Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18
Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18
Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18
- No tags were found...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
for all i ði:e:; 8 iÞ:<br />
@U<br />
@qi<br />
l ¼ 0 8 i ½40Š<br />
Because ð@U=@qiÞ for each atom is equal to the same undeterm<strong>in</strong>ed multiplier<br />
l, this quantity must be identical for all atoms <strong>in</strong> the molecule, 132<br />
@U<br />
@qi<br />
¼ @U<br />
@qj<br />
8 i; j ½41Š<br />
Through Mulliken’s identification of @U=@q as the electronegativity, we see<br />
that m<strong>in</strong>imiz<strong>in</strong>g the energy with respect to the charges is equivalent to equaliz<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the electronegativities,<br />
w i<br />
Electronegativity Equalization Models 109<br />
@U<br />
@qi<br />
¼ w 0 i þ Jii qi þ X<br />
JijðrijÞqj<br />
for all atoms. Notice that the electronegativity of atom i <strong>in</strong> a molecule, wi, differs from the electronegativity of the isolated atom, w0 i , and now depends<br />
on its charge, the charge of the other atoms, its hardness, and the <strong>in</strong>teractions<br />
with other atoms through JijðrijÞ. In addition, Parr et al. 132 identified the<br />
chemical potential of an electron as the negative of the electronegativity,<br />
m ¼ @U=@q. So electronegativity equalization is equivalent to chemical<br />
potential equalization. Thus, this model effectively moves charge around a<br />
molecule to m<strong>in</strong>imize the energy or to equalize the electronegativity or<br />
chemical potential. These <strong>in</strong>terpretations are all equivalent (for a dissent<strong>in</strong>g<br />
op<strong>in</strong>ion, see Ref. 133).<br />
Electronegativity equalization (EE) was first proposed by Sanderson. 134<br />
The EE model, with appropriate parameterization, has been successful <strong>in</strong> predict<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the charges of a variety of molecules. 125,135–138 The parameters w0 and<br />
J are not typically assigned from Eqs. [33] and [34], but <strong>in</strong>stead are taken as<br />
parameters to be optimized and can be viewed as depend<strong>in</strong>g on the valence<br />
state of the atom, as <strong>in</strong>dicated by electronic structure calculations. 139,140<br />
Some models 136 set JabðrijÞ ¼1=rij, and others use some type of screen<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
125,135,137 In addition, some models have an expression for the energy<br />
that is not quadratic. 125,135,141 Go<strong>in</strong>g beyond the quadratic term <strong>in</strong> the Taylor<br />
expansion of Eq. [32] can possibly extend the validity of the model, but it<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduces complications <strong>in</strong> the methods available for treat<strong>in</strong>g the charge<br />
dynamics, as will be discussed below.<br />
For a collection of molecules, the overall energy is comprised of the<br />
energy given by Eq. [36] for each molecule and an <strong>in</strong>teraction between charge<br />
j 6¼ i<br />
½42Š