The origin of Lewis acidity in microporous framework oxides, such as zeolites and aluminophosphates (AlPOs) has been extensively debated. [1,2] Experimental temperature-programmed desorption (TPD) and calorimetric data probing the interaction of Lewis basic molecules, such as ammonia or acetonitrile, with doped AlPOs, show the presence of two distinct adsorption sites, attributed in one case to the Br˘nsted and in the other to the Lewis acid sites within the framework. [3,4] When transition metal ions are incorporated into the framework of AlPOs during synthesis, the Lewis acidity is likely to be associated with the transition metal centers. Not all the dopant ions, however, interact in the same way with Lewis bases in metal±AlPO compounds; for instance, AlPOs containing Ni 2þ ions have been shown to possess much less pronounced Lewis acidity than their Co and Mn analogues. [3] The cause of the different behavior is still unclear. Given the interest in doped AlPOs for their applications in heterogeneous catalysis, [5,6] the desire to understand the mechanism by which the Lewis acidity operates and influences the interaction of reactants with the active sites within the framework is a topic of primary importance.In this communication we investigate, with periodic ab initio quantum mechanical (QM) calculations, the electronic distribution of a set of 2 þ and 3 þ transition metal ions, isomorphously substituted for Al in the framework of AlPO-34. We use the results of our calculations to examine the possible origin of the Lewis acidity in the doped aluminophosphates. The factors controlling the Lewis acidity will be discussed by examining the calculated electronic distribution of the transition metal dopants; in particular, we shall consider the orientation of the empty d atomic orbitals (AOs) on the metal site.The doped AlPO-34 framework employed in these calculations is a supercell model in which one dopant ion is included in each unit cell of the host framework (composed of 36 atoms, or 6 AlPO 4 formula units). Even at this high concentration, compared to the level of doping achievable experimentally, the dopant ions are separated approximately 10 ä from each other, and thus represent non-interacting defect centers. The supercell model describes correctly the extended nature of the solid catalyst; the crystal field and the structural strain caused by the crystalline matrix on the substitutional ion are therefore included in the computational model. , and Co 3þ , each replacing one Al 3þ ion of the host framework. The low-valent (2 þ ) ions are chargecompensated by protonating one of the framework oxygen ions that is a nearest neighbor to the dopant, as shown in Figure 1.Since the dopants examined are open-shell transition metal ions, we performed our calculations at the Unrestricted Hartree±Fock (UHF) level; this Hamiltonian employs the exact expression of exchange forces, which are important for a correct representation of the unpaired electrons. Calculations for the Ni 2þ dopant have also been repeated with a B...