# Blog Archives

## Percentage of Molecular Orbital Composition – G09,G16

Canonical Molecular Orbitals are–by construction–delocalized over the various atoms making up a molecule. In some contexts it is important to know how much of any given orbital is made up by a particular atom or group of atoms, and while you could calculate it by hand given the coefficients of each MO in terms of every AO (or basis set function) centered on each atom there is a straightforward way to do it in Gaussian.

If we’re talking about ‘dividing’ a molecular orbital into atomic components, we’re most definitely talking about population analysis calculations, so we’ll resort to the ** pop** keyword and the

**option in the standard syntax:**

`orbitals`#p M052x/cc-pVDZ pop=orbitals

This will produce the following output right after the Mulliken population analysis section:

Atomic contributions to Alpha molecular orbitals: Alpha occ 140 OE=-0.314 is Pt1-d=0.23 C38-p=0.16 C31-p=0.16 C36-p=0.16 C33-p=0.15 Alpha occ 141 OE=-0.313 is Pt1-d=0.41 Alpha occ 142 OE=-0.308 is Cl2-p=0.25 Alpha occ 143 OE=-0.302 is Cl2-p=0.72 Pt1-d=0.18 Alpha occ 144 OE=-0.299 is Cl2-p=0.11 Alpha occ 145 OE=-0.298 is C65-p=0.11 C58-p=0.11 C35-p=0.11 C30-p=0.11 Alpha occ 146 OE=-0.293 is C58-p=0.10 Alpha occ 147 OE=-0.291 is C22-p=0.09 Alpha occ 148 OE=-0.273 is Pt1-d=0.18 C11-p=0.12 C7-p=0.11 Alpha occ 149 OE=-0.273 is Pt1-d=0.18 Alpha vir 150 OE=-0.042 is C9-p=0.18 C13-p=0.18 Alpha vir 151 OE=-0.028 is C7-p=0.25 C16-p=0.11 C44-p=0.11 Alpha vir 152 OE=0.017 is Pt1-p=0.10 Alpha vir 153 OE=0.021 is C36-p=0.15 C31-p=0.14 C63-p=0.12 C59-p=0.12 C38-p=0.11 C33-p=0.11 Alpha vir 154 OE=0.023 is C36-p=0.13 C31-p=0.13 C63-p=0.11 C59-p=0.11 Alpha vir 155 OE=0.027 is C65-p=0.11 C58-p=0.10 Alpha vir 156 OE=0.029 is C35-p=0.14 C30-p=0.14 C65-p=0.12 C58-p=0.11 Alpha vir 157 OE=0.032 is C52-p=0.09 Alpha vir 158 OE=0.040 is C50-p=0.14 C22-p=0.13 C45-p=0.12 C17-p=0.11 Alpha vir 159 OE=0.044 is C20-p=0.15 C48-p=0.14 C26-p=0.12 C54-p=0.11

Alpha and Beta densities are listed separately only in unrestricted calculations, otherwise only the first is printed. Each orbital is listed sequentially (occ = occupied; vir = virtual) with their energy value (OE = orbital energy) in atomic units following and then the fraction with which each atom contributes to each MO.

By default only the ten highest occupied orbitals and ten lowest virtual orbitals will be assessed, but the number of MOs to be analyzed can be modified with ** orbitals=N**, if you want to have all orbitals analyzed then use the option

**instead of just**

`AllOrbitals``. Also, the threshold used for printing the composition is set to 10% but it can be modified with the option`

**orbitals**`, for the same compound as before here’s the output lines for HOMO and LUMO (MOs 149, 150) with ThreshOrbitals set to N=1, i.e. 1% as occupation threshold (`

**ThreshOrbitals=N**`):`

**ThreshOrbitals=1**Alpha occ 149 OE=-0.273 is Pt1-d=0.18 N4-p=0.08 N6-p=0.08 C20-p=0.06 C13-p=0.06 C48-p=0.06 C9-p=0.06 C24-p=0.05 C52-p=0.05 C16-p=0.04 C44-p=0.04 C8-p=0.03 C15-p=0.03 C17-p=0.03 C45-p=0.02 C46-p=0.02 C18-p=0.02 C26-p=0.02 C54-p=0.02 N5-p=0.01 N3-p=0.01 Alpha vir 150 OE=-0.042 is C9-p=0.18 C13-p=0.18 C44-p=0.08 C16-p=0.08 C15-p=0.06 C8-p=0.06 N6-p=0.04 N4-p=0.04 C52-p=0.04 C24-p=0.04 N5-p=0.03 N3-p=0.03 C46-p=0.03 C18-p=0.03 C48-p=0.02 C20-p=0.02

The ` fragment=n` label in the coordinates can be used as in BSSE Counterpoise calculations and the output will show the orbital composition by fragments with the label

`"Fr"`, grouping all contributions to the MO by the AOs centered on the atoms in that fragment.

As always, thanks for reading, sharing, and rating. I hope someone finds this useful.

## No, seriously, why can’t orbitals be observed?

The concept of *electronic orbital* has become such a useful and engraved tool in understanding chemical structure and reactivity that it has almost become one of those things whose original meaning has been lost and replaced for a utilitarian concept, one which is not bad in itself but that may lead to some wrong conclusions when certain fundamental facts are overlooked.

Last week a wrote -what I thought was- a humorous post on this topic because a couple of weeks ago a viewpoint in JPC-A was published by Pham and Gordon on the possibility of observing molecular orbitals through microscopy methods, which elicited a ‘*seriously? again?*‘ reaction from me, since I distinctly remember the Nature article by Zuo from the year 2000 when I just had entered graduate school. The article is titled “*direct observation of d-orbital holes.*” We discussed this paper in class and the discussion it prompted was very interesting at various levels: for starters, the allegedly observed d-orbital was strikingly similar to a *dz ^{2}*, which we had learned in class (thanks, prof. Carlos Amador!) that is actually a linear combination of

*d(z*and

^{2}-x^{2})*d(z*orbitals, a mathematical -lets say- trick to conform to spectroscopic observations.

^{2}-y^{2})Pham and Gordon are pretty clear in their first paragraph: “*The wave function amplitude Ψ*Ψ is interpreted as the probability density. All observable atomic or molecular properties are determined by the probability and a corresponding quantum mechanical operator, not by the wave function itself. Wave functions, even exact wave functions, are not observables.*” There is even another problem, about which I wrote a post long time ago: orbitals are non-unique, this means that I could get a set of orbitals by solving the Schrödinger equation for any given molecule and then perform a unit transformation on them (such as renormalizing them, re-orthonormalizing them to get a localized version, or even hybridizing them) and the electronic density derived from them would be the same! In quantum mechanical terms this means that the probability density associated with the wave function internal product, *Ψ*Ψ, *is not changed upon unit transformations; why then would a specific version be “observed” under a microscope? As Pham and Gordon state more eloquently it has to do with the Density of States (DOS) rather than with the orbitals. Furthermore, an orbital, or more precisely a spinorbital, is conveniently (in math terms) separated into a radial, an angular and a spin component *R*(*r*)*Y ^{l}_{m}*(

*θ*,

*φ*)

*σ*(

*α*,

*β*) with the angular part given by the spherical harmonic functions

*Y*(

^{l}_{m}*θ*,

*φ*), which in turn -when plotted in spherical coordinates- create the famous lobes we all chemists know and love. Zuo’s observation claim was based on the resemblance of the observed density to the angular part of an atomic orbital. Another thing, orbitals have phases, no experimental observation claims to have resolved those.

Now, I may be entering a dangerous comparison but, can you observe a 2? If you say you just did, well, that “2” is just a symbol used to represent a quantity: two, the cardinality of a set containing two elements. You might as well depict such quantity as “II” or** “⋅⋅”** but still cannot observe “a two”. (If any mathematician is reading this, please, be gentle.) I know a number and a function are different, sorry if I’m just rambling here and overextending a metaphor.

Pretending to having observed an orbital through direct experimental methods is to neglect the Born interpretation of the wave function, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and even Schrödinger’s cat! (I know, I know, Schrödinger came up with this *gedankenexperiment* in order to refute the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it seems like after all the cat is still not out of the box!)

So, the take home message from the viewpoint in JPC is that molecular properties are defined by the expected values of a given wave function for a specific quantum mechanical operator of the property under investigation and not from the wave function itself. Wave functions are not observables and although some imaging techniques seem to accomplish a formidable task the physical impossibility hints to a misinterpretation of facts.

I think I’ll write more about this in a future post but for now, my take home message is to keep in mind that **orbitals are wave functions** and therefore are not more observable (as in imaging) than a partition function is in statistical mechanics.

## The Local Bond Order, LBO (Barroso et al. 2004)

I don’t know why I haven’t written about the Local Bond Order (LBO) before! And a few days ago when I thought about it my immediate reaction was to shy away from it since it would constitute a blatant self-promotion attempt; but hell! this is my blog! A place I’ve created for my blatant self-promotion! So without further ado, I hereby present to you one of my own original contributions to Theoretical Chemistry.

During the course of my graduate years I grew interested in weakly bonded inorganic systems, namely those with secondary interactions in bidentate ligands such as xanthates, dithiocarboxylates, dithiocarbamates and so on. Description of the resulting geometries around the central metallic atom involved the invocation of secondary interactions defined purely by geometrical parameters (Alcock, 1972) in which these were defined as present if the interatomic distance was longer than the sum of their covalent radii and yet smaller than the sum of their van der Waals radii. This definition is subject to a lot of constrictions such as the accuracy of the measurement, which in turn is related to the quality of the monocrystal used in the X-ray difraction experiment; the used definition of covalent radii (Pauling, Bondi, etc.); and most importantly, it doesn’t shed light on the roles of crystal packing, intermolecular contacts, and the energetics of the interaction.

This is why in 2004 we developed a simple yet useful definition of bond order which could account for a single molecule in vacuo the strength and relevance of the secondary interaction, relative to the well defined covalent bonds.

Barroso-Flores, J. et al.Journal of Organometallic Chemistry689 (2004) 2096–2102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jorganchem.2004.03.035,

Let a Molecular Orbital be defined as a wavefunction *ψ*i which in turn may be constructed by a linear combination of Atomic Orbitals (or atom centered basis set functions) φj

We define *ζ*LBO in the following way, where we explicitly take into account a doubly occupied orbital (hence the multiplication by 2) and therefore we are assuming a closed shell configuration in the Restricted formalism.

The summation is carried over all the orbitals which belong to atom A1 and those of atom A2.

Simplifying we yield,

where *S*jk is the overlap integral for the *φ*j and *φ*k functions.

By summing over all *i* MOs we have accomplished with this definition to project all the MO’s onto the space of those functions centered on atoms A1 and A2. This definition is purely quantum mechanical in nature and is independent from any geometric requirement of such interacting atoms (i.e. interatomic distance) thus can be used as a complement to the internuclear distance argument to assess the interaction between them. This definition also results very simple and easy to calculate for all you need are the coefficients to the LCAO expansion and the respective overlap integrals.

Unfortunately, the Local Bond Order hasn’t found much echo, partly due to the fact that it is hidden in a missapropriate journal. I hope someone finds it interesting and useful; if so, don’t forget to cite it appropriately 😉

## Pauling hybridization model

Is the *C *atom in methane *sp3 *hybridized because it’s tetrahedral or is it tetrahedral because it’s *sp3 *hybridized? It’s funny how many students think to this date that the correct answer is the latter; specially those working in inorganic chemistry. I ignore the reason for such trend. What is true is that most chemistry teachers seem to have lost links to certain historical facts that have shaped our scientific discipline; most of those lay in the realm of physics, maybe that’s why.

What Linus Pauling, in a very clever way, stated was that once you have a set of eigenvectors (orbitals) of the atomic *Hamiltonian** *any combination of them will also be an eigenvector (which is normal since one of the properties of *Hermitian* operators is that they are linear); so why not making a symmetry adapted one? Let’s take the valence *hydrogenoid *orbitals (*hydrogenoid *being the keyword here) and construct a linear combination of them, in such a way that the new set transforms under the irreducible representations of a given point group. In the case of methane, the 2s and 2p orbitals comprise the valence set and their symmetry-adapted-linear-combination under the *Td *point group constitutes a set of new orbitals which now point into the vertexes of a tetrahedron. Funny things arise when we move to the next period of the table; it has been a controversy for a number of years the involvement of empty *d *orbitals in pentacoordinated P(V) compounds. Some claim that they lay too high in energy to be used in bond formation; while others claim that their involvement depends on the nature (electronegativity mainly) of the surrounding substituents.

In many peer reviewed papers authors are still making the mistake of actually assigning a type of hybridization to set of valence orbitals of an atom based on the bond angles around it. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to find claims of intermediate hybridizations when such angles have values in between those corresponding to the ideal polyhedron. Symmetry is real, orbitals are not; they are just a mathematical representation of the electron density distribution which allows us to construct mind images of a molecule.

Linus Pauling is one of my favourite scientific historical figures. Not only did he build a much needed at the time bridge between physics and chemistry but he also ventured into biochemistry (his model of an alpha-helix for the alanine olygopeptide became the foundation to Watson & Cricks later double helix DNA model), X-ray diffractometry, and humanities (his efforts in reducing/banning the proliferation of nuclear weapons got him the Nobel Peace Prize long after he had already received the Nobel Price in Chemistry). He was a strong believer of ortho-molecular nutrition, suggesting that most illnesses can be related to some sort of malnutrition. Linus Pauling and his book On the Chemical Bond will remain a beacon in our profession for the generations to come.

*Disclaimer: *The question above, with which I opened this post, was taken from an old lecture by Dr. Raymundo Cea-Olivares at UNAM back in the days when I was an undergraduate student.