Er(III) Complexes ** Supplementary Information Field Design ...Supplementary Information Table S1. Selected structural-parameters of complex 1, 2, and 3.Selected structural parameters
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Supplementary Information
Key Role of Higher Order Symmetry and Electrostatic Ligand Field Design in the Magnetic Relaxation of Low-coordinate Er(III) Complexes **
Saurabh Kumar Singh, Bhawana Pandey, Gunasekaran Velmurugan and Gopalan Rajaraman[a]
Table S2. SHAPE computed minimal distortion from the ideal geometry in coordination number four. vTBPY stands for axially vacant trigonal bipyramid and T-4 stands for the tetrahedral geometry.
Figure S1. SINGLE_ANISO computed principal magnetization orientation of each KDs of complex 1a.
Figure S2. SINGLE_ANISO computed principal magnetization orientation of the ground state KD of complex 1a with different level of theory. Red line represent computed orientation using BS1 basis set, Blue line represent using BS2 level of theory, green represent the computed orientation for complex 1a + 4 layers of point charge at BS1 level of theory.
12
34
8
7
5
6
Supplementary Information
Table S3. SINGLE_ANISO computed composition of wave functions of the ground J=15/2 of Er(III) for complex 1a,@BS1 level of theory
wave function 1 wave function 2 wave function 3 wave function 4 wave function 5mJ real imag real imag real imag real imag real imag
Table S4. SINGLE_ANISO computed composition of wave functions of the ground J=15/2 of Er(III) for complex 1a + 4 layers of point charges, @BS1 level of theory
wave function 1 wave function 2 wave function 3 wave function 4 wave function 5mJ real imag real imag real imag real imag real imag
Table S5. CASSCF+RASSI computed low-lying energies of eight KDs and associated g-tensors along with the deviation from the principal magnetization axes for complex 1a with experimental geometry + 4 layers of point charges@BS1 level of theory.
Table S6. SINGLE_ANISO computed crystal field parameters of complex 1a and 1 along with experimental geometry + 4 layers of point charges on complex 1a@ BS1 level of theory.
It is important to note here that charges on complex 1a are computed in presence of all the solvent and counter ions.
Complex 1a@BS1level Complex 1@BS1level Complex 1a + 4 layers of point charges@ BS1level
Table S7. CASSCF+RASSI computed low-lying energies of eight KDs and associated g-tensors along with the deviation from the principal magnetization axes for complex 1a @BS2 level of theory.
Table S8. CASSCF computed low-lying energies of eight KDs and associated g-tensors along with the deviation from the principal magnetization axes for complex 2 @BS1 level of theory.
Table S9. CASSCF+RASSI computed low-lying energies of eight KDs and associated g-tensors along with the deviation from the principal magnetization axes for complex 1m@BS1 level of theory
Table S10. CASSCF computed low-lying energies of eight KDs and associated g-tensors along with the deviation from the principal magnetization axes for complex 1TP.
Table S11. CASSCF computed low-lying energies of eight KDs and associated g-tensors along with the deviation from the principal magnetization axes for complex 1TD.
Table S12. CASSCF computed low-lying energies of eight KDs and associated g-tensors along with the deviation from the principal magnetization axes for complex [Dy{N(SiMe3)2}3Cl]–
Table S13. CASSCF computed low-lying energies of eight KDs and associated g-tensors along with the deviation from the principal magnetization axes for complex [Er{N(SiMe3)2}3F]–
Table S14. CASSCF computed low-lying energies of eight KDs and associated g-tensors along with the deviation from the principal magnetization axes for complex [Er{N(SiMe3)2}3Br]–
Table S15. CASSCF computed low-lying energies of eight KDs and associated g-tensors along with the deviation from the principal magnetization axes for complex [Er{N(SiMe3)2}3I]–
Table S16. CASSCF+NEVPT2 computed low-lying spin-free states and spin-orbit states along with the ground state g-tensor for complex [Er{N(SiMe3)2}3F]–.
Table S17. CASSCF+NEVPT2 computed low-lying spin-free states and spin-orbit states along with the ground state g-tensor for complex [Er{N(SiMe3)2}3Cl]–.
Table S18. CASSCF+NEVPT2 computed low-lying spin-free states and spin-orbit states along with the ground state g-tensor for complex [Er{N(SiMe3)2}3Br]–.
Table S19. CASSCF+NEVPT2 computed low-lying spin-free states and spin-orbit states along with the ground state g-tensor for complex [Er{N(SiMe3)2}3I]–.
Table S20. Reduced LOEWDIN POPULATION ANALYSIS on model complexes [Er{N(SiMe3)2}3X]– (where X = F, Cl, Br and I). The Er is considered in +III oxidation state, while halide is considered as X– ion. The numbers provided here are net gain/loss of electron compared to reference (electronic structure of ions). The negative and positive sign here are the loss and gain of the electrons from reference electronic structure.
Figure S3. Experimental and ab initio computed molar magnetic susceptibility plots for complex 1. The black hollow circle represents the experimental magnetic susceptibility extracted from the
[Er{N(SiMe3)2}3F]– [Er{N(SiMe3)2}3Cl]–
[Er{N(SiMe3)2}3Br]– [Er{N(SiMe3)2}3I]–
Supplementary Information
experimental data. The coloured lines represent computed magnetic susceptibility at BS1 level of theory.
Supplementary Information
Energy Decomposition Analysis (EDA)
Table S21. Energy decomposition analysis (in kcal mol-1) of complex 1a at the B3LYP/TZ2P level. The values in the parentheses give the percentage contribution to the total attractive interactions (ΔEelstat + ΔEorb)
Fragment Pair Complex 1aPauli
repulsion∆Epauli
Electrostatic interaction
∆Eelstat
Total steric interaction
Orbital interactions
∆Eorb
Total interaction
∆Eint
Total bonding energy
Fragment Pair A [Er{N(SiMe3)2}3
….Cl]– 1179.11 -214.51 (20.34) 964.59 -840.04
(79.65) 124.56 124.54
Fragment Pair B {Cl}….{Er….{(NSiMe)3} 397.58 -1250.70
(66.50) -853.12 -630.07(33.50) -1483.19 -
1483.19
Supplementary Information
Table S22. Structure of model complex 1TP generated from SHAPE code.
Table S24. Er-X bond lengths in the model [Er{N(SiMe3)2}3X]– model complexes.
Er-X bonds Bond lengths (Å)Er—F 2.053Er—Br 2.67Er—I 2.88
Supplementary Information
Figure S4. Ab initio blockade barrier for complex 1m. The thick black line indicates the Kramer’s doublets (KDs) as a function of magnetic moment. The green lines show the possible pathway of the Orbach process. The blue lines show the most probable relaxation pathways for magnetization reversal. The dotted red lines represent the presence of QTM/TA-QTM between the connecting pairs. The numbers provided on each arrow are the mean absolute values for the corresponding matrix elements of the transition magnetic moment.
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700En
ergy
(cm
-1)
M(B)
0.51E-03
1.54
2.10
0.19E-01
0.19E-01
0.11
1.54
2.50
2.75
-1
-2
-4
-5
-3
+1
+2
+4
+5
+3
Supplementary Information
Figure S5. Ab initio blockade barrier for complex 3. The thick black line indicates the Kramer’s doublets (KDs) as a function of magnetic moment. The green lines show the possible pathway of the Orbach process. The blue lines show the most probable relaxation pathways for magnetization reversal. The dotted red lines represent the presence of QTM/TA-QTM between the connecting pairs. The numbers provided on each arrow are the mean absolute values for the corresponding matrix elements of the transition magnetic moment.
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400En
ergy
(cm
-1)
M(B)
0.70E-02
1.53
-1
-2-3
-4
0.76E-01
0.41
0.76E-012.10
2.54
+1
+2
+3
+4
Supplementary Information
-out of plane shift parameter
Figure S6. CASSF+RASSI computed Ucal value plotted against parameter extracted from the experimental geometry of the complexes of 1-3.
Supplementary Information
Figure S7. SINGLE_ANISO computed principal magnetization orientation of each KDs of complex 1TD.
Figure S8. SINGLE_ANISO computed principal magnetization orientation of each KDs of complex 1TD.
123 6
47
8 5
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Supplementary Information
Figure S9. Ab initio blockade barrier for complexes [Er{N(SiMe3)2}3X]– a) X=F, b) X=Cl, c) X=Br, d) X=I. The thick black line indicates the Kramer’s doublets (KDs) as a function of magnetic moment. The green lines show the possible pathway of the Orbach process. The blue lines show the most probable relaxation pathways for magnetization reversal. The dotted red lines represent the presence of QTM/TA-QTM between the connecting pairs. The numbers provided on each arrow are the mean absolute values for the corresponding matrix elements of the transition magnetic moment.
Supplementary Information
1. L. Ungur, M. Thewissen, J. P. Costes, W. Wernsdorfer and L. F. Chibotaru, Inorg. Chem., 2013, 52, 6328-6337.
2. M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, G. Scalmani, V. Barone, B. Mennucci, G. A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, M. Caricato, X. Li, H. P. Hratchian, A. F. Izmaylov, J. Bloino, G. Zheng, J. L. Sonnenberg, M. Hada, M. Ehara, K. Toyota, R. Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y. Honda, O. Kitao, H. Nakai, T. Vreven, J. A. Montgomery Jr., J. E. Peralta, F. Ogliaro, M. J. Bearpark, J. Heyd, E. N. Brothers, K. N. Kudin, V. N. Staroverov, R. Kobayashi, J. Normand, K. Raghavachari, A. P. Rendell, J. C. Burant, S. S. Iyengar, J. Tomasi, M. Cossi, N. Rega, N. J. Millam, M. Klene, J. E. Knox, J. B. Cross, V. Bakken, C. Adamo, J. Jaramillo, R. Gomperts, R. E. Stratmann, O. Yazyev, A. J. Austin, R. Cammi, C. Pomelli, J. W. Ochterski, R. L. Martin, K. Morokuma, V. G. Zakrzewski, G. A. Voth, P. Salvador, J. J. Dannenberg, S. Dapprich, A. D. Daniels, Ö. Farkas, J. B. Foresman, J. V. Ortiz, J. Cioslowski and D. J. Fox, Journal, 2009.
3. A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys., 1993, 98, 5648-5652.4. T. R. Cundari and W. J. Stevens, J. Chem. Phys., 1993, 98, 5555-5565.5. A. Schafer, C. Huber and R. Ahlrichs, J. Chem. Phys., 1994, 100, 5829-5835.6. F. Biegler‐König and J. Schönbohm, J. Comput. Chem., 2002, 23, 1489-1494.7. T. Lu and F. Chen, J. Comput. Chem., 2012, 33, 580-592.8. G. te Velde, F. M. Bickelhaupt, E. J. Baerends, C. Fonseca Guerra, S. J. A. van
Gisbergen, J. G. Snijders and T. Ziegler, J. Comput. Chem., 2001, 22, 931-967.9. K. Morokuma, J. Chem. Phys., 1971, 55, 1236-1244.10. T. Ziegler and A. Rauk, Theor. Chim. Acta., 1977, 46, 1-10.