An Ab Initio Pseudopotential Study of MnPo (M = Cu, Ag, Au; n = 1, 2) Systems
Qi-Mu Surong A B , Yongfang Zhao A C , Xiaogong Jing A , Fengli Liu A , Xinying Li A and Wenhui Su AA Center for Condensed Matter Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150001, China.
B School of Basic Courses, Beijing Information Science and Technology University, Beijing, 100085, China.
C Corresponding author. Email: nmtlqmd@sina.com
Australian Journal of Chemistry 58(11) 792-798 https://doi.org/10.1071/CH05133
Submitted: 1 June 2005 Accepted: 15 September 2005 Published: 9 December 2005
Abstract
The small coinage-metal polonium compounds MPo and M2Po, (M = Cu, Ag, Au) are studied at Hartree–Fock (HF), second-order Møller–Plesset perturbation theory (MP2), and coupled cluster method CCSD(T) levels using relativistic and non-relativistic pseudopotentials. The calculated geometries indicate that the M2Po (M = Cu, Ag, Au) systems have bent structures of ~64° angles. Electron correlation corrections to the bond length M–Po are extremely small, but to the bond angle M–Po–M are significant; in general, it was reduced from 86° to 64°. Relativistic effects on bond angle are small, but on bond length are distinct. Both electron correlation effects and relativistic effects are essential to determine the geometry and relative stability of the systems. It can be predicted that Au2Po is relatively stable compared with Ag2Po.
Acknowledgements
The calculations with the Gaussian 98 program were performed on computers of the National Laboratory of Theoretical and Computational Chemistry, Jilin University, China. The project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 210274015) and the Science Foundation of Harbin Institute of Technology, China.
[1]
R. A. Scott,
Structure (London) 1995, 3, 981.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[39]