Local Energy Decomposition of Open-Shell Molecular Systems in the Domain-Based Local Pair Natural Orbital Coupled Cluster Framework

Abstract

Local energy decomposition (LED) analysis decomposes the interaction energy between two fragments calculated at the domain-based local pair natural orbital CCSD(T) (DLPNO-CCSD(T)) level of theory into a series of chemically meaningful contributions and has found widespread applications in the study of noncovalent interactions. Herein, an extension of this scheme that allows for the analysis of interaction energies of open-shell molecular systems calculated at the UHF-DLPNO-CCSD(T) level is presented. The new scheme is illustrated through applications to the CH₂···X (X = He, Ne, Ar, Kr, and water) and heme···CO interactions in the low-lying singlet and triplet spin states. The results are used to discuss the mechanism that governs the change in the singlet–triplet energy gap of methylene and heme upon adduct formation.

1. Introduction

Weak intermolecular interactions play a major role in virtually all areas of chemical research.¹⁻⁶ Perturbative and supermolecular approaches can be used to evaluate weak interaction energies between two or more fragments. Within a perturbative approach the Hamiltonian is partitioned into contributions of noninteracting fragment terms plus a series of perturbing potentials representing the interaction between the fragments. The most popular approach of this type is the symmetry-adapted perturbation theory (SAPT), which also provides a decomposition of the interaction energy into a series of physically meaningful contributions, including electrostatics, induction, London dispersion, and exchange-repulsion terms.⁷ Although these interaction energy components have no unique definition, their quantification has been instrumental for the rationalization of the underlying mechanism that gives rise to the interaction.⁸

Within a supermolecular approach, the interaction energy is computed as the difference between the total energy of the adduct and the energy of the separated monomers. The decomposition of the resulting interaction energy into physical terms is then obtained via energy decomposition analysis (EDA) schemes, which are mainly based on a seminal work of Morokuma.⁹ In these schemes the interaction energy is typically partitioned into electrostatics, charge transfer and/or polarization, and Pauli repulsion (also called exchange-repulsion) terms.¹⁰⁻¹⁴

The large majority of EDA schemes applied in mainstream computational chemistry relies on density functional theory (DFT) for the calculation of interaction energies. Hence, the range of applicability of such schemes is limited by the accuracy of the chosen functional. This is especially limiting in the context of noncovalent interactions, as DFT does not properly describe London dispersion. Although several strategies have been suggested¹⁵⁻¹⁹ in order to practically deal with this shortcoming, a quantitative understanding of weak interactions typically requires the use of highly correlated wave function-based ab initio methods in conjunction with large basis sets.^8,20−23

In particular, the coupled-cluster method with single, double, and perturbative treatment of triple excitations, i.e., CCSD(T),^22,24 has proven its reliability in a wide range of contexts and typically allows one to compute relative energies with chemical accuracy (defined here as 1 kcal/mol). Unfortunately, the computational cost of CCSD(T) increases as the seventh power of the molecular size. Hence, the calculation of CCSD(T) energies is only possible for benchmark studies involving relatively small systems. To overcome this limitation, the domain-based local pair natural orbital CCSD(T) method, i.e., DLPNO-CCSD(T), was developed.²⁵⁻³⁴ This technique typically retains the accuracy and reliability of CCSD(T), as shown on many benchmark data sets,³⁴⁻³⁷ while allowing at the same time for the calculation of single-point energies for systems with thousands of basis functions.

In order to aid in the interpretation of DLPNO-CCSD(T) results, we recently introduced an EDA approach called local energy decomposition (LED).³⁸ In this scheme, the interaction energy between two or more fragments is calculated at the DLPNO-CCSD(T) level and is then decomposed into a repulsive intramolecular energy term called electronic preparation, plus a series of intermolecular energy terms such as electrostatic, quantum mechanical exchange, and London dispersion interactions.³⁸ This scheme has been already applied in the context of H-bond interactions,^38,39 frustrated Lewis pairs,⁴⁰ agostic interactions,⁴¹ and the interactions in dipnictenes.⁴² Quantitative comparisons of the terms of LED and SAPT have been also reported.^38,39

Herein, we present an extension of the LED scheme to open-shell systems in the framework of the DLPNO-CCSD(T) method. The present developments were made accessible through the recent ORCA 4.1 program release.^43,44 This opens an unprecedented opportunity for understanding and thus controlling a wide range of chemical and biological processes, especially in view of the limited number of previously developed EDA and SAPT approaches for open-shell molecular systems.⁴⁵⁻⁵² The new scheme is used to investigate the mechanism that governs the change in the singlet–triplet energy gap (E_S–T) of carbenes upon their noncovalent interactions with various chemical species and of heme upon CO binding. The systems studied are as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Investigated CH₂···X and PFe···CO adducts and the associated equilibrium intermolecular distances obtained at the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/aug-cc-pVTZ and B3LYP-D3/def2-TZVP levels, respectively.

Carbenes are highly reactive neutral divalent molecules that exist in triplet and singlet spin states.⁵³⁻⁶² The singlet and triplet states of carbenes yield different reaction products. For example, the simplest carbene CH₂ (methylene), being one of the most reactive molecules, undergoes stereospecific reactions in the singlet state and stereoselective reactions in the triplet state.⁵⁵⁻⁶² Although many carbenes have a triplet ground state in the gas phase, the singlet state is typically stabilized significantly in several solvents, causing an equilibrium between the two spin states or even leading to a singlet ground state.⁵⁵⁻⁶²

Herein, the presently introduced open-shell variant of the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/LED scheme is applied to a series of prototypical molecular systems (Figure 1) of the type CH₂···X, in which methylene (in both its singlet ¹CH₂ and its triplet ³CH₂ spin states) interacts through noncovalent interactions either with water or with rare gases (Rg = He, Ne, Ar, and Kr). The variation in the E_S–T of methylene upon adduct formation is discussed in terms of the ¹CH₂···X and ³CH₂···X interaction energy components extracted from the LED scheme.

The other illustrative case study discussed here involves heme, which is an iron-coordinated porphyrin (P) derivative that is essential for the function of all aerobic cells.⁶³ It serves as a chromophore for many proteins including hemoglobin, myoglobin, and cytochromes, and thus regulates diverse biological functions.^64,65

Heme owes its functional diversity in the protein matrix to its differing side chain environments, bound axial ligands and their environments, coordination number, and oxidation and spin states of the iron center.⁶⁵ In particular, the binding and dissociation reactions of CO to the ferrous heme in the protein matrix have significant impacts on its role in respiration and regulation processes.⁶⁶ Experimentally, it is known that ferrous iron-coordinated porphyrin (PFe, also denoted hereafter as free heme) derivatives and their CO-bound PFe···CO analogs have triplet and singlet ground states, respectively.⁶⁷⁻⁷⁰ Thus, the CO binding reverses the spin-state ordering of heme derivatives. However, the chemical mechanism behind this experimental observation is not clear.

Herein, the LED scheme is used to provide a first insight into the factors contributing to the stabilization of the lowest-lying singlet state (¹A_1g) and two close-lying lowest-energy triplets (³E_g and ³A_2g) of PFe (see Scheme 1) upon CO binding, i.e., the PFe(¹A_1g/³E_g/³A_2g)···CO interactions. As seen in Scheme 1, the ¹A_1g singlet has an electronic configuration of (d_x²–y²)²(d_yz)²(d_xz)²(d_z²)⁰(d_xy)⁰ while the ³A_2g and ³E_g triplets have the (d_x²–y²)²(d_z²)²(d_yz)¹(d_xz)¹(d_xy)⁰ and (d_x²–y²)²(d_yz)²(d_xz)¹(d_z²)¹(d_xy)⁰ configurations, respectively.

Scheme 1. Simple Schematic Representation of the Singlet and Low-Lying Triplet Electronic Configurations of PFe and PFe···CO.

One of the degenerate pair of ³E_g configurations is shown. The other configuration is clearly (d_x²–y²)²(d_yz)¹(d_xz)²(d_z²)¹(d_xy)⁰.

As a prototype case study, we focus on the bare porhyrin that has no peripheral or other axial substituents (see Figure 1). It should be emphasized here that spin-state ordering of heme species is dependent on such substituents as well as on their surrounding media.⁷¹ For example, if a single imidazole ligand is bound to the free heme rather than CO then the quintet state becomes the ground state both in the solid phase and in protein matrices.⁷² A thorough analysis of the role of different substituents and surrounding media on the singlet–triplet energy gap of heme species would require an extensive systematic study, which is beyond the scope of this study.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 the theory of the open-shell LED scheme is given, while computational details are reported in section 3. In section 4, the E_S–T singlet–triplet energy gap of methylene, heme, and their investigated adducts is reported at the DLPNO-CCSD(T) level. Then in the framework of the presently introduced open-shell DLPNO-CCSD(T)/LED method, the variations in E_S–T of methylene and heme upon the formation of the adducts are discussed in terms of the corresponding LED interaction energy components for the low-lying singlet and triplet states. The dependence of the results on the various technical aspects of the calculations is discussed in the Supporting Information (Tables S2–S13). The distance dependence of the open-shell LED terms is discussed in section 4 for the PFe(¹A_1g/³A_2g/³E_g)···CO interaction and given in Figure S1 for the CH₂···H₂O interaction. The last section of the paper is devoted to discussion of the results and concluding remarks of the study.

2. Theory

2.1. Theoretical Background

The theory and implementation of the DLPNO-CCSD(T) method in both its closed-shell and its open-shell variants have been described in detail in a series of recent publications.^{25−34,38,73,74} We thus only recall here the energy expression for the open-shell DLPNO-CCSD(T) method, which is decomposed in the present variant of the LED scheme.

The total DLPNO-CCSD(T) energy can be expressed as a sum of reference and correlation energies E = E_ref + E_C. In the closed-shell variant of DLPNO-CCSD(T), the reference determinant is typically the Hartree–Fock (HF) determinant, and hence, E_ref corresponds to the HF energy. In the open-shell variant, E_ref is the energy of a high-spin open-shell single determinantal function, consisting of a single set of molecular orbitals. The energy of such a determinant can be expressed as

1

where i and j are the occupied orbitals of the reference determinant, n_i,α and n_i,β denote the occupation numbers (1 or 0) for α and β electrons, respectively, n_i = n_i,α + n_i,β; (ii|jj) and (ij|ij) are two electrons integrals in Mulliken notation, and Z_A (Z_B) is the nuclear charge of atom A (B) at position R_A (R_B).

The DLPNO-CCSD(T) correlation energy can be written essentially as a sum of electron-pair correlation energy (ε_ij, where i and j denote the localized orbitals) contributions plus the perturbative triples correction (E_C–(T)). Local second-order many-body perturbation theory is used to divide the ε_ij terms into “weak pairs”, with an expected negligible contribution to the correlation energy, and “strong pairs”. The contribution coming from the weak pairs is kept at the second-order level, whereas the strong pairs are treated at the coupled cluster level. Hence, the overall correlation energy reads

2

where E_C–SP denotes the energy contribution from the strong pairs, E_C–WP is the correlation contribution from the weak pairs, and the last term is associated with the perturbative triples correction E_C–(T).

The dominant strong pair contribution reads

3

where the indices with an overbar denote β spin–orbitals and those without overbar are used for α spin–orbitals. The first two terms represent the contribution from the single excitations (a_i, the singles PNOs; t_aiⁱ, the singles amplitudes). These terms vanish if the Brillouin’s theorem is satisfied.⁷³ This is not generally the case when the quasi-restricted orbitals (QROs)⁷⁵ or restricted open-shell HF (ROHF) determinant is used, the former of which is the standard choice in open-shell DLPNO-CCSD(T) calculations.⁷³ The ε_ij, and terms denote α–α, β–β, and α–β pair correlation energies, defined as

4

5

6

where a_ij and b_ij are the PNOs belonging to the ij pair, (ia_ij | jb_ij) are the two-electrons integrals, τ_aijbij^ij = t_aijbij + t_aijⁱt_bij – t_bijⁱt_aij and are the cluster amplitudes in the PNO basis, and t_aijbij^ij, t_aij, t_bijⁱ are the doubles and singles amplitudes of the coupled cluster equations.

2.2. Open-Shell Variant of the Local Energy Decomposition

Within a supermolecular approach, the energy of a molecular adduct XY relative to the total energies of noninteracting fragments X and Y, i.e, the binding energy of the fragments (ΔE), can be written as

7

where ΔE_geo-prep is the geometric preparation energy needed to distort the fragments X and Y from their structures at infinite separation to their in-adduct geometry. ΔE_int is the interaction energy between the fragments X and Y frozen in the geometry they have in the adduct XY, which is defined as

8

where E^XY is energy of the XY adduct while E^X (E^Y) is the energy of the isolated X (Y) fragment frozen at the same geometry as that in the adduct. ΔE_int can be decomposed into a reference contribution ΔE_int^ref (i.e., the contribution to the interaction energy from the QRO determinant in the open shell case) and a correlation contribution ΔE_int

9

In the DLPNO-CCSD(T) framework, the orbitals of the reference determinant are initially localized. Hence, each orbital can be usually assigned to the fragment where it is dominantly localized. By exploiting the localization of the occupied orbitals, it is possible to regroup the terms of the reference energy of the XY adduct E_ref^XY (eq 1) into intra- and intermolecular contributions in exactly the same way as it was described for the closed-shell case^38,40

10

The intermolecular reference energy can be further partitioned into electrostatic (E_elstat) and exchange (E_exch) interactions. Accordingly, the ΔE_int^ref term can be written as

11

The electronic preparation energy ΔE_el-prep^ref is positive and thus repulsive. It corresponds to the energy needed to bring the electronic structures of the isolated fragments into the one that is optimal for the interaction. E_elstat and E_exch are the electrostatic and exchange interactions between the interacting fragments, respectively (note that the “ref” superscript in these terms is omitted for the sake of simplicity from now on). It is worth noting here that the intermolecular exchange describes a stabilizing component of the interaction, lowering the repulsion between electrons of the same spin. Note that E_elstat incorporates the Coulomb interaction between the distorted electronic clouds of the fragments. Hence, it accounts for both induced and permanent electrostatics. We recently proposed an approach for disentangling these two contributions in E_elstat in the closed-shell case,⁷⁶ which is in principle also applicable to the open-shell case.

The correlation contribution to the interaction energy E_int^C can thus be expressed as a sum of three contributions

12

where ΔE_int^C-SP, ΔE_int, and ΔE_int^C-(T) are the strong pairs, weak pairs, and triples correction components of the correlation contribution to the interaction energy, respectively. The ΔE_int, ΔE_int^C-WP, and ΔE_int terms can be further divided into electronic preparation and interfragment interaction energies based on the localization of the occupied orbitals, as already described previously.³¹

For the (typically) dominant ΔE_int^C-SP contribution, a more sophisticated approach is used in order to provide a clear-cut definition of London dispersion. The E_C-SP term can be written as a sum of the contributions of single and double excitations according to eqs 3–6. By exploiting the localization of both the occupied and the virtual orbitals in the DLPNO-CCSD(T) framework, E_C-SP^XY can be divided into five different contributions

13

where each energy term contains contributions from the αα, ββ, and αβ excitations constituting the correlation energy, as given in eqs 4–6. The corresponding energy expressions of these terms are reported in the following. Note that the subscript ij in the PNOs is omitted for clarity and that the indices X and Y represent the fragment on which the orbital is dominantly localized. For the sake of simplicity, only contributions from the αα pairs (and singles excitations of α spin–orbitals) are shown as an example

14

15

16

The E_C-SP^(Y) and E_C-SP terms can be obtained from eqs 14 and 15 by exchanging the X and Y labels in all terms. Note that the last term in E_C-SP^(X) denotes the contribution from the singles excitations, whose physical meaning will be discussed later in this section. The relevant pair excitation contributions constituting these terms are shown pictorially in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Schematic representation of strong pair excitations from occupied orbitals to virtual orbitals (PNOs) in the framework of the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/LED method. Intramolecular excitations occur within the same fragment. For the sake of simplicity, they are shown only for the excitations on X. Dynamic electronic preparation energy is obtained by subtracting the strong pairs energy of the isolated fragments X and Y (frozen in their in-adduct geometries) from the corresponding intramolecular terms. Only the charge transfer excitations from X to Y are shown. Analogous charge transfer excitations also exist from Y to X.

E_C-SP^(X) and E_C-SP describe the correlation contribution from excitations occurring within the same fragment (also called intrafragment correlation). The dynamic charge transfer (CT) terms E_C-SP^CT(X→Y) and E_C-SP represent the correlation energy contributions that arise from instantaneous cation–anion pair formations. In contrast to the Coulombic interaction energy decaying with r^–1, they occur with a small probability decaying exponentially with distance. These terms are essential for correcting overpolarized electron densities at the reference level. E_C-SP^DISP(X,Y) describes the energy contribution associated with genuine and exchange dispersion (see Figure 2).

For the sake of simplicity, it may be useful to combine several terms. For example, ΔE_el-prep^C-SP (i.e., the difference between the intrafragment contributions E_C-SP and the strong pair correlation energy of the isolated fragments) is always positive, while E_C-SP^CT(X→Y) and E_C-SP are negative. These two terms typically compensate for each other to a large extent.^38,40 Hence, they can be combined to give the SP correlation contribution to the interaction energy excluding dispersion contribution (ΔE_no-disp^C-SP)

17

where ΔE_no-disp^C-SP describes the correlation correction for the interaction terms approximately accounted for at the reference level (e.g., permanent and induced electrostatics).

Note that the intermolecular part of the weak-pair contribution has mainly dispersive character as it describes the correlation energy of very distant pairs of electrons. Hence, it can be added to the strong pair dispersion term E_DISP^C-SP in order to obtain the total dispersion contribution at the DLPNO-CCSD level. We label this summation as E_disp. The remaining part of the correlation interaction energy at the DLPNO-CCSD level is labeled as ΔE_no-disp^C-CCSD. Therefore

18

Collecting all the terms we obtain for the binding energy

19

Equation 19 is the base of our LED scheme and applies identically to the closed-shell and to the open-shell cases.

As a final remark, it is worth noting that the magnitude of the single excitations term of the dynamic electronic preparation energy is typically very close to zero for closed-shell fragments due to the Brillouin’s theorem. Hence, this term provides a useful tool for localizing the fragments in which unpaired electrons are present (see Tables S5, S6, and S12).

2.3. LED for the Analysis of Singlet–Triplet Energy Gap

As an illustrative example of the usefulness and applicability of LED scheme, we discuss in this work the influence of the different LED components on the singlet–triplet energy gap (E_S–T) of a molecule Y upon formation of a weak intermolecular interaction with X. The E_S–T gap of the corresponding ^1,3Y···X adduct can be written as

20

The same quantity for the free Y reads as

21

The variation in the singlet–triplet gap of Y upon interaction with a molecule X (Δ) can be obtained by subtracting eqs 20 and 21

22

Thus, Δ equals the difference between the ΔE(¹Y···X) and ΔE(³Y···X) binding energies. In the following, the LED scheme is used to decompose ΔE(¹Y···X) and ΔE(¹Y···X). This approach provides insights into the physical mechanism responsible for Δ in different systems.

3. Computational Details

All calculations were carried out with a development version of ORCA software package.^43,44 The presently described developments were made accessible in the ORCA 4.1 release, which is free of charge to the scientific community.

3.1. Geometries

The CH₂ molecule and its adducts (see Figure 1) were fully optimized numerically at the DLPNO-CCSD(T) level²⁵⁻³⁴ by employing the aug-cc-pVTZ basis set and its matching auxiliary counterparts.⁷⁷⁻⁸⁰ We have shown on the CH₂···He adduct that DLPNO-CCSD(T) gives almost identical geometries as its parent method, i.e., the canonical CCSD(T), with nonbonded interatomic distances having a maximum deviation of 0.007 Å (see Table S1 and the associated coordinates in section S1.1). The fully optimized structures of the adducts of both ¹CH₂ and ³CH₂ at the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/aug-cc-pVTZ level are shown in Figure 1 (see section S1.1 for their coordinates).

The ferrous heme species and their CO adducts (see Figure 1) were fully optimized using the RIJCOSX approximation^81,82 at the B3LYP⁸³⁻⁸⁵ level incorporating the atom-pairwise dispersion correction (D3) with Becke–Johnson damping (BJ), i.e., B3LYP-D3.⁸⁶ The def2-TZVP basis set was used in conjunction with its matching auxiliary JK counterpart.^87,88 Relaxed potential energy surface (PES) scans were performed at the B3LYP-D3/def2-TZVP level for the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO, PFe(³A_2g)···CO, and PFe(³E_g)···CO interactions. The optimized coordinates of the ¹A_1g, ³E_g, and ³A_2g states of PFe and PFe···CO (see Figure 1) at the B3LYP-D3/def2-TZVP level are given in section S2.1. It should be noted here that in the optimized structures the CO moiety is almost perpendicular to the heme plane on both singlet and triplet surfaces, consistent with previous experimental and computational studies.⁸⁹⁻⁹²

3.2. Single-Point DLPNO-CCSD(T) and LED Calculations

DLPNO-CCSD(T) and LED calculations of both singlet and triplet states were performed with the open-shell DLPNO-CCSD(T) algorithm. Note that open-shell and closed-shell DLPNO-CCSD(T) implementations give almost identical LED energy terms for closed-shell species (see Tables S3 and S4). The distance dependence of the open-shell LED terms is given in Figure S1 for CH₂···H₂O and in section 4 for PFe···CO.

Unless otherwise specified, DLPNO-CCSD(T) and LED calculations were performed using “TightPNO” settings.^33,34 For the heme species “NormalPNO” settings^33,34 with conservative TCutPairs thresholds (10^–5) were also used for comparison. Hence, the so-called “NormalPNO” settings used in this study are slightly different than the standard “NormalPNO” settings. For CH₂···H₂O and heme species, the resolution-of-the-identity (RI) approach was utilized in the SCF part for both the Coulomb and the exchange terms (RIJK). For all other adducts, the RI approach was only used for the Coulomb term (RIJONX, called also as RIJDX).^81,82 As default in ORCA,⁹³ both geometry optimizations and single-point energy calculations at the DLPNO-CCSD(T) level were performed using the frozen-core approximation by excluding only the 1s orbital of C, N, and O, and the 1s, 2s, and 2p orbitals of Fe from the correlation treatment.

For CH₂ adducts, DLPNO-CCSD(T) and LED energies were obtained with the aug-cc-pV5Z basis set. The corresponding LED terms are not affected much by the basis set size. As shown in Tables S2–S4, aug-cc-pVnZ basis sets, where n = D, T, Q, and 5, provide similar results. Recently, it has been shown that the DLPNO-CCSD(T) method can be used to compute accurate singlet–triplet gaps for aryl carbenes.⁹⁴ On a set of 12 aryl carbenes, the mean absolute error (MAE) is only 0.2 kcal/mol.⁹⁴ Analogously, the MAE of the DLPNO-CCSD(T) method compared with its canonical counterpart is only 0.07 kcal/mol for binding energies and 0.04 kcal/mol for singlet–triplet energy gaps for the CH₂ adducts studied in this work (see Table S5).

DLPNO-CCSD(T) and LED energies for heme species were obtained using TightPNO settings at the extrapolated complete basis set (CBS) limit by using def2-TZVP and def2-QZVP basis sets, as described previously.^39,95 However, for the sake of simplicity, the distance dependence of the DLPNO-CCSD(T) and LED energy terms was studied at the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/NormalPNO/def2-TZVP level. This methodology provides results that are in qualitative agreement with those obtained at the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/CBS level at the equilibrium geometry (see Tables S7–S12). Note that a large number of benchmark and application studies has already shown that the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/def2-TZVP methodology typically provides a good balance between accuracy and computational cost for relative energies.^35,40,96,97 For triplet heme species, DLPNO-CCSD(T)/def2-TZVP binding energies are in fact very close to the estimated CBS limit (see Table S9). However, it was found that the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO binding energy converges slowly with the basis set size and is also quite sensitive with respect to DLPNO thresholds used (see Table S9).

For heme species, scalar relativistic effects calculated at the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/NormalPNO/def2-TZVP level by utilizing the DKH2 Hamiltonian^98,99 are quite small and nearly cancel out with the zero-point vibrational energy (ZPVE) calculated at the B3LYP-D3/def2-TZVP level (see Table S13). Therefore, the energies reported in the main paper are not corrected for these effects.

In DLPNO-CCSD(T) single-point energy calculations and geometry optimizations, the occupied orbitals were localized through the Foster-Boys and augmented Hessian Foster-Boys schemes, respectively.¹⁰⁰ Consistent with the closed-shell formalism,³⁸ the LED terms discussed demonstrate only a slight dependence to the localization scheme used for the occupied orbitals (see Table S6). In the LED calculations, pair natural orbitals (PNOs) were localized with the Pipek-Mezey¹⁰¹ scheme.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that for open-shell species, QRO and UHF absolute energies differ significantly. However, the difference typically cancels out in relative energies. In the present case, QRO and UHF binding energies are essentially identical for both spin states (see Tables S5 and S7).

4. Results and Discussion

According to eq 22, the variation (Δ) in the singlet–triplet gap (E_S–T) of methylene upon intermolecular interaction with a molecule X is equal to the difference in the ¹CH₂···X and ³CH₂···X binding energies. Analogously, Δ in E_S–T of ferrous heme (PFe) upon interacting with CO is equal to the difference in the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO and PFe(³A_2g/³E_g)···CO binding energies. In the following, these binding energies are decomposed by means of the open-shell DLPNO-CCSD(T)/LED scheme. The results are then used to rationalize the different values of Δ obtained for the different CH₂···X (X = H₂O, He, Ne, Ar, and Kr) and PFe···CO adducts studied in this work.

4.1. CH₂···X Interaction

4.1.1. Singlet–Triplet Energy Gap of CH₂ Adducts

The singlet–triplet energy gap of the isolated CH₂ and of CH₂···X adducts calculated at the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/aug-cc-pV5Z level is given in Table 1 with the computed Δ values obtained at the QRO, DLPNO-CCSD, and DLPNO-CCSD(T) levels of theory.

Table 1. Calculated Singlet-Triplet Energy Gap (E_S–T, in kcal/mol) of the Free CH₂ and Its Water- and Rare Gas-Interacted Structures Together with the Variation (Δ) of E_S–T Relative to the Free CH₂ at the Reference QRO/aug-cc-pV5Z, DLPNO-CCSD/TightPNO/aug-cc-pV5Z, and DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/aug-cc-pV5Z Levels^a.

	ES–T	Δ
molecule	DLPNO-CCSD(T)	DLPNO-CCSD(T)	DLPNO-CCSD	reference (QRO)
CH2	9.28b	0.00	0.00	0.00
CH2···H2O	5.57	–3.71	–3.62	–3.67
CH2···He	8.97	–0.31	–0.26	0.18
CH2···Ne	8.99	–0.29	–0.21	0.25
CH2···Ar	8.23	–1.05	–0.76	–0.06
CH2···Kr	7.40	–1.88	–1.31	2.05

^aA positive (negative) E_S–T implies that the triplet state is more (less) stable, while the positive (negative) sign of Δ implies the increase (decrease) in E_S–T of CH₂ upon interacting with water and rare gases.

^bThe corresponding canonical CCSD(T) value is 9.34 kcal/mol. Experiment including zero-point vibrational energy: 9.023 kcal/mol.^102,103

The triplet state of the bare CH₂ is calculated to be 9.28 and 9.34 kcal/mol lower in energy than its singlet state at the DLPNO-CCSD(T) and CCSD(T) levels, respectively. The inclusion of the harmonic ZPVE correction (−0.64 kcal/mol) reduces the singlet triplet gap to 8.7 kcal/mol, which is reasonably close to the experimental value of 9.023 kcal/mol.^102,103

When interacting with water, the singlet–triplet gap reduces to 5.6 kcal/mol (Δ = −3.7 kcal/mol). Hence, the interaction stabilizes the singlet state more than the triplet. The largest contribution to this differential spin state stabilization comes from the reference energy, with almost no net contribution from the electron correlation term.

The interaction of CH₂ with rare gases is weaker than with water. At the reference level, it stabilizes the triplet more than the singlet state (Δ > 0). However, when electron correlation is incorporated, the opposite trend is observed for all adducts (Δ < 0). Importantly, Δ increases in absolute value with the polarizability of the rare gases.

The different role that electron correlation plays in the two situations above indicates that the physical mechanism responsible for the change in the singlet–triplet gap is different for methylene adducts with water and rare gases. A deeper insight into the origin of this difference comes by analyzing the ¹CH₂···X and ³CH₂···X binding energies, which determine the overall Δ through eq 22. An in-depth analysis of this aspect is reported in the following by means of the LED scheme.

4.1.2. Binding Energies of CH₂ Adducts

The ¹CH₂···X and ³CH₂···X binding energies are reported in Table 2. In the same table their decomposition into geometric preparation and interaction energy is also given. The latter is further decomposed into its reference and correlation energy contributions.

Table 2. Calculated Equilibrium ΔE Binding Energies (kcal/mol) of the Studied CH₂ Adducts and Their Decomposition into the Reference (QRO/aug-cc-pV5Z) and DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/aug-cc-pV5Z Correlation Energies Together with the Contribution Δ of Each Term to the Singlet–Triplet Gap.

			ΔE terms		ΔEint terms
molecule	state	ΔE	ΔEint	ΔEgeo-prep	ΔEintref	ΔEintC
CH2···H2O	T0	–1.56	–1.58	0.02	–0.30	–1.28
	S1	–5.27	–5.36	0.09	–3.96	–1.41
	Δ	–3.71	–3.78	0.07	–3.66	–0.13
CH2···He	T0	–0.02	–0.02	0.00	0.02	–0.04
	S1	–0.33	–0.33	0.00	0.19	–0.53
	Δ	–0.31	–0.31	0.00	0.17	–0.49
CH2···Ne	T0	–0.06	–0.06	0.00	0.06	–0.12
	S1	–0.35	–0.35	0.00	0.30	–0.65
	Δ	–0.29	–0.29	0.00	0.24	–0.53
CH2···Ar	T0	–0.20	–0.20	0.00	0.21	–0.41
	S1	–1.25	–1.25	0.00	1.04	–2.30
	Δ	–1.05	–1.05	0.00	0.83	–1.89
CH2···Kr	T0	–0.31	–0.31	0.00	0.31	–0.62
	S1	–2.19	–2.19	0.00	2.39	–4.58
	Δ	–1.88	–1.88	0.00	2.08	–3.96

Consistent with the trend of Δ previously discussed, water and rare gases interact more strongly with ¹CH₂ than with ³CH₂, thus resulting in a lowering of the singlet–triplet gap in CH₂···X compounds (Δ < 0). The extent of the ΔE_int^ref and ΔE_int contributions to the ¹CH₂···X and ³CH₂···X interactions varies depending on the system. In particular, ΔE_int^ref dominates the CH₂···H₂O interaction, while the CH₂···Rg interaction is dominated by ΔE_int. The ΔE_int^ref and ΔE_int contributions of the ^1,3CH₂···X interactions are decomposed with the LED scheme into physically meaningful terms. The corresponding LED energy terms at the equilibrium geometries are reported in Table 3 and discussed in the next section.

Table 3. LED of the Reference (QRO/aug-cc-pV5Z) and DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/aug-cc-pV5Z Correlation Contributions to Interaction Energies (kcal/mol) for the Studied CH₂ Adducts and the Contribution Δ of Each Term to the Singlet–Triplet Gap.

		reference energy decomposition				correlation energy decomposition
molecule	state	ΔEintref	ΔEel-prepref	Eelstat	Eexch	ΔEintC	EdispC-CCSD	ΔEno-dispC-CCSD	ΔEintC-(T)
CH2···H2O	T0	–0.30	20.71	–15.88	–5.13	–1.28	–0.89	–0.23	–0.16	0.57
	S1	–3.96	29.71	–28.70	–4.96	–1.41	–1.22	0.04	–0.23	0.23
	Δ	–3.66	9.00	–12.82	0.17	–0.13	–0.33	0.27	–0.07	0.09
CH2···He	T0	0.02	0.09	–0.06	–0.03	–0.04	–0.05	0.01	0.00	2.50
	S1	0.19	1.39	–0.78	–0.43	–0.53	–0.44	–0.04	–0.05	1.33
	Δ	0.17	1.30	–0.72	–0.40	–0.49	–0.39	–0.05	–0.05	1.26
CH2···Ne	T0	0.06	0.69	–0.54	–0.13	–0.12	–0.12	0.01	–0.01	2.00
	S1	0.30	2.63	–1.85	–0.52	–0.65	–0.58	0.01	–0.08	1.66
	Δ	0.24	1.94	–1.31	–0.39	–0.53	–0.46	0.00	–0.07	1.59
CH2···Ar	T0	0.21	3.18	–2.36	–0.55	–0.41	–0.39	0.02	–0.04	1.95
	S1	1.04	11.69	–8.00	–2.60	–2.30	–1.65	–0.31	–0.34	1.32
	Δ	0.83	8.51	–5.64	–2.05	–1.89	–1.26	–0.33	–0.30	1.20
CH2···Kr	T0	0.31	1.68	–4.27	–0.88	–0.62	–0.48	–0.09	–0.05	1.55
	S1	2.39	27.78	–22.53	–6.63	–4.58	–2.67	–1.30	–0.61	1.22
	Δ	2.08	26.1	–18.26	–5.75	–3.96	–2.19	–1.21	–0.56	1.16

4.1.3. LED Analysis of the CH₂···H₂O Interaction

For the ³CH₂···H₂O case, the sum of attractive electrostatic E_elstat and exchange E_exch terms of ΔE_int^ref is almost entirely compensated by its repulsive static electronic preparation term ΔE_el-prep (see Table 3). Thus, ΔE_int^ref is practically negligible, demonstrating that dynamic electron correlation is responsible for the stability of the ³CH₂···H₂O adduct. In particular, London dispersion is one of the most important energy components of the interaction, as demonstrated by the large E_disp/ΔE ratio of 0.57.

A different picture emerges in ¹CH₂···H₂O. In this case, the interacting species are closer (see Figure 1) and ΔE_int^ref consists of larger ΔE_el-prep and E_elstat values compared with those of ³CH₂···H₂O. These two contributions largely cancel each other. Hence, the overall ΔE_int^ref is on the order of the remaining attractive exchange interaction.

Even though the correlation contribution to the ^1,3CH₂···H₂O interaction is largely dominated by the London dispersion term E_disp^C-CCSD (see Table 3) and significantly contributes to the intermolecular interaction, its magnitude is almost identical for both spin states. Hence, the decrease in the singlet–triplet gap of CH₂ while interacting with water is driven by the fact that ¹CH₂···H₂O shows a much larger electrostatic interaction than ³CH₂···H₂O.

This effect can be simply rationalized by looking at the schematic representation of the electronic configuration of singlet (Figure 3, top left) and triplet (Figure 3, top right) carbenes,¹⁰⁴ reported in Figure 3. At the bottom of the same figure, their molecular electrostatic potential (MEP)¹⁰⁵ maps projected onto the corresponding one electron densities at the reference level are also reported. The MEP map of the singlet methylene (Figure 3, bottom left) shows a negative electrostatic potential in the region of the lone pair. This favors H-bond interactions. Conversely, the MEP of the triplet carbene is much more isotropic, which leads to weaker H-bonding interactions.

Figure 3.

Valence electron configurations and molecular electrostatic potential maps of ¹CH₂ (left) and ³CH₂ (right) projected onto the corresponding molecular electron densities calculated at the UHF/aug-cc-pV5Z level in the unit of E_h/e. Red region identifies lowest electrostatic potential and thus highest electron density, while blue region identifies the opposite.

It is worth mentioning here that the singles term included in ΔE_no-disp^C-CCSD amounts to −2.4 kcal/mol for the ³CH₂ fragment of all of the adducts studied in this work (see Table S5). In contrast, the adducts containing ¹CH₂ features a negligible singles term (the Brillouin’s theorem is satisfied in this case). In general, the magnitude of the singles term can be used to identify the fragment in which the unpaired electron is localized.

4.1.4. LED Analysis of the CH₂···Rg Interaction

The interaction of CH₂ with rare gases is relatively weak. In both singlet and triplet states (see Tables 2 and 3), the ΔE_int^ref values are positive, meaning that the repulsive electronic preparation energies due to the distortion of electron clouds of both CH₂ and rare gases dominate over the sum of the attractive electrostatic and exchange interactions. Hence, the overall ΔE is dominated by electron correlation and, in particular, by the London dispersion contribution (E_disp/ΔE > 1.5).

It is worth mentioning here that the first explanation of the attraction between two nonpolar molecules was given by F. London.^106,107 An approximated expression for the London dispersion energy between two atoms (X and Y), i.e., E_disp,L can be written

23

where C₆ is the atom pairwise induced dipole–induced dipole interaction coefficient, I_X and I_Y are the first ionization potential of the interacting X and Y molecules, α_X and α_Y are the polarizabilities of X and Y, and r is the distance between X and Y.

It can be assessed how well this simple London equation quantifies the dispersion interaction energy between CH₂ and rare gases by comparing the London dispersion energies obtained from eq 23 with those derived from the LED method. To do that we computed ionization potential and numerical polarizabilities of the isolated CH₂ and rare gas atoms at the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/aug-cc-pV5Z level. The computed values are reasonably close to the available experimental values (see Table 4).^108−114 As an approximation we take r as the distance between the rare gas and the carbon atom (see Figure 1) at the equilibrium geometry of CH₂···Rg adducts.

Table 4. Numerical DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/aug-cc-pV5Z Polarizabilities (α) and the Ionization Potentials (I) Compared with Available Experimental Data.

	state	αcalc (Å3)	αexp. (Å3)108−110	Icalc (eV)	Iexp (eV)111−114
CH2	T0	2.186		10.393	10.386
CH2	S1	2.391		10.599
H2O	S0	1.449	1.456	12.753	12.621
He	S0	0.205	0.205	24.442	24.587
Ne	S0	0.393	0.395	21.572	21.565
Ar	S0	1.642	1.643	15.784	15.760
Kr	S0	2.475	2.486	14.200	14.000

The correlation between the dispersion energies obtained with London formula and the corresponding LED values for the CH₂···Rg systems studied in this work is given in Figure 4. Despite the simplicity of the London equation and the various approximations adopted, the dispersion energy estimates obtained with the two methods show a reasonably good linear correlation, with an R² larger than 0.98 for both the ¹CH₂···Rg and the ³CH₂···Rg series. In all cases, London dispersion increases with the increase of the polarizability of the rare gas atoms.

Figure 4.

Plot of dispersion energies of CH₂ interacting with rare gases: E_disp^C-CCSD of DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/LED/aug-cc-pV5Z vs E_disp,L of London equation.

The ¹CH₂···Rg dispersion energies obtained by the London formula are very similar to the LED values, with variations of 13% in average. On the other hand, the London formula underestimates (−40%) the ³CH₂···Rg dispersion interaction. The incorporation of the higher order terms seems thus necessary for open-shell systems in order to estimate dispersion energies more accurately.

4.2. Ferrous Heme···CO Interaction

4.2.1. Relative Spin State Energies of Heme Species

The calculated singlet–triplet (¹A_1g – ³E_g and ¹A_1g – ³A_2g) and triplet–triplet (³E_g – ³A_2g) energy gaps of the free and CO-bound heme are given in Table 5 at various levels of theory. The corresponding Δ values are also reported in the same table.

Table 5. Calculated Relative Spin State Energies (E_rel) of the Free and CO-Bound Heme Together with the Variation (Δ) of E_rel Relative to the Free Heme at the Reference QRO/CBS, DLPNO-CCSD/TightPNO/CBS, and DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/CBS Levels (in kcal/mol)^a.

	Erel	Δ
	DLPNO-CCSD(T)	DLPNO-CCSD(T)	DLPNO-CCSD	reference (QRO)
3Eg – 3A2ga
PFe	1.97	0.00	0.00	0.00
PFe···CO	–0.57	–2.54	–1.24	6.67
1A1g – 3Egb
PFe	32.13	0.00	0.00	0.00
PFe···CO	–6.50	–38.63	–31.78	9.10
1A1g – 3A2gb
PFe	34.10	0.00	0.00	0.00
PFe···CO	–7.07	–41.17	–33.02	15.77

^aA positive (negative) E_rel implies that the ³A_2g state is more (less) stable than the ³E_g, while the negative (positive) sign of Δ implies the increase (decrease) in the stability of the ³E_g state relative to the ³A_2g state of PFe upon interacting with CO.

^bIn this case, E_rel corresponds to E_S–T. A positive (negative) E_rel implies that the triplet state is more (less) stable than the singlet state, while the positive (negative) sign of Δ implies the increase (decrease) in E_S–T of PFe upon interacting with CO.

Experimental studies on bare iron–porphyrin (see ref (115) for a review) agree on its ground-state multiplicity (triplet) but differ in the interpretation of the ground-state electronic configuration. In particular, Mössbauer data of iron(II)–tetraphenylporphyrln (FeTPP) were interpreted as an indication of either a ³E_g¹¹⁶ or a ³A_2g^70,117 ground state. Ligand field calculations that are consistent with the magnetic susceptibility measurements predict an ³A_2g ground state.¹¹⁸ Consistently, previous hybrid density functional, CASPT2, and several CI studies find the ³A_2g state more stable than the ³E_g state by 2 kcal/mol or less.^89,115 Consistently, the present B3LYP-D3/def2-TZVP and DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/CBS calculations find the ³A_2g state of heme to be only 0.96 and 1.97 kcal/mol more stable than the ³E_g state, respectively (see Table 5).

The d_z² orbital of Fe(II), which is doubly occupied in the ³A_2g state, is destabilized upon the binding of an axial ligand to the ferrous heme.^89,119 The amount of this destabilization and thus spin-state energetics depends strongly on the nature of the axial ligand. For example, upon imidazole binding, the d_z² orbital raises in energy and becomes singly occupied. Thus, the ground state changes from triplet to quintet, and the lowest triplet changes from ³A_2g to ³E_g.⁸⁹ As CO is a strong field ligand, the destabilization of the d_z² orbital upon its binding to heme is even larger. In fact, PFe–CO systems having side chains feature a singlet ground state with a formally empty d_z² orbital.⁶⁷ Consequently, the identity of the most stable triplet state of CO-bound heme complexes is rarely studied. The present calculations find the ³E_g state of the CO-bound heme to be 2.16 and 0.57 kcal/mol more stable than ³A_2g at the B3LYP-D3/def2-TZVP and DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/CBS levels, respectively. Hence, CO binding probably reverses the energetic order of the ³E_g and ³A_2g states, consistent with the imidazole-bound heme case. These changes can be rationalized in terms of the destabilization of the d_z² orbital of Fe(II).

Unfortunately, no direct experimental measure of E_S–T gaps exists for these complexes. At the B3LYP-D3/def2-TZVP and DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/CBS levels, the E_S–T gap of the free heme is 33.32 and 32.13 kcal/mol relative to ³E_g, while it is 34.88 and 34.10 kcal/mol relative to ³A_2g (see Table 5). As detailed in Table S7, these figures are only weakly affected by the technical parameters of the calculations and are consistent with those obtained previously at the CASPT2 level (∼35 kcal/mol).⁸⁹

As seen in Table 5, upon interacting with CO, at the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/CBS level, the E_S–T gap relative to the ³E_g and ³A_2g states reduces to −6.50 and −7.07 kcal/mol (Δ = −38.63 and −41.17 kcal/mol), respectively. Hence, CO binding significantly stabilizes the ¹A_1g state (which becomes the ground state), consistent with the above-mentioned experimental findings on related systems. An in-depth discussion of the physical mechanism behind this differential spin state stabilization is reported in the following sections.

4.2.2. Binding Energy of the Heme Adducts

The calculated binding energies of PFe(¹A_1g)···CO, PFe(³E_g)···CO, and PFe(³A_2g)···CO adducts at the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/CBS level are reported in Table 6. In the same table, their decomposition into geometric preparation and interaction energy is also given. The latter is further decomposed into reference and correlation energy contributions.

Table 6. Calculated Equilibrium ΔE Binding Energies (kcal/mol) of the CO-Bound Heme Adducts and Their Decomposition into the Reference (QRO/CBS) and DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/CBS Correlation Energies Together with the Contribution Δ of Each Term to the Singlet–Triplet Energy Gap.

		ΔE terms		ΔEint terms
	ΔE	ΔEint	ΔEgeo-prep	ΔEintref	ΔEintC
3Eg	–4.21	–5.94	1.74	7.31	–13.25
3A2g	–1.67	–1.77	0.10	1.06	–2.84
1A1g	–42.84	–46.28	3.44	12.28	–58.55
Δ1A1g–3Eg	–38.63	–40.34	1.70	4.97	–45.30
Δ1A1g–3A2g	–41.17	–44.51	3.34	11.22	–55.71

The PFe(¹A_1g)···CO interaction is much stronger than the PFe(³A_2g/³E_g)···CO ones, as apparent from their large negative Δ values of −41.17/–38.63 kcal/mol (see Table 6). This leads to the observed reduction of the singlet–triplet gap of heme derivatives shown in Table 5. However, at the reference level, the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO interaction is strongly repulsive (ΔE_int^ref > 0). Thus, electron correlation counteracts this repulsion in the singlet state and makes the overall interaction significantly attractive.

On the technical side, PFe(³E_g/³A_2g)···CO binding energies do not depend significantly on the computational settings used in the DLPNO-CCSD(T) calculations. In contrast, the binding energy of the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO adduct is more sensitive to the DLPNO thresholds and basis sets (see Table S8) adopted. For example, the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO binding energy is −42.84 kcal/mol with TightPNO/CBS and −36.90 kcal/mol with NormalPNO/def2-TZVP settings. Hence, NormalPNO/def2-TZVP settings should only be used if one is interested in mechanistic tendencies rather than in accurate quantitative estimates of binding energies of heme species.

The PFe(¹A_1g)···CO binding energy calculated at the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/CBS (−42.84 kcal/mol), B3LYP-D3/def2-TZVP (−46.95 kcal/mol), and CASPT2⁸⁹ (−51.3 kcal/mol) levels varies significantly. Relative to the ground PFe(³A_2g) state, these estimates are −8.74, −12.67, and −16.4 kcal/mol, respectively. As already mentioned, experimental data are not available for this system. The only experimentally determined binding energy on a related system was obtained for a heme derivative in which four tetrakis(4-sulfonatophenyl) anions (tpps) are bound to the four meso carbons of porphyrin connecting pyrrole moieties. In this case, the experimental gas-phase binding energy of the PFe(¹A_1g)–CO adduct was measured to be −15.85 kcal/mol relative to the ground state of PFe.¹²⁰ It is worth stressing here that the four tpps anions (i.e., a total charge of −4) bend the porphyrin moiety significantly and thus are expected to alter the electronic structure of the system as well. In fact, the binding energy of this system is predicted to be 2.05 kcal/mol larger in absolute value than that of side chain free PFe(¹A_1g)···CO at the B3LYP-D3/def2-TZVP level of theory.

4.2.3. LED Analysis of the Interaction between Heme and CO

LED terms of the PFe(¹A_1g/³E_g/³A_2g)···CO interactions are given in Table 7 at the DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/CBS level. For an in-depth analysis of these interactions, we also performed DLPNO-CCSD(T)/NormalPNO/def2-TZVP single-point energy calculations on a series of structures obtained from constrained B3LYP-D3 geometry optimizations in which the Fe–C distance (r_Fe···_C) was varied from ∼1.7 to ∼4.5 Å with an increment of 0.2 Å. The resulting energy profiles are reported in Figure 5 together with their decomposition into the various LED terms.

Table 7. LED of the Reference (QRO/CBS) and DLPNO-CCSD(T)/TightPNO/CBS Correlation Interaction Energies (kcal/mol) for the CO-Bound Heme Adducts and the Contribution Δ of Each Term to the Singlet–Triplet Gap.

	reference energy decomposition				correlation energy decomposition
	ΔEintref	ΔEel-prepref	Eelstat	Eexch	ΔEintC	EdispC-CCSD	ΔEno-dispC- CCSD	ΔEintC-(T)
3Eg	7.31	153.39	–121.54	–24.54	–13.25	–7.53	–4.11	–1.61	1.79
3A2g	1.06	12.94	–9.67	–2.21	–2.84	–2.61	0.07	–0.29	1.56
1A1g	12.28	714.55	–601.76	–100.51	–58.55	–22.56	–27.88	–8.11	0.53
Δ1A1g–3Eg	4.97	561.16	–480.22	–75.97	–46.30	–15.03	–23.77	–6.50	0.39
Δ1A1g–3A2g	11.22	701.61	–592.09	–98.3	–55.71	–19.95	–27.95	–7.82	0.48

Figure 5.

Distance dependence of DLPNO-CCSD(T)/NormalPNO/LED/def2-TZVP terms of the interaction of CO with the ³E_g triplet (left), ³A_2g triplet (middle), and ¹A_1g singlet (right) states of PFe at the B3LYP-D3/def2-TZVP geometries. Relaxed PES scans were performed at the B3LYP-D3/def2-TZVP level. Vertical dotted lines correspond to the B3LYP-D3 minima. Energy of the dissociated fragments is used as reference in all cases.

As mentioned above, PFe(³A_2g) features a doubly occupied d_z² orbital that points toward the CO lone pair located on the carbon atom, while in PFe(³E_g) the d_z² orbital is singly occupied. For this reason, PFe(³A_2g)···CO features a steeper repulsive wall than PFe(³E_g)···CO. This leads to a longer Fe–C bond distance in PFe(³A_2g)···CO (3.27 Å) than in PFe(³E_g)···CO (2.29 Å). Accordingly, the PFe(³A_2g)···CO interaction (−1.67 kcal/mol) is weaker than the PFe(³E_g)···CO one (−4.21 kcal/mol), and all of the LED terms of PFe(³A_2g)···CO are smaller than those of PFe(³E_g)···CO at the B3LYP-D3 equilibrium geometry (see Tables 6 and 7, and Tables S9–S11).

For both triplet states, the interaction between PFe(³E_g/³A_2g) and CO is repulsive at the QRO level (top panels of Figure 5 and Table 7) in the short range. Consistent with this picture, the LED decomposition of the reference PFe(³E_g/³A_2g)···CO interaction energies (central panels of Figure 5 and Table 7) shows that the repulsive electronic preparation energies due to the distortion of the electron clouds of PFe(³E_g/³A_2g) and CO are always larger or approximately equal in magnitude than the sum of the attractive electrostatic and exchange interaction energies.

Hence, dynamic electron correlation is essential to the stability of PFe(³E_g/³A_2g)···CO adducts. Note that the B3LYP-D3 equilibrium geometries for the PFe(³E_g/³A_2g)···CO adducts feature shorter intermolecular distances (of about 0.6/0.2 Å) than the DLPNO-CCSD(T) minima. However, this has only a small impact on the DLPNO-CCSD(T) binding energy due to the flatness of the PES.

The decomposition of the correlation binding energy (see bottom panels of Figure 5 and Table 7) shows that the dispersion energy dominates the PFe(³E_g/³A_2g)···CO interaction. The corresponding E_disp^C-CCSD value amounts to −7.53/–2.61 kcal/mol at the B3LYP-D3 equilibrium geometry. In fact, both PFe(³E_g)···CO and PFe(³A_2g)···CO adducts have a E_disp/ΔE ratio larger than 1.5 (see Tables 7 and S11) and can be both described as a van der Waals adduct mainly stabilized by London dispersion forces.

By contrast, the nature of the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO interaction is completely different. The energy profile computed at the QRO level (top right panel of Figure 5) shows a shallow minimum at about 2.5 Å. The corresponding DLPNO-CCSD(T) energy profile shows a very deep minimum (NormalPNO/def2-TZVP, – 36.90 kcal/mol; TightPNO/CBS, – 42.84 kcal/mol) at ∼1.7 Å, where the QRO interaction energy is repulsive. Thus, electron correlation affects significantly both the stability and the geometry of the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO adduct.

The LED decomposition of the reference PFe(¹A_1g)···CO interaction energy (central right panel of Figure 5) shows that the electrostatic interaction is larger than the corresponding electronic preparation at the QRO minimum. Importantly, the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO interaction at the QRO level is associated with larger LED components for both repulsive and attractive terms than the PFe(³E_g/³A_2g)···CO interaction at all Fe–C distances. Hence, the electronic clouds of the interacting fragments are distorted more significantly and interact stronger in PFe(¹A_1g)···CO than in PFe(³E_g/³A_2g)···CO, indicating that a significant polarization of the fragments occurs upon CO binding already at the QRO level.

The analysis of the LED terms of the correlation energy reported in the bottom right panel of Figure 5 is illuminating. Dispersive, nondispersive, and triples contribution are all significant in the short range. The corresponding TightPNO/CBS values at the B3LYP-D3 equilibrium geometry are −22.56, −27.88, and −8.11 kcal/mol for E_disp^C-CCSD, ΔE_no-disp, and ΔE_int^C-(T), respectively. Hence, these three correlation terms are responsible for the significant strength of the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO interaction, which in turn determines the reduction observed in the singlet–triplet gap of PFe upon CO binding. In particular, the large magnitude of the nondispersive component suggests that electron correlation significantly affects the polarization of the interacting fragments.⁷⁶

To analyze this aspect in more detail, we obtained 3D contour plots of the one electron density difference function Δρ(x,y,z) describing the electron density rearrangement taking place upon CO binding for each spin state. The Δρ(x,y,z) function is computed as the difference between the electron density of the PFe–CO adduct (for a given spin state) and the sum of the electron densities of PFe (at the same spin state) and CO frozen at their in-adduct geometries. In order to investigate electron correlation effects to the PFe···CO binding, Δρ was divided into a reference (Δρ^QRO) and an unrelaxed DLPNO-CCSD correlation (Δρ^C) contribution calculated via the solution of Λ equations.^121,122 The corresponding contour plots are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6.

For (a) ³E_g, (b) ³A_2g, and (c) ¹A_1g states, the contour plots of the reference QRO (up) and the DLPNO-CCSD/NormalPNO/def2-TZVP correlation (bottom) contributions to the electron density rearrangements taking place upon CO binding. Plots are all given with the density isosurface contour value of ±0.002 e/Bohr³. Blue and red surfaces identify regions of electron density accumulation and depletion, respectively.

Consistent with the fact that the LED describes the PFe(³E_g/³A_2g)^···CO adducts as van der Waals complexes held together by London dispersion, the corresponding Δρ^QRO and Δρ^C contour plots show that only a small charge rearrangement takes place upon bond formation in the triplet states. In contrast, the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO interaction is accompanied by a significant charge accumulation in the region of the bond, consistent with the fact that the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO interaction is associated with larger electrostatic, exchange, and electronic preparation energy components. This is evident from the contour plots of the corresponding Δρ^QRO and Δρ^C functions and consistent with the fact that the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO interaction is associated with a large nondispersive correlation term.

The contour plots just discussed are consistent with the variations in d-orbital populations occurring upon CO binding (Δq) reported in Table 8. The Δq values are negligible for all d orbitals in PFe(³E_g/³A_2g)–CO adducts, while they are significant in the PFe(¹A_1g)–CO adduct. In particular, the population of the formally empty d_z² orbital of the singlet state increases significantly upon CO binding. At the same time, the population of the formally doubly occupied d_xz and d_yz orbitals decreases. On the basis of these findings, it is clear that the Fe(II)···CO interaction in the singlet state can be understood in terms of the well-known Deward–Chatt–Duncanson (DCD) bonding model, which was originally introduced to discuss the binding of olefins to transition metals.¹²³

Table 8. UHF/def2-TZVP and DLPNO-CCSD/NormalPNO/def2-TZVP Mulliken d-Orbital Populations (q in Units of e) for the ³E_g, ³A_2g, and ¹A_1g States of PFe and PFe···CO Together with Their Variations Upon CO Binding (Δq).

	UHF			DLPNO-CCSD
	qPFe	qPFe···CO	Δq	qPFe	qPFe···CO	Δq
3Eg
dz2	1.15	1.15	0.00	1.13	1.14	0.01
dxz	1.02	1.02	0.00	1.03	1.03	0.00
dyz	2.00	2.00	0.00	1.98	1.98	0.00
dx2–iy2	1.89	1.87	–0.02	1.91	1.87	–0.04
dxy	0.36	0.36	0.00	0.48	0.48	0.00
3A2g
dz2	1.96	1.97	0.01	1.93	1.94	0.01
dxz	1.02	1.02	0.00	1.03	1.02	–0.01
dyz	1.02	1.02	0.00	1.03	1.02	–0.01
dx2–y2	2.00	2.00	0.00	1.99	1.99	0.00
dxy	0.36	0.36	0.00	0.49	0.49	0.00
1A1g
dz2	0.07	0.22	0.15	0.11	0.40	0.29
dxz	2.01	1.93	–0.08	1.99	1.84	–0.15
dyz	2.01	1.93	–0.08	1.99	1.84	–0.15
dx2–y2	2.00	2.02	0.02	1.99	2.01	0.02
dxy	0.32	0.35	0.03	0.45	0.50	0.05

A significant σ-donation of charge takes place from the lone pair located on the CO ligand to the empty d_z² orbital located on the Fe(II) of the singlet adduct, while at the same time π-backdonation occurs from the d_xz and d_yz orbitals to the empty π* orbitals of CO, consistent with natural bond orbital (NBO)¹²⁴ results (see Scheme S1) and the elongation of the C–O bond length¹²⁵ in the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO adduct (1.141 Å) with respect to that of free CO (1.125 Å, which is the same as in the PFe(³E_g/³A_2g)···CO complexes). The importance of π-backdonation has been already pointed out on related compounds based on vibrational spectroscopy measurements and DFT computations.^126−128 A schematic representation of the binding modes just discussed, along with the associated amount of the electron transfer (Δq) based on the Mulliken population analysis, is reported in Scheme 2. Note that electron correlation significantly affects the magnitude of the DCD components, consistent with our previous findings on agostic complexes.⁴¹

Scheme 2. Schematic Diagram of the σ-Donation and π-Backdonation Taking Place upon CO Binding to the (a) ³E_g, (b) ³A_2g, and (c) ¹A_1g States of PFe.

The corresponding amount of electron transfer (Δq) based on Mulliken population analysis at the DLPNO-CCSD/NormalPNO/def2-TZVP and HF (in parentheses) levels is also reported.

5. Conclusions

The LED analysis in the DLPNO-CCSD(T) framework decomposes the interaction energy of an arbitrary number of fragments of a closed-shell molecular adduct into repulsive electronic preparation and interfragment electrostatic, exchange, and London dispersion contributions. In this study, we presented an extension of the LED scheme to open-shell molecular systems that was implemented in the ORCA program package. As a first illustrative case study this scheme was applied to investigate the mechanism that governs the change in the singlet–triplet energy gap of CH₂ upon interaction with water and rare gases (Rg) and of heme (PFe) upon interaction with CO.

The CH₂···X interaction (X = H₂O, He, Ne, Ar, and Kr) was found to be attractive for both the triplet ³CH₂ and the singlet ¹CH₂ methylene. The interaction is stronger with ¹CH₂ than with ³CH₂, resulting in a lowering of the singlet–triplet energy gap (E_S–T). The LED analysis of the CH₂···H₂O interaction showed that electrostatics dominates the interaction for both spin states of methylene. The lowering of E_S–T can thus be understood in terms of the larger electrostatic interaction in ¹CH₂···H₂O than that in ³CH₂···H₂O, consistent with chemical intuition. In contrast, the interaction of methylene with rare gases (Rg) is dominated by London dispersion forces for both spin states. In this case, the lowering of E_S–T arises from the stronger London dispersion in ¹CH₂···Rg than that in ³CH₂···Rg. This is consistent with the larger polarizability of ¹CH₂ than that of ³CH₂.

As regards heme systems, it was found that the PFe···CO interaction is dominated by the correlation contribution for all the spin states of PFe investigated in this work (¹A_1g, ³E_g, and ³A_2g). Although PFe is a triplet in its ground state, the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO interaction is significantly stronger than the interaction of PFe in the two lowest-lying triplets (³E_g and ³A_2g) with CO, leading to a lowering of E_S–T in the adduct. In fact, the LED analysis demonstrated that PFe(³E_g)···CO and the PFe(³A_2g)···CO adducts can be described as van der Waals complexes stabilized by weak dispersion forces. In contrast, the PFe(¹A_1g)···CO bond can be described as a strong donor/acceptor interaction in which electron density is transferred from the carbon lone pair into the formally empty d_z² orbital on the central iron atom (Fe(II) ← CO σ-donation) and from the filled d_xz and d_yz orbitals into the π* antibonding orbitals on the CO molecule (Fe(II) → CO π-backdonation).

It should be stressed here again that the results just discussed refer to the minimal porphyrin model in the gas phase. The presence of heme side chains, solvent, or protein matrices may drastically change the nature of the Fe···CO interaction, especially for triplet heme adducts. However, the tools presented in this work appear to be particularly powerful for the in-depth understanding of intermolecular interactions in adducts with complicated electronic structures, such as heme species.

Supporting Information Available

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b01145.

• Cartesian coordinates and key geometrical parameters of the optimized structures; dependence of the energetics on the computational settings and population analysis; distance dependence of LED terms (PDF)

The authors declare no competing financial interest.