all the 14 complexes right. The local functionals, OPBE, OLYP and M06-L, predict the correct ground spin state for 12 out of 14 complexes. Two of the tested functionals are not recommended to be used for this type of study, in particular M08-SO and M11-L, because M08-SO systematically overstabilizes the high spin state, and M11-L systematically overstabilizes the low spin state.

AB - Our ability to understand and simulate the reactions catalyzed by iron depends strongly on our ability to predict the relative energetics of spin states. In this work, we studied the electronic structures of Fe2+ ion, gaseous FeO and 14 iron complexes using Kohn-Sham density functional theory with particular focus on determining the ground spin state of these species as well as the magnitudes of relevant spin-state energy splittings. The 14 iron complexes investigated in this work have hexacoordinate geometries of which seven are Fe(II), five are Fe(III) and two are Fe(IV) complexes. These are calculated using 20 exchange-correlation functionals. In particular, we use a local spin density approximation (LSDA) - GVWN5, four generalized gradient approximations (GGAs) - BLYP, PBE, OPBE and OLYP, two non-separable gradient approximations (NGAs) - GAM and N12, two meta-GGAs - M06-L and M11-L, a meta-NGA - MN15-L, five hybrid GGAs - B3LYP, B3LYP∗, PBE0, B97-3 and SOGGA11-X, four hybrid meta-GGAs - M06, PW6B95, MPW1B95 and M08-SO and a hybrid meta-NGA - MN15. The density functional results are compared to reference data, which include experimental results as well as the results of diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC) calculations and ligand field theory estimates from the literature. For the Fe2+ ion, all functionals except M11-L correctly predict the ground spin state to be quintet. However, quantitatively, most of the functionals are not close to the experimentally determined spin-state splitting energies. For FeO all functionals predict quintet to be the ground spin state. For the 14 iron complexes, the hybrid functionals B3LYP, MPW1B95 and MN15 correctly predict the ground spin state of 13 out of 14 complexes and PW6B95 gets all the 14 complexes right. The local functionals, OPBE, OLYP and M06-L, predict the correct ground spin state for 12 out of 14 complexes. Two of the tested functionals are not recommended to be used for this type of study, in particular M08-SO and M11-L, because M08-SO systematically overstabilizes the high spin state, and M11-L systematically overstabilizes the low spin state.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021065664&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021065664&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1039/c7cp01263b

DO - 10.1039/c7cp01263b

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85021065664

VL - 19

SP - 13049

EP - 13069

JO - Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics

JF - Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics

SN - 1463-9076

IS - 20

ER -