Delving into Theoretical and Computational Considerations for Accurate Calculation of Chemical Shifts in Paramagnetic Transition Metal Systems using Quantum Chemical Methods

25 March 2024, Version 2
This content is a preprint and has not undergone peer review at the time of posting.

Abstract

The chemical shielding tensor for a paramagnetic system has been derived from the macroscopically observed magnetization using the perturbation theory. An approach to calculate the paramagnetic chemical shifts in transition metal systems based on the spin-only magnetic susceptibility directly evaluated from the ab initio Hilbert space of the electronic Zeeman Hamiltonian has been discussed. Computationally, several advantages are associated with this approach: (a) it includes the state-specific paramagnetic Curie (firstorder) and Van Vleck (second-order) contributions of the paramagnetic ion to the paramagnetic chemical shifts; (b) thus it avoids the system-specific modeling and evaluating effectively in terms of the electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spin Hamiltonian parameters of the magnetic moment of the paramagnetic ion formulated previously; (c) it can be utilized both in the point-dipole (PD) approximation (in the longrange) and with the quantum chemical (QC) method based the hyperfine tensors (in the short-range). Additionally, we have examined the predictive performance of various DFT functionals of different families and commonly used core-augmented basis sets for nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) chemical shifts. A selection of transition metal ion complexes with and without first-order orbital contributions, namely the [M(AcPyOx)3(BPh)]+ complexes of M=Mn2+, Ni2+ and Co2+ ions and CoTp2 complex and their reported NMR chemical shifts are studied from QC methods for illustration.

Keywords

NMR
chemical shifts
paramagnetism

Supplementary materials

Title
Description
Actions
Title
Supporting information: Delving into Theoretical and Computational Considerations for Accurate Calculation of Chemical Shifts in Paramagnetic Transition Metal Systems using Quantum Chemical Methods
Description
Supporting information, containing additional theoretical details and full computational data
Actions

Comments

Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.
Comment number 1, Enrico Ravera: Mar 27, 2024, 15:33

This comment refers to version 2. Please take into consideration our points below: • For Eq. (9), reference 23 is given, but the equation in 23 is different and corresponds to the physical (symmetric) susceptibility tensor. We believe that Eq. (9) corresponds to the unsymmetrical χ'; tensor that was questioned by some of us in reference 70. This connection should be highlighted. • Eq. (8) is not connected to Eq. (1). In fact, it remains unclear where Eq. (1) comes from. In our opinion, Eq. (1) can only be derived within the spin Hamiltonian approximation. It is then unclear whether it makes sense to use a χ^s tensor that is evaluated beyond the spin Hamiltonian approximation if the A tensor is still limited to this approximation. • https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0088162 should be cited together with our ref. 15. • Eq. (3) and the following derivation assumes that the energy derivatives are well defined. This is not the case for degeneracies (e.g. Kramers degeneracy at zero field). In Eq. (8), energy levels and degenerate states belonging to the same level are not distinguished. Therefore, this cannot be considered as a proper rederivation of the van den Heuvel-Soncini equation. • The last paragraph of the “Theoretical section” (before “Computational details”) is unclear to us. • The conclusion states that the "VV approach" represents the state of the art, but even better would be to evaluate the van den Heuvel-Soncini equation directly, which was already done in reference 12. It should also be mentioned that the calculated parameters that enter the different equations can have substantial error. Therefore, it is questionable to judge which equation is the best one using these parameters to reproduce the experimental data, because there might be fortuitous cancellation of errors. Lucas Lang, Enrico Ravera, Letizia Fiorucci, Giacomo Parigi, Claudio Luchinat