How do phosphoramides compete with phosphine oxides in lanthanide complexation? Structural, electronic and energy aspects at ab initio and DFT levels
- 217 Downloads
Novel comparison of the structural, electronic and energy aspects of lanthanide complexes of model phosphoramides (PAs) with those of phosphine oxides (POs), phosphate esters (PEs) and phosphoryl trihalides (PHs) has been carried out by ab initio and DFT calculations. Atoms in Molecules (AIM) and Natural Bonding Orbital (NBO) analyses were performed to understand the electronic structure of ligands L and related complexes, L–Ln3+. NBO analysis indicates that the negative charge on phosphoryl oxygen (OP) and the p character of the phosphoryl lone pair, Lp(OP), increase in the order PH < PE < PO < PA. Positive charge of the lanthanide cation in PA complexes is less than those of PH, PE and PO complexes, due to the more intense ligand to metal charge transfer (LMCT). The metal–ligand distance decreases in the order PH > PE > PO > PA, which is confirmed by the results of AIM analysis. Charge density at the bond critical point of L–Ln3+ follows the sequence PH < PE < PO < PA. The results of the Energy Decomposition Analysis (EDA) indicate that the donative interaction and LMCT increases in order PH < PO < PE < PA. The effect of basis set superposition error (BSSE) on the L···Ln3+ interaction energies was also studied in detail at DFT, MP2 and CCSD(T) levels using the counterpoise (CP) method. Trends in the CP-corrected L–Ln3+ bond energies are in good accordance with the optimized OP···Ln3+ distances. The results show that the difference between CP-corrected and uncorrected interaction energies in PA complexes is larger than those in the others, because PAs are more deformable. It is depicted that PAs are comparable with POs in lanthanide complexation.
KeywordsLanthanide complex DFT calculation NBO AIM Phosphoramide BSSE
Support of this work by Tarbiat Modares University is gratefully acknowledged. We thank also Dr. Afshin Abbasi for his comments and helpful discussions.
- 9.Atamas L, Klimchuk O, Rudzevich V, Pirozhenko V, Kalchenko V, Smirnov I, Babain V, Efremova T, Varnek A, Wipff G, Arnaud-Neu F, Roch M, Saadioui M, Bohmer V (2002) J Supramol Chem 2:421–427Google Scholar
- 15.Schurhammer R, Erhart V, Troxler L, Wipff G (1999) J Chem Soc Perkin Trans 2:2423–2431Google Scholar
- 24.Berny F, Wipff G (2001) J Chem Soc Perkin Trans 2:73–82Google Scholar
- 26.Corbridge DEC (1995) Phosphorus: an outline of its chemistry, biochemistry and technology, 5th edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- 27.Wiberg E, Wiberg N, Holleman AF (2001) Inorganic chemistry. Academic Press, London, pp 613–614Google Scholar
- 29.Cotton S (2006) Lanthanide and actinide chemistry. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- 34.Bader RFW (1990) Atoms in molecules: A quantum theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
- 44.Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, Zakrzewski VG, Montgomery JA Jr, Stratmann RE, Burant JC, Dapprich S, Millam JM, Daniels AD, Kudin KN, Strain MC, Farkas O, Tomasi J, Barone V, Cossi M, Cammi R, Mennucci B, Pomelli C, Adamo C, Clifford S, Ochterski J, Petersson GA, Ayala PY, Cui Q, Morokuma K, Malick DK, Rabuck AD, Raghavachari K, Foresman JB, Cioslowski J, Ortiz JV, Stefanov BB, Liu G, Liashenko A, Piskorz P, Komaromi I, Gomperts R, Martin RL, Fox DJ, Keith T, Al-Laham MA, Peng CY, Nanayakkara A, Gonzalez C, Challacombe M, Gill PMW, Johnson BG, Chen W, Wong MW, Andres JL, Head-Gordon M, Replogle ES, Pople JA (1998) Gaussian 98, revision A.7. Gaussian, Inc. Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
- 46.Morokuma K, Kitaura K (1981) Chemical applications of atomic and molecular electrostatic potentials. In: Politzer P, Truhlar DG (Eds). Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar