2018
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Application of Semiempirical Methods to Transition Metal Complexes: Fast Results but Hard-to-Predict Accuracy

Abstract: A series of semiempirical PM6* and PM7 methods has been tested in reproducing relative conformational energies of 27 realistic-size complexes of 16 different transition metals (TMs). An analysis of relative energies derived from single-point energy evaluations on density functional theory (DFT) optimized conformers revealed pronounced deviations between semiempirical and DFT methods, indicating a fundamental difference in potential energy surfaces (PES). To identify the origin of the deviation, we compared ful… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
53
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 138 publications
3
53
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Narrower interval (1‐2 kcal/mol) would result in less reliable statistics (see below); be free of transition metals and/or any other poorly parameterized elements as Se, Te, etc. According to our recent study blind application of semiempirical methods might result in non‐reliable relative conformational energies and/or unrealistic geometries of transition metal complexes; contain not more than sixty atoms. We introduced this restriction to be able to perform single‐point energy reference DLPNO‐CCSD(T) calculations with triple‐ζ correlation consistent basis set and accurate TightPNO settings in reasonably short time (see below); to be of practical scientific/industrial interest.…”
Section: Methodology and Computational Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Narrower interval (1‐2 kcal/mol) would result in less reliable statistics (see below); be free of transition metals and/or any other poorly parameterized elements as Se, Te, etc. According to our recent study blind application of semiempirical methods might result in non‐reliable relative conformational energies and/or unrealistic geometries of transition metal complexes; contain not more than sixty atoms. We introduced this restriction to be able to perform single‐point energy reference DLPNO‐CCSD(T) calculations with triple‐ζ correlation consistent basis set and accurate TightPNO settings in reasonably short time (see below); to be of practical scientific/industrial interest.…”
Section: Methodology and Computational Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While this task is mostly straightforward in ground state organic chemistry, it is far more challenging for open shell transition metal chemistry central to the development of new functional catalysts 4,[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] and materials [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] . Characterization of open shell transition metal complexes requires time-consuming first-principles simulation, typically 4,29,[46][47] with density functional theory (DFT), because few semi-empirical theories 48 or force fields [49][50] can describe the multiple accessible oxidation and spin states of transition metal complexes in a balanced manner. Such simulations typically require manual validation that the simulation was successful, e.g., if the structure optimized to the intended geometry 15,48 and if the electronic structure reflects the expected spin state.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Characterization of open shell transition metal complexes requires time-consuming first-principles simulation, typically 4,29,[46][47] with density functional theory (DFT), because few semi-empirical theories 48 or force fields [49][50] can describe the multiple accessible oxidation and spin states of transition metal complexes in a balanced manner. Such simulations typically require manual validation that the simulation was successful, e.g., if the structure optimized to the intended geometry 15,48 and if the electronic structure reflects the expected spin state. Automated approaches have only begun to be applied, e.g., for functional selection 51 , active space selection in wavefunction theory calculations 52 , or for interpreting reactivity [53][54][55] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The inclusion of systems with strong electron correlation in scriptD may lead to a bias in p which would at least partially explain the generally poor accuracy for transition‐metal complexes. Despite significant efforts, it was not yet possible to create an NDDO‐SEMO model which achieves a similar accuracy with respect to the reference data for transition‐metal complexes as for organic compounds …”
Section: Implicit Description Of Electron Correlation Effects Throughmentioning
confidence: 99%