Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2025

Thermochemical Studies of NiII and ZnII Ternary Complexes Using Ion Mobility-Mass Spectrometry
Published on: June 8, 2022
Best-of-both-worlds computational approaches to difficult-to-model dissociation reactions on metal surfaces
1Leiden Institute of Chemistry, Gorlaeus Laboratories P. O. Box 9502 2300 RA Leiden The Netherlands g.j.kroes@chem.leidenuniv.nl.
Abstract:
The accurate modeling of dissociative chemisorption of molecules on metal surfaces presents an exciting scientific challenge to theorists, and is practically relevant to modeling heterogeneously catalyzed reactive processes in computational catalysis. The first important scientific challenge in the field is that accurate barriers for dissociative chemisorption are not yet available from first principles methods. For systems that are not prone to charge transfer (for which the difference between the work function of the surface and the electron affinity of the molecule is larger than 7 eV) this problem can be circumvented: chemically accurate barrier heights can be extracted with a semi-empirical version of density functional theory (DFT). However, a second important challenge is posed by systems that are prone to (full or partial) electron transfer from the surface to the molecule. For these systems the Born-Oppenheimer approximation breaks down, and currently no method of established accuracy exists for modeling the resulting effect of non-adiabatic energy dissipation on the dissociative chemisorption reaction. Because two problems exist for this class of reactions, a semi-empirical approach to computing barrier heights, which would demand that computed and experimental dissociative chemisorption probabilities match, is unlikely to work. This Perspective presents a vision on how these two problems may be solved. We suggest an approach in which parameterized density functionals are used as in the previous semi-empirical approach to DFT, but in which the parameters are based on calculations with first principles electronic structure methods. We also suggest that the diffusion Monte-Carlo (DMC) and the random phase approximation (RPA) probably are the best two first principles electronic structure methods to pursue in the framework of the approach that we call first-principles based DFT (FPB-DFT) - providing DMC and the RPA with a steppingstone towards benchmarking and future applications in computational catalysis. Probably the FPB density functional is best based on screened hybrid exchange in combination with non-local van der Waals correlation. We also propose a new electronic friction method called scattering potential friction (SPF) that could combine the advantages and avoid the disadvantages of the two main existing electronic friction approaches for describing non-adiabatic effects: by extracting an electronic scattering potential from a DFT calculation for the full molecule-metal surface system, it might be possible to compute friction coefficients from scattering phase shifts in a computationally convenient and robust fashion. Combining the FPB-DFT and SPF methods may eventually result in barrier heights of chemical accuracy for the difficult-to-model class of systems that are prone to charge transfer. This should also enable the construction of a representative database of barrier heights for dissociative chemisorption on metal surfaces. Such a database would allow testing new density functionals, or, more generally, new electronic structure approaches on a class of reactions that is of huge importance to the chemical industry. Additionally, the difficult-to-model sub-class of systems we focus on is essential to sustainable chemistry and important for a sustainable future. Adding the database envisaged to large databases already existing but mostly addressing gas phase chemistry will enable testing density functionals that have a claim to universality, i.e., to be good for all chemical systems of importance. We also make a suggestion for how to develop such a generally applicable functional, which should have the correct asymptotic dependence of the exchange contribution to the energy in both the gas phase and the metal. Finally we suggest some improvements in the representation of potential energy surfaces and in dynamics methods that would help with the validation of the proposed methods.
More Related Videos
10:52Multiscale Sampling of a Heterogeneous Water/Metal Catalyst Interface using Density Functional Theory and Force-Field Molecular Dynamics
Published on: April 12, 2019
11:04Ion Mobility-Mass Spectrometry Techniques for Determining the Structure and Mechanisms of Metal Ion Recognition and Redox Activity of Metal Binding Oligopeptides
Published on: September 7, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Complexation Equilibria: Overview
The equilibrium constant of the complexation reaction is represented as the formation constant...
Crystal Field Theory - Octahedral Complexes
To explain the observed behavior of transition metal complexes (such as colors), a model involving electrostatic interactions between the electrons from the ligands and the electrons in the unhybridized d orbitals of the central metal atom has been developed. This electrostatic model is crystal field theory (CFT). It helps to understand, interpret, and predict the colors, magnetic behavior, and some structures of coordination compounds of transition metals.
CFT focuses on...
Complexation Equilibria: Factors Influencing Stability of Complexes
Metal-Ligand Bonds
In these complexes, transition metals form coordinate covalent bonds, a kind of Lewis acid-base interaction in which both of the electrons in the bond are contributed by a donor (Lewis base) to an electron acceptor (Lewis acid). The Lewis acid in...
Formation of Complex Ions
Crystal Field Theory - Tetrahedral and Square Planar Complexes
Crystal field theory (CFT) is applicable to molecules in geometries other than octahedral. In octahedral complexes, the lobes of the dx2−y2 and dz2 orbitals point directly at the ligands. For tetrahedral complexes, the d orbitals remain in place, but with only four ligands located between the axes. None of the orbitals points directly at the tetrahedral ligands. However, the dx2−y2 and dz2 orbitals (along the Cartesian axes) overlap with the ligands less than the dxy,...