2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.theochem.2009.08.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

DFT RX3LYP and RPBEPBE studies on the structural, electronic, and vibrational properties of some amino-alcohol ligands

Abstract: a b s t r a c tTo rationalize the influence of molecular architecture on metal ion selectivity and affinity, a DFT study of three amino-alcohol ligands, bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-ethane-1,2-diamine (BHEEN), and two ligands where the backbone is reinforced with cycloalkyl moieties, N,N 0 -bis(2-hydroxycyclopentyl)-ethane-1,2-diamine (Cyp 2 -EN), and N,N 0 -bis(2-hydroxycyclohexyl)-ethane-1,2-diamine (Cy 2 -EN), using the X3LYP and PBEPBE functionals with 6-31G(d,p), 6-31+G(d,p) and 6-311++G(d,p) basis sets has been c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
14
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 85 publications
2
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Second‐order perturbation stabilization energy, ( E (2) ) : The stabilization energy obtained, E (2) , is a measure of the hyperconjugative interaction between the donor and the acceptor natural bond orbitals 2. The E (2) values were calculated with PBE0/6‐31G(d,p) because, as just mentioned, the larger 6‐311++G(d,p) basis set yields large Δ Q values, unrealistically larger orbital occupancies (similar observations are already reported for analogous systems elsewhere),101105 and causes the disappearance of donor–acceptor interactions, as we have previously observed 105. Nonetheless, the OH⋅⋅⋅C stabilizing effects can be described as π(CC)→σ*(OH) charge‐transfer delocalizations and, in the most stable structure, such delocalizations occur from each of the π(C9C14), π(C16C30), and π(C18C20) bonding orbitals of C 60 to the σ*(O61H62) anti‐bonding orbital of H 2 O, as well as from the π(C42C52), π(C54C60), and π(C55C58) bonding orbitals of C 60 to the σ*(O61H63) anti‐bonding orbital of H 2 O (see atom labeling in Figure 1).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…Second‐order perturbation stabilization energy, ( E (2) ) : The stabilization energy obtained, E (2) , is a measure of the hyperconjugative interaction between the donor and the acceptor natural bond orbitals 2. The E (2) values were calculated with PBE0/6‐31G(d,p) because, as just mentioned, the larger 6‐311++G(d,p) basis set yields large Δ Q values, unrealistically larger orbital occupancies (similar observations are already reported for analogous systems elsewhere),101105 and causes the disappearance of donor–acceptor interactions, as we have previously observed 105. Nonetheless, the OH⋅⋅⋅C stabilizing effects can be described as π(CC)→σ*(OH) charge‐transfer delocalizations and, in the most stable structure, such delocalizations occur from each of the π(C9C14), π(C16C30), and π(C18C20) bonding orbitals of C 60 to the σ*(O61H62) anti‐bonding orbital of H 2 O, as well as from the π(C42C52), π(C54C60), and π(C55C58) bonding orbitals of C 60 to the σ*(O61H63) anti‐bonding orbital of H 2 O (see atom labeling in Figure 1).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…The usefulness of QTAIM[45] in unveiling the details of the bonding topology in intermolecular complexes does not need to be further demonstrated. [24, 40, 70–76] Collected in Table 4 are the MP2/aug‐cc‐pVQZ values of the bond critical point (bcp) electron density, Laplacian of charge density as well as those of the most important bond descriptors.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…54 In such a case the distance rule is invalid and examples of atoms that bond preferentially to others that are further, rather than to closer neighbors, are known. 66,67 It has been suggested recently that the presence of the five-and six-membered reinforcing rings alters the intramolecular interactions in a molecule; 68 However, the C5-atom, which is the member of this structural ring, is involved in two nonstructural rings, namely the chelating N-C5-H28-O17-Ni and non-chelating N-C5-H28-O17-H33-C9-C8 ring with RCP marked with a single circle in Figure 4. It is seen in Table 2 that the ρ RCP and  2 ρ RCP values of the non-structural ring N-C2-C3-H25-H32-C8 (0.0134 and 0.0621 au, respectively) are larger when compared with the structural chelating N-C2-C3-C3-O11-Ni ring (0.0120 and 0.0548 au, respectively).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%