Singlet oxygen generation versus O–O homolysis in phenyl-substituted anthracene endoperoxides investigated by RASPT2, CASPT2, CC2, and TD-DFT methods
- 595 Downloads
The electronic excited states corresponding to singlet oxygen generation versus O–O splitting in o-fluorine-phenyl-9-anthracene-9,10-endoperoxide 1 and its 9,10-bisarylanthracene analog 2 have been investigated using theoretical methods. In the case of the smaller endoperoxide 1, the recently developed second-order perturbation theory restricted active space (RASPT2) method has been employed and the results are compared to those from the complete active space (CASPT2), second-order approximated coupled cluster (CC2), and time-dependent density functional theory (TD-DFT) approaches. In addition to the vertical excited states, the photochemical path leading to homolytic O–O dissociation has been computed. This process is governed by a point, where four singlet and four triplet states are almost degenerate and show substantial spin-orbit coupling. The results obtained with RASPT2 indicate that the S 1 state is of π oo * σ oo * character, corresponding to the O–O homolytic dissociation, while higher excited states S n (n ≥ 2) correspond to local and charge transfer excitations and should be correlated to the generation of singlet molecular oxygen. A similar photochemical picture is obtained with CASPT2, although two different active spaces are required to describe different parts of the spectrum. The calculations carried out with CC2 as well as the functionals CAM-B3LYP and the B3LYP(32) containing 32 % of exact exchange show good agreement with the RASPT2 energies, but present a strong mixing of π oo * σ oo * and π oo * π an * excitations in the lowest S 1 state, contradicting the assignment of RASPT2/CASPT2. The use of BP86 is strongly discouraged since it misplaces a large number of charge transfer states below the π oo * σ oo * state. The excited states of 2, calculated with B3LYP(32) are very similar to those of 1, leading to the conclusion that both endoperoxides should show a similar photochemistry, that is, the O–O cleavage seems to be partially quenched and singlet oxygen generation is enhanced, in comparison with the parent compound, anthracene-9,10-endoperoxide.
KeywordsAb initio calculations DFT Endoperoxides Multiconfigurational methods Singlet oxygen
This work is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (GO 1059/6-1). All the calculations have been performed at the Universitätsrechenzentrum of the Friedrich-Schiller University of Jena and at the HP computers of the Theoretical Chemistry group at the University of Vienna.
- 5.Foote CS (1984) Mechanisms of photooxidation. In: Doiron DG, Gomer CJ (eds) Porphyrin localization and treatment of tumors. Alan R. Liss, Inc, pp 3–18Google Scholar
- 6.Schmidt R, Schaffner K, Trost W, Brauer HD (1984) J Am Chem Soc 88:956–958Google Scholar
- 17.Kearns RD, Khan AU (1969) Photochem Photobiol 10:193–210 /Khan69Google Scholar
- 27.Assmann M, Worth GA, González L (2012) J Chem Phys 137:22A524-1–22A524-12Google Scholar
- 29.Zehm D, Fudicker W, Linker T (2007) Angew Chem Int Ed 46:7689–7692Google Scholar
- 37.Malmqvist PÅ, Pierloot K, Shahi ARM, Cramer CJ, Gagliardi L (2008) J Chem Phys 128:204109-1–204109-10Google Scholar
- 43.Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, Scalmani G, Barone V, Mennucci B, Petersson GA, Nakatsuji H, Caricato M, Li X, Hratchian HP, Izmaylov AF, J Bloino GZ, Sonnenberg JL, Hada M, Ehara M, Toyota K, Fukuda R, Hasegawa J, Ishida M, Nakajima T, Honda Y, Kitao O, Nakai H, Vreven T, Montgomery JJA, Peralta JE, Ogliaro F, Bearpark M, Heyd JJ, Brothers E, Kudin KN, Staroverov VN, Kobayashi R, Normand J, Raghavachari K, Rendell A, Burant JC, Iyengar SS, Tomasi J, CossiM, Rega N,MillamJM, KleneM, Knox JE, Cross JB, Bakken V, Adamo C, Jaramillo J, Gomperts R, Stratmann RE, O Yazyev AJA, R Cammi CP, Ochterski JW, Martin RL, Morokuma K, Zakrzewski VG, Voth GA, Salvador P, Dannenberg JJ, Dapprich S, Daniels AD, Farkas O, Foresman JB, Ortiz JV, Cioslowski J, Fox DJ (2009) Gaussian 09, Revision A.1, Gaussian, Inc., Wallingford, CTGoogle Scholar
- 47.T H Dunning J (1971) J Chem Phys 55:716–723Google Scholar
- 49.Roos BO (1987) In Ab initio methods in quantum chemistry II. Wiley-VCH, ChinesterGoogle Scholar
- 54.Andersson K, Aquilante F, Bernhardsson A, Blomberg MRA, Cooper DL, Cossi M, Devarajan A, L De Vico NF, Fülscher MP, Gaenko A, Gagliardi L, Ghigo G, de Graaf C, Hess BA, Hagberg D, Holt A, Karlström G, Krogh JW, Lindh R, Malmqvist PÅ, Neogrády P, Olsen J, Pedersen TB, Pitonak M, Raab J, Reiher M, Roos BO, Ryde U, Schapiro I, Schimmelpfennig B, Seijo L, Serrano-Andrés L, Siegbahn PEM, Stålring J, Thorsteinsson T, Vancoillie S, Veryazov V, Widmark PO, Wolf A (2011) MOLCAS, Release 7.6, Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Lund UniversityGoogle Scholar
- 55.Pierloot K, Dumez B, Widmark PO, Roos BO (1995) Theor Chim Acta 90:87–114Google Scholar