Multiwfn official website: //www.umsyar.com/multiwfn. Multiwfn forum in Chinese: http://bbs.keinsci.com/wfn
You are not logged in.
I have a metal carbonyl complex (Ligand)Fe(2+)(CO)2. I followed the tutorial in the manuscript for the CDA of (Cl)2Pt(NH3)2, so I calculated the fragments L, (CO)2 and Fe2+.
The result of the CDA (option 16) for d is: Fe2+ -> (CO)2 0.057 e and for b: (CO)2 -> Fe2+ -0.529 e, if the order is Fe(CO)2L (Fe2+ is the first and L the last fragment: fragments 1,2). When I change the order to (CO)2LFe I get: d: (CO)2 -> Fe2+ -0.529 and b: Fe2+ -> (CO)2 0.057 (fragments 1,3), which is the same result.
My problem is, that I don't understand the negative (-) sign. I would understand if 0.529 electrons are donated from CO to Fe2+ and 0.057 e are back donated from Fe2+ to CO. Can anyone help? Thank you in advance.
Offline
Please upload your relevant files (input files of your quantum chemistry program, and wavefunction files) to netdisk and paste downloading link here, or directly send them to my E-mail. I will check sanity of your files.
Offline
Thank you very much!
I have sent you a link to the files via email.
Offline
I have checked your file, two suggestions:
(1) Use def2-SVP instead of def2-TZVP and check if the result becomes more resonable. Def2-SVP shows lower diffuse character than def2-TZVP, while CDA doesn't work well if diffuse character of the basis set is evident. However, according to my experience, CDA should be compatible with def2-TZVP.
(2) Try different partitioning of fragments. Currently a single Fe atom was defined as a fragment, however, in this case the occupancy of d atomic-orbitals is arbitrary. You can load Fe.molden.input into Multiwfn and use main function 0 to check which d orbitals are occupied. This evident arbitrariness affects CDA result and may lead d and b terms lack of meaning. So, when studying interaction between Fe and a ligand, I suggest defining Fe along with one or more other ligands as a single fragment, then occupancy of d-orbitals will not be arbitrary and it is expected that the result will be more reasonable.
Offline
Thank your very much! I will check your suggestions.
Offline