We examine the electronic and optical properties of experimentally known monolayer-protected aluminum clusters Al 4 (C 5 H 5 ) 4 , Al 50 (C 5 Me 5 ) 12 , and Al 69 (N(SiMe 3 ) 2 ) 18 3− using time-dependent density functional theory. By comparing Al 4 (C 5 H 5 ) 4 and the theoretical Al 4 (N(SiMe 3 ) 2 ) 4 cluster, we observe significant changes in the optical absorption spectra caused by different hybridization between metal core and ligands. Using these initial observations, we explain the calculated spectra of Al 50 (C 5 Me 5 ) 12 and Al 69 (N(SiMe 3 ) 2 ) 18 3− . Al 50 (C 5 Me 5 ) 12 shows a structured spectrum with clear regions of low-intensity core-to-core transitions followed by high-intensity ligand-to-core transitions due to its high symmetry and π-bonding to the Cp ligands. The spectrum of Al 69 (N(SiMe 3 ) 2 ) 18 3− is rather featureless as the core-to-core and ligand-to-core regions partially merge because of the lower symmetry found in the metal core and differences in the ligand−core hybridization. Though there are minimal features in the spectra, the most intense features are identified as excitations from ligand states to metal core states. We show that our calculated absorption spectrum for Al 69 (N(SiMe 3 ) 2 ) 18 3− agrees with recent experimental results for N(SiMe 3 ) 2 -protected Al nanoclusters with an average diameter of 1.5 nm.
■ INTRODUCTIONAtomically precise, monolayer-protected (MP) noble metal clusters with diameters of <2 nm have received a great deal of attention because of their unique chemical and physical properties with potential applications, for example, in catalysis, 1−3 fuel cells, 4 and biosensors. 5 Specifically, monolayer-protected clusters (MPCs) of gold have been extensively studied both experimentally and theoretically (for reviews, see refs 6 and 7). For many thiolate-protected gold systems, the electronic structure has been explained in the framework of the so-called superatom complex (SAC) model. 8 The SAC model, first used to explain the stability of the Au 102 (p-MBA) 44 cluster, 8−10 takes into account the number of delocalized ("itinerant") electrons, the effect of the ligands, and the charge of the cluster by using the simple formulawhere N A is the total number of metal atoms, ν A is the valence of the metal atom, M L is the number of electron-withdrawing ligands, w L is the number of electrons withdrawn per ligand, and z is the charge of the cluster. 11 The resultant electronic shell, similar to those found within the jellium model for metallic systems, 12 provides a series of magic numbers (i.e., 2, 8, 18, 20, 34, 40, ...) corresponding to electronic shells (i.e., 1S 2 1P 6 1D 10 2S 2 1F 14 2P 6 ...) similar to those of atoms on the periodic table. Following Au 102 (p-MBA) 44 , many thiolate monolayer-protected systems have used this model, such as Au 67 (2-PET) 35 2− (n e = 34) 13 and Au 25 (2-PET) 18 − (n e = 8). 14 Further, various studies have illustrated that the electronic properties can be tuned through either doping the metal core with other metals...