1 / 34

A polarizable QM/MM model for the global (H 2 O) N – potential surface

A polarizable QM/MM model for the global (H 2 O) N – potential surface. John M. Herbert Department of Chemistry Ohio State University. IMA Workshop “Chemical Dynamics: Challenges & Approaches” Minneapolis, MN January 12, 2009. $$. B.B.G. 2006. CAREER. Acknowledgements.

judithdale
Download Presentation

A polarizable QM/MM model for the global (H 2 O) N – potential surface

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A polarizable QM/MM model for the global (H2O)N– potential surface John M. Herbert Department of Chemistry Ohio State University IMA Workshop “Chemical Dynamics: Challenges & Approaches” Minneapolis, MN January 12, 2009

  2. $$ B.B.G. 2006 CAREER Acknowledgements Group members: Dr. Mary Rohrdanz Dr. Chris Williams Leif Jacobson Adrian Lange Ryan Richard Katie Martins Mark Hilkert Dr. Chris Williams Leif Jacobson

  3. n 100 30 15 200 50 20 11 6 2 0.0 ? -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 Neumark -2.5 -3.0 – VDE / eV = –3.30 + 5.73 n–1/3 -3.5 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 (H2O)n– vertical electron binding energies (VEBEs) Isomer I Isomer I VDE / eV – VDE (eV) VEBE / eV —VEBE / eV Experiments Johnson n n I Experiment: Abrupt changes atn = 11and n = 25 followed by smooth (?) extrapolation Johnson: CPL 297, 90 (1998) JCP 110, 6268 (1999) Coe/Bowen: JCP 92, 3980 (1990) Neumark: Science 307, 93 (2005) n-1/3 n -1/3

  4. n 100 30 15 200 50 20 11 6 2 0.0 ? III -0.5 -1.0 II -1.5 -2.0 Theory (1980s): Surface to internal transition occurs between n = 32 and n = 64 Neumark -2.5 -3.0 -3.5 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Simulations: Barnett, Landman, Jorter JCP 88, 4429 (1988) CPL 145, 382 (1988) (H2O)n– vertical electron binding energies (VEBEs) – VDE (eV) —VEBE / eV Experiments Johnson I Simulation: Internal Surface n-1/3 n -1/3

  5. expt. Turi & Borgis, JCP 117, 6186 (2002) Interior (cavity) states are stable only for T ≤ 100 K or n ≥ 200 J.V. Coe et al. Int. Rev. Phys. Chem. 27, 27 (2008) Theory (21st century version) simulated absorption spectra for (H2O)N– Turi & Rossky, Science 309, 914 (2005)

  6. V(anion) V(neut) VEBE E(neut) E(anion) Global minima Importance of the neutralwater potential for water cluster anions

  7. (H2O)20– isomers VEBE = 0.42 eV E(anion) = 0.00 eV E(neut) = 0.45 eV V(anion) V(neut) VEBE = 0.39 eV E(anion) = 0.01 eV E(neut) = 0.43 eV VEBE E(neut) E(anion) VEBE = 0.72 eV E(anion) = 0.03 eV E(neut) = 0.78 eV Global minima

  8. e– correlation is more important for cavity states correlation strength vs. e– binding motif VEBE (eV) ∆ = Ecorr(anion) - Ecorr(neutral) (eV) C.F. Williams & JMH, J. Phys. Chem. A112, 6171 (2008)

  9. e– correlation is more important for cavity states correlation strength vs. e– binding motif surface states VEBE (eV) ∆ = Ecorr(anion) - Ecorr(neutral) (eV) C.F. Williams & JMH, J. Phys. Chem. A112, 6171 (2008)

  10. e– correlation is more important for cavity states correlation strength vs. e– binding motif cavity states VEBE (eV) ∆ = Ecorr(anion) - Ecorr(neutral) (eV) C.F. Williams & JMH, J. Phys. Chem. A112, 6171 (2008)

  11. Motivation for the new model • The electron–water interaction potential has been analyzed carefully, but almost always used in conjunction with simple, non-polarizable water models (e.g., Simple Point Charge model, SPC). • L. Turi & D. Borgis, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 7805 (2001); 117, 6186 (2002) • A QM treatment of electron–water dispersion via QM Drude oscillators provides ab initio quality VEBEs, but requires expensive many-body QM • F. Wang, T. Sommerfeld, K. Jordan, e.g.: J. Chem. Phys. 116, 6973 (2002) J. Phys. Chem. A 109, 11531 (2005) • How far can we get with one-electron QM, using a polarizable water model that performs well for neutral water clusters? • AMOEBA water model: P. Ren & J. Ponder, J. Phys. Chem. B 107, 5933 (2003)

  12. (H2O)– wavefn. O H H nodeless pseudo-wavefn. Electron–water pseudopotential 1) Construct a repulsive effective core potential representing the H2O molecular orbitals:

  13. (H2O)– wavefn. O H H nodeless pseudo-wavefn. Electron–water pseudopotential 1) Construct a repulsive effective core potential representing the H2O molecular orbitals: 2) Use a density functional form for exchange attraction, e.g., the local density (electron gas) approximation: 3) In practice these two functionals are fit simultaneously

  14. AMOEBA electrostatics Define multipole polytensors and interaction polytensors where i and j index MM atomic sites and Then the double Taylor series that defines the multipole expansion of the Coulomb interaction can be expressed as

  15. Polarization * In AMOEBA, polarization is represented via a linear-response dipole at each MM site: The total electrostatic interaction, including polarization, is where *P. Ren & J.W. Ponder, J. Phys. Chem. B 127, 5933 (2003)

  16. Polarization work The electric field at MM site i is Some work is required to polarize the dipole in the presence of the field: So the total electrostatic interaction is really

  17. Electron–multipole interactions To avoid a “polarization catastrophe” at short range, we employ a damped Coulomb interaction:

  18. Recovering a pairwise polarization model In general within our model we have: Imagine instead that each H2O has a single, isotropic polarizable dipole whose value is induced solely by qelec: Then the electron–water polarization interaction is In practice we use an attenuated Coulomb potential, the effect of which can be mimicked by an offset in the electron–water distance: This is a standard ad hoc polarization potential that has been used in may previous simulations.

  19. Fourier Grid Simulations • Simultaneous solution of where i = 1, ..., NMM. cI= vector of grid amplitudes for the wave function of the Ith electronic state H depends on the induced dipoles. • Solution of the linear-response dipole equation is done via iterative matrix • operations. Dynamical propagation of the dipoles (i.e., an extended- • Lagrangian approach) is another possibility. • Solution of the Schrödinger equation is accomplished via Fourier grid • method using a modified Davidson algorithm (periodically re-polarize the • subspace vectors) • The method is fully variational provided that all polarization is done self-consistently

  20. A few comments about guns

  21. 34 clusters from N=2 to N=19 75 clusters from N=20 to N=35 Model VEBE / eV Ab initio VEBE / eV Vertical e– binding energies for (H2O)N– Exchange/repulsion fit to (H2O)2– VEBE Non-polarizable model: Turi & Borgis, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 6186 (2002)

  22. 34 clusters from N=2 to N=19 75 clusters from N=20 to N=35 Model VEBE / eV Ab initio VEBE / eV Vertical e– binding energies for (H2O)N– Exchange/repulsion fit to entire database of VEBEs Non-polarizable model: Turi & Borgis, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 6186 (2002)

  23. Relative isomer energies

  24. Relative isomer energies

  25. Relative isomer energies

  26. Analysis electron–water polarization (kcal/mol)

  27. e– correlation is more important for cavity states correlation strength vs. e– binding motif surface states, n = 2–24 DFT geometries VEBE (eV) ∆ = Ecorr(anion) - Ecorr(neutral) (eV) C.F. Williams & JMH, J. Phys. Chem. A112, 6171 (2008)

  28. e– correlation is more important for cavity states correlation strength vs. e– binding motif surface states, n = 2–24 DFT geometries VEBE (eV) ∆ = Ecorr(anion) - Ecorr(neutral) (eV) C.F. Williams & JMH, J. Phys. Chem. A112, 6171 (2008)

  29. surface states, n = 18–22 model Hamiltonian geometries e– correlation is more important for cavity states correlation strength vs. e– binding motif VEBE (eV) ∆ = Ecorr(anion) - Ecorr(neutral) (eV) C.F. Williams & JMH, J. Phys. Chem. A112, 6171 (2008)

  30. cavity states, n = 28–34 model Hamiltonian geometries e– correlation is more important for cavity states correlation strength vs. e– binding motif VEBE (eV) ∆ = Ecorr(anion) - Ecorr(neutral) (eV) C.F. Williams & JMH, J. Phys. Chem. A112, 6171 (2008)

  31. e– correlation is more important for cavity states correlation strength vs. e– binding motif cavity states, n = 14, 24 DFT geometries VEBE (eV) ∆ = Ecorr(anion) - Ecorr(neutral) (eV) C.F. Williams & JMH, J. Phys. Chem. A112, 6171 (2008)

  32. 0.6 0.5 cavity state, VEBE = 0.58 eV surface state, VEBE = 0.87 eV mainly just a bunch of weak interactions 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 fraction of total pairs many stronger correlations 1 1 3 3 5 5 7 7 9 9 11 11 13 13 15 15 17 17 19 19 Quantifying electron–water dispersion SOMO pair correlation energy / meV C.F. Williams & JMH, J. Phys. Chem. A112, 6171 (2008)

  33. water– water e––water electrostatics fit to exchange/ repulsion Putting it all together:

More Related