19.02.2013 Views

Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18

Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18

Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • 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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!