Avila Ferrer Francisco J, Cerezo Javier, Stendardo Emiliano, Improta Roberto, Santoro Fabrizio
CNR-Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Chimica dei Composti Organo Metallici (ICCOM-CNR), UOS di Pisa, Area della Ricerca, via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 Pisa, Italy.
University of Málaga, Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Málaga, 29071, Spain.
J Chem Theory Comput. 2013 Apr 9;9(4):2072-82. doi: 10.1021/ct301107m. Epub 2013 Mar 7.
In this work we carefully investigate the relationship between computed data and experimental electronic spectra. To that end, we compare both vertical transition energies, EV, and characteristic frequencies of the spectrum like the maximum, ν(max), and the center of gravity, M(1), taking advantage of an analytical expression of M(1) in terms of the parameters of the initial- and final-state potential energy surfaces. After pointing out that, for an accurate comparison, experimental spectra should be preliminarily mapped from wavelength to frequency domain and transformed to normalized lineshapes, we simulate the absorption and emission spectra of several prototypical chromophores, obtaining lineshapes in very good agreement with experimental data. Our results indicate that the customary comparison of experimental ν(max) and computational EV, without taking into account vibrational effects, is not an adequate measure of the performance of an electronic method. In fact, it introduces systematic errors that, in the investigated systems, are on the order of 0.1-0.3 eV, i.e., values comparable to the expected accuracy of the most accurate computational methods. On the contrary, a comparison of experimental and computed M(1) and/or 0-0 transition frequencies provides more robust results. Some rules of thumbs are proposed to help rationalize which kind of correction one should expect when comparing EV, M(1), and ν(max).
在这项工作中,我们仔细研究了计算数据与实验电子光谱之间的关系。为此,我们利用M(1)关于初末态势能面参数的解析表达式,比较了垂直跃迁能EV以及光谱的特征频率,如最大值ν(max)和重心M(1)。在指出为了进行准确比较,实验光谱应先从波长域映射到频率域并转换为归一化线形之后,我们模拟了几种典型发色团的吸收和发射光谱,得到的线形与实验数据非常吻合。我们的结果表明,在不考虑振动效应的情况下,对实验ν(max)和计算EV进行常规比较,并不是衡量电子方法性能的充分指标。事实上,它会引入系统误差,在所研究的体系中,这些误差在0.1 - 0.3 eV量级,即与最精确计算方法预期精度相当的值。相反,对实验和计算的M(1)和/或0 - 0跃迁频率进行比较能得到更可靠的结果。我们提出了一些经验法则,以帮助说明在比较EV、M(1)和ν(max)时应预期哪种校正。