Skip to main content
. 2021 Dec 27;61(2):830–846. doi: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.1c02412

Table 3. XAS Main Lines (in eV) As Well As Differences between L2,3- and M4,5-Edges Corresponding to SO Splitting, As Obtained from Experiments and 4c-DR-TDDFT (VDZ/aVDZ) Calculations Using the PBE0-XHF Functional, where X Is the Determined Optimal Admixture of HFX.

      PBE0-XHF
    exp.a X energy error
VOCl3 L3 516.9 50 515.2 –1.7
  L2 523.8 50 522.0 –1.8
  L2–L3 6.9   6.8 –0.1
CrO2Cl2 L3 579.9 50 580.0 0.1
  L2 588.5 50 588.2 –0.3
  L2–L3 8.6   8.2 –0.4
MoS42– L3 2521.7 60 2523.1 1.4
  L2 2626.0b 60 2627.6 1.6
  L2–L3 104.3   104.5 0.2
  M5 228.7 40 228.9 0.2
  M4 231.7 40 232.2 0.5
  M4–M5 3.0   3.3 0.3
PdCl62– L3 3177.8 60 3173.4 –4.4
  L2 3334.7 60 3332.9 –1.8
  L2–L3 156.9   159.5 2.6
WCl6 L3 10212.2 60 10207.3 –4.9
  L2 11547.0 60 11561.7 14.7
  L2–L3 1334.8   1354.4 19.6
ReO4 L3 10542.0 60 10541.0 –1.0
  L2 60c 11982.1
  L2–L3   1441.1
UO2(NO3)2 M5 60c 3549.9
  M4 3727.0 60 3728.0 1.0
  M4–M5   178.1
a

Experimental references: VOCl3, ref (61); CrO2Cl2, ref (61); MoS42–, ref (120); PdCl62–, ref (112); WCl6, ref (121); ReO4, ref (111); UO2(NO3)2, ref (122).

b

Value taken from Figure 3 in ref (120), rather than Table 1 ibid. due to a misprint.

c

Since an experimental reference was not available, we selected 60% HFX as the most likely optimal value on the basis of other spectra in the calibration.