In:
Journal of Computational Chemistry, Wiley, Vol. 34, No. 24 ( 2013-09-15), p. 2079-2090
Abstract:
In this study, a set of 50 transition‐metal complexes of Cu(I) and Cu(II), were used in the evaluation of 18 density functionals in geometry determination. In addition, 14 different basis sets were considered, including four commonly used Pople's all‐electron basis sets; four basis sets including popular types of effective‐core potentials: Los Alamos, Steven‐Basch‐Krauss, and Stuttgart‐Dresden; and six triple‐ζ basis sets. The results illustrate the performance of different methodological alternatives for the treatment of geometrical properties in relevant copper complexes, pointing out Double‐Hybrid (DH) and Long‐range Correction (LC) Generalized Gradient Approximation (GGA) methods as better descriptors of the geometry of the evaluated systems. These however, are associated with a computational cost several times higher than some of the other methods employed, such as the M06 functional, which has also demonstrated a comparable performance. Regarding the basis sets, 6–31+G(d) and 6–31+G(d,p) were the best performing approaches. In addition, the results show that the use of effective‐core potentials has a limited impact, in terms of the accuracy in the determination of metal‐ligand bond‐lengths and angles in our dataset of copper complexes. Hence, these could become a good alternative for the geometrical description of these systems, particularly CEP‐121G and SDD basis sets, if one is considering larger copper complexes where the computational cost could be an issue. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0192-8651
,
1096-987X
Language:
English
Publisher:
Wiley
Publication Date:
2013
detail.hit.zdb_id:
282917-4
detail.hit.zdb_id:
1479181-X
