ABSTRACT
The recently published Parametric Method number 7, PM7, is the first semiempirical method to be successfully tested by modeling crystal structures and heats of formation of solids. PM7 is thus also capable of producing results of useful accuracy for materials science, and constitutes a great improvement over its predecessor, PM6. In this article, we present Sparkle Model parameters to be used with PM7 that allow the prediction of geometries of metal complexes and materials which contain lanthanide trications. Accordingly, we considered the geometries of 224 high-quality crystallographic structures of complexes for the parameterization set and 395 more for the validation of the parameterization for the whole lanthanide series, from La(III) to Lu(III). The average unsigned error for Sparkle/PM7 for the distances between the metal ion and its coordinating atoms is 0.063Å for all lanthanides, ranging from a minimum of 0.052Å for Tb(III) to 0.088Å for Ce(III), comparable to the equivalent errors in the distances predicted by PM7 for other metals. These distance deviations follow a gamma distribution within a 95% level of confidence, signifying that they appear to be random around a mean, confirming that Sparkle/PM7 is a well-tempered method. We conclude by carrying out a Sparkle/PM7 full geometry optimization of two spatial groups of the same thulium-containing metal organic framework, with unit cells accommodating 376 atoms, of which 16 are Tm(III) cations; the optimized geometries were in good agreement with the crystallographic ones. These results emphasize the capability of the use of the Sparkle Model for the prediction of geometries of compounds containing lanthanide trications within the PM7 semiempirical model, as well as the usefulness of such semiempirical calculations for materials modeling. Sparkle/PM7 is available in the software package MOPAC2012, at no cost for academics and can be obtained from http://openmopac.net.
ABSTRACT
Twenty years ago, the landmark AM1 was introduced, and has since had an increasingly wide following among chemists due to its consistently good results and time-tested reliability--being presently available in countless computational quantum chemistry programs. However, semiempirical molecular orbital models still are of limited accuracy and need to be improved if the full potential of new linear scaling techniques, such as MOZYME and LocalSCF, is to be realized. Accordingly, in this article we present RM1 (Recife Model 1): a reparameterization of AM1. As before, the properties used in the parameterization procedure were: heats of formation, dipole moments, ionization potentials and geometric variables (bond lengths and angles). Considering that the vast majority of molecules of importance to life can be assembled by using only six elements: C, H, N, O, P, and S, and that by adding the halogens we can now build most molecules of importance to pharmaceutical research, our training set consisted of 1736 molecules, representative of organic and biochemistry, containing C, H, N, O, P, S, F, Cl, Br, and I atoms. Unlike AM1, and similar to PM3, all RM1 parameters have been optimized. For enthalpies of formation, dipole moments, ionization potentials, and interatomic distances, the average errors in RM1, for the 1736 molecules, are less than those for AM1, PM3, and PM5. Indeed, the average errors in kcal x mol(-1) of the enthalpies of formation for AM1, PM3, and PM5 are 11.15, 7.98, and 6.03, whereas for RM1 this value is 5.77. The errors, in Debye, of the dipole moments for AM1, PM3, PM5, and RM1 are, respectively, 0.37, 0.38, 0.50, and 0.34. Likewise, the respective errors for the ionization potentials, in eV, are 0.60, 0.55, 0.48, and 0.45, and the respective errors, in angstroms, for the interatomic distances are 0.036, 0.029, 0.037, and 0.027. The RM1 average error in bond angles of 6.82 degrees is only slightly higher than the AM1 figure of 5.88 degrees, and both are much smaller than the PM3 and PM5 figures of 6.98 degrees and 9.83 degrees, respectively. Moreover, a known error in PM3 nitrogen charges is corrected in RM1. Therefore, RM1 represents an improvement over AM1 and its similar successor PM3, and is probably very competitive with PM5, which is a somewhat different model, and not fully disclosed. RM1 possesses the same analytical construct and the same number of parameters for each atom as AM1, and, therefore, can be easily implemented in any software that already has AM1, not requiring any change in any line of code, with the sole exception of the values of the parameters themselves.