Nuclear spin circular dichroism
Juha Vaara, Antonio Rizzo, Joanna Kauczor, Patrick Norman and Sonia Coriani
Linköping University Post Print
N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original article.
Original Publication:
Juha Vaara, Antonio Rizzo, Joanna Kauczor, Patrick Norman and Sonia Coriani, Nuclear spin
circular dichroism, 2014, Journal of Chemical Physics, (140), 13, 134103.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4869849
Copyright: American Institute of Physics (AIP)
http://www.aip.org/
Postprint available at: Linköping University Electronic Press
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-106854
Nuclear spin circular dichroism
Juha Vaara, Antonio Rizzo, Joanna Kauczor, Patrick Norman, and Sonia Coriani
Citation: The Journal of Chemical Physics 140, 134103 (2014); doi: 10.1063/1.4869849
View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4869849
View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/140/13?ver=pdfcov
Published by the AIP Publishing
Articles you may be interested in
Magnetic circular dichroism of symmetry and spin forbidden transitions of high-spin metal ions
J. Chem. Phys. 113, 5003 (2000); 10.1063/1.1289531
Magnetic circular dichroism of spinforbidden transitions in the Fe3+ highspin system
J. Chem. Phys. 59, 1732 (1973); 10.1063/1.1680256
Theory of Magnetic Circular Dichroism
J. Chem. Phys. 52, 3489 (1970); 10.1063/1.1673514
Vibronic Theory of Circular Dichroism
J. Chem. Phys. 51, 984 (1969); 10.1063/1.1672167
Vibrational Structuring in Circular Dichroism
J. Chem. Phys. 42, 2244 (1965); 10.1063/1.1696275
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56
THE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS 140, 134103 (2014)
Nuclear spin circular dichroism
Juha Vaara,1,a) Antonio Rizzo,2 Joanna Kauczor,3 Patrick Norman,3 and Sonia Coriani4,b)
1
NMR Research Group, Department of Physics, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 3000, FIN-90014 Oulu, Finland
Istituto per i Processi Chimico-Fisici del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (IPCF-CNR),
Area della Ricerca, via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 Pisa, Italy
3
Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Linköping University, S-58183 Linköping, Sweden
4
Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche e Farmaceutiche, Università degli Studi di Trieste, Via L. Giorgieri 1,
I-34127 Trieste, Italy
2
(Received 5 February 2014; accepted 18 March 2014; published online 3 April 2014)
Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in magneto-optic spectroscopy techniques that use
nuclear magnetization as the source of the magnetic field. Here we present a formulation of magnetic
circular dichroism (CD) due to magnetically polarized nuclei, nuclear spin-induced CD (NSCD),
in molecules. The NSCD ellipticity and nuclear spin-induced optical rotation (NSOR) angle correspond to the real and imaginary parts, respectively, of (complex) quadratic response functions
involving the dynamic second-order interaction of the electron system with the linearly polarized
light beam, as well as the static magnetic hyperfine interaction. Using the complex polarization propagator framework, NSCD and NSOR signals are obtained at frequencies in the vicinity of optical
excitations. Hartree-Fock and density-functional theory calculations on relatively small model systems, ethene, benzene, and 1,4-benzoquinone, demonstrate the feasibility of the method for obtaining relatively strong nuclear spin-induced ellipticity and optical rotation signals. Comparison of the
proton and carbon-13 signals of ethanol reveals that these resonant phenomena facilitate chemical
resolution between non-equivalent nuclei in magneto-optic spectra. © 2014 AIP Publishing LLC.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4869849]
I. INTRODUCTION
Natural optical activity arises in chiral media due to
their asymmetric interaction with the magnetic component
of electromagnetic radiation.1 By applying an external magnetic field B 0 , optical activity can be observed in materials
regardless of their chirality.2 Classical magneto-optic phenomena such as the Faraday rotation of linearly polarized
light propagating along B 0 ,3 the ellipticity induced at spectral regions close to optical excitations in magnetic circular
dichroism (MCD),4 or (in the Voigt setup with B 0 ⊥ k̂, the
direction of propagation of the light beam) the induced linear birefringence of the Cotton-Mouton effect,5 have been
known for a long time. Theoretical analysis of these effects
involves nonlinear interactions between the electromagnetic
beam, B 0 , and the electronic wave function of the system in
question.1, 6–8
As shown in 2006 by Savukov, Lee, and Romalis,9
magneto-optic effects can also be caused by the field due to
the collective magnetization of nuclei, such as typically used
in nuclear magnetic resonance experiments. In Ref. 9, nuclear spin-induced optical rotation (NSOR) was observed in
the Faraday set-up for liquid water and xenon. Later work has
demonstrated, using a multi-pass cavity apparatus, the existence of an optical chemical shift, the differing NSOR angles caused by nuclear spin polarization in different molecular liquids.10 This phenomenon was predicted using firsta) juha.vaara@iki.fi
b) coriani@units.it
0021-9606/2014/140(13)/134103/13/$30.00
principles calculations according to the response theory formulation of the underlying antisymmetric polarizability.6 Further experimental11–13 and theoretical14–16 work has been
reported for NSOR. Nuclear spin- and electric quadrupole
moment-induced Cotton-Mouton effects have been theoretically investigated in Refs. 17–21.
The predicted6 resolution of the chemically nonequivalent sites of identical nuclei in a molecule, akin to
the high-resolution conventional nuclear magnetic resonance
spectrum of ethanol of 1951,22 has not yet been experimentally observed in nuclear magneto-optic spectroscopy
(NMOS). The antisymmetric polarizability underlying NSOR
increases rapidly as the incident light frequency approaches
optical excitations,23–25 which has been proposed to facilitate a means of gaining chemical resolution of the nuclear
magneto-optic rotation signals arising from the different chromophores of the molecule.6 The first-principles NSOR calculations carried out so far6, 10, 15, 16 have all been performed
with conventional quadratic response theory,26 disregarding
the fact that the perturbational approach is not valid in the
vicinity of the excitation energies. Hence, it remains a question whether the conclusions drawn in the earlier work remain
valid in a more realistic treatment of the near-resonant spectral regions.
Formally the nuclear magneto-optic observables may be
obtained by replacing the interaction of the electron cloud
with the external magnetic field occurring in the classical
magneto-optic phenomena by the corresponding hyperfine interactions with the magnetic moments of the nuclei.6, 9, 17–21
By analogy, also the conventional MCD effect may be
140, 134103-1
© 2014 AIP Publishing LLC
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56
134103-2
Vaara et al.
generalized to nuclear spin-induced circular dichroism
(NSCD), where the nuclear magnetization causes a differential absorption of left- and right-circularly polarized light, expressible via induced elliptic polarization onto the incident
linearly polarized light.1 Whereas the MCD ellipticity provides information on the excitations occurring in the entire
molecule, and may be used for analytic purposes such as, e.g.,
to distinguish different fullerenes as shown in recent work,27
NSCD furnishes a nuclear site-specific observable that may,
at least in principle, be used to obtain a high-resolution spectrum. The ubiquitous Faraday B term contribution to MCD,
arising from magnetic mixing of the excited states,2 has in
the past been obtained in electronic structure calculations
by the analytical residues of appropriate quadratic response
functions28 (QRFs) or magnetic-field derivatives of transition strengths,29, 30 sometimes combined with empirical lineshape functions to simulate the spectral profiles. In addition, both finite-magnetic-field31 and sum-over-states perturbation theory (Ref. 32 and references therein) have been
employed. The Faraday A-term, also contributing in highsymmetry closed-shell systems, involves orbital degeneracy
of the excited states2 and requires using complex molecular
orbitals.33, 34
Norman and co-workers35, 36 have proposed a complex polarization propagator (CPP) approach where a wellbehaving and straightforward response theory treatment of
near-resonant phenomena is facilitated by introducing (in the
QRFs) a single empirical linewidth parameter γ to account
for the finite lifetime of the excited states. In this method, the
optical rotation (dispersion) angle arising in the normal Faraday rotation or NSOR experiment is obtained as the imaginary part of the relevant QRF, whereas the MCD ellipticity can be directly calculated from the corresponding real
part.37 Thus, the CPP approach eliminates the need to evaluate the separate A and B terms in MCD calculations of
closed-shell systems.2, 38 By the analogy between conventional and nucleus-induced magneto-optic observables mentioned above, the CPP method should be applicable for rigorous investigations of NSOR at light frequencies in the
neighborhood of optical excitations as well as NSCD, albeit involving the γ parameter. In the past, the CPP method
has been used to investigate a variety of molecular properties such as natural optical activity,39 x-ray absorption,40 dispersion forces,41 two-photon absorption,42 and MCD.27, 37, 38
MCD calculations using related damped response theory approaches have also been performed by Krykunov et al.43 and
by Kjærgaard et al.34 Ref. 44 reported recently a real-time
density-functional theory (DFT) method for calculating both
the A and B terms.
In this paper, we predict the existence of NSCD and
formulate expressions of its observable ellipticity, using the
analogy between magneto-optic effects caused by an external magnetic field and the field from an ensemble of spinpolarized nuclei. We employ the CPP approach to calculate
using Hartree-Fock (HF) and DFT methods the NSCD ellipticity for the nuclei of ethene (C2 H4 ), benzene (C6 H6 ), and
para-benzoquinone (pBQ, C6 H4 O2 ). We illustrate the similarities and differences in the information that can be extracted from the nucleus-specific, local NSCD spectroscopy
J. Chem. Phys. 140, 134103 (2014)
(for nuclei of different kind and in different molecules) as
opposed to the global MCD method. We demonstrate using
calculations of ethanol (CH3 CH2 OH) that similar nuclei at
chemically non-equivalent sites in the same molecule produce distinct features in the NSCD spectrum, which facilitates
high-resolution spectroscopy. In addition, we investigate the
behavior of the NSOR angle in the optical absorption region
using the non-divergent CPP methodology, to verify the earlier suggestion6 of enhanced NSOR signal in such conditions.
II. THEORY
The antisymmetric dynamic dipolar polarizability of a
′
molecule (αǫτ
= −ατ′ ǫ , dependence on the circular frequency
ω implied) may be expanded as a Taylor series in terms of
the small magnetic interactions arising from the external magnetic field B 0 and nuclear magnetic moments mK = γK ¯I K ,
where γ K and I K are the gyromagnetic ratio and spin vector
of nucleus K, as6, 17, 23
′
αǫτ
=
′ (B)
αǫτ,ν
Bν +
ν
′ (IK )
αǫτ,ν
IK,ν + O B03 , IK3 ,
(1)
ν
ǫτ ν being the Cartesian coordinates in the molecule-fixed
frame. α ′ vanishes in the absence of magnetic fields.
Consider an experiment in which linearly polarized light
beam of angular frequency ω travels along the laboratory Zaxis (k Ẑ) through a path of length l in a medium consisting
of isotropically tumbling molecules, the number density of
which is N . In these conditions, the beam acquires an elliptical polarization with the ellipticity parameter η, as well as
undergoes an optical rotation through angle φ, obtained as1
η=
1
′
ωμ0 c0 lN ℜαXY
,
2
(2)
φ=
1
′
ωμ0 c0 lN ℑαXY
,
2
(3)
where c0 is the speed of light in vacuo, μ0 is the vacuum permeability, and the angular brackets denote isotropic rotational averaging.
A. Magnetic circular dichroism
In a MCD measurement, an external magnetic field
B 0 = B0 Ẑ is oriented along the direction of light propagation, rendering the isotropic average of the antisymmetric
polarizability1
′
αXY
=
1
′ (B0 )
εǫτ ν αǫτ,ν
,
B0
6
ǫτ ν
(4)
where the Greek subscripts now denote coordinates in the
molecule-fixed frame and εǫτ ν is the Levi-Civita tensor.
Hence, the observable MCD ellipticity and OR angle per
unit path length and magnitude of the external magnetic field
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56
134103-3
Vaara et al.
J. Chem. Phys. 140, 134103 (2014)
strength become37
η(B0 )
1
= − ωμ0 c0 N
εǫτ ν ℜ μǫ ; μτ , hZB0 ,ν ω,0 ,
lB0
12
ǫτ ν
(5)
1
φ (B0 )
= − ωμ0 c0 N
εǫτ ν ℑ μǫ ; μτ , hZB0 ,ν ω,0 ,
lB0
12
ǫτ ν
(6)
Consider now a sample of magnetized nuclei K with the
number density NK = nK NA , where nK is the molar concentration of the nuclei and the degree of nuclear spin polarization along k is equal to PK = IK, Z /IK , with IK, Z the ensemble average of the spin component along Ẑ and IK the nuclear
spin quantum number. The antisymmetric polarizability appearing in Eqs. (2) and (3) is now obtained from
′
αXY
=
where μ = −e i r i is the electric dipole moment operator and hZB0 is the Hamiltonian for the Zeeman interaction
with B 0 . In nonrelativistic (NR) electronic structure theory
of closed-shell molecules, the latter corresponds to the orbital
Zeeman (OZ) interaction
e
OZ
OZ
ℓiO,ν ,
=
−m
·
B
=
h
B
;
h
=
HBOZ
0
0,ν
B
,ν
B
,ν
0
0
0
2me i
ν
(7)
where m is the magnetic dipole moment operator and
ℓiO = −ı¯ [(r i − RO ) × ∇i ] is the orbital angular momentum of electron i, at location r i , with respect to the gauge origin RO . The notation A; B, Cω,0 denotes third-order timedependent perturbation theory expressed in terms of a QRF
involving dynamic (with frequency ω) operators A and B and
a static operator C.26 Standard perturbation theory fails when
¯ω approaches the excitation energies of the system, leading
to divergences of the response function (see, e.g., Ref. 6). In
this work, we use the CPP approach by Norman et al.,35, 36
which includes relaxation of the excited states and allows for a
smooth evaluation of the QRF over the entire frequency range,
with results identical to those of the standard approach in nonabsorptive spectral regions and a well-behaving response also
at resonance. The first MCD calculations using the CPP formalism were carried out by Solheim et al.37 The resonance
linewidth is controlled by the parameter γ that may be selected to empirically reproduce the experimental band shapes,
which, in turn, are influenced by significant vibrational broadening not explicitly included in the present calculations. We
note that molar η(B0 ) and φ (B0 ) may be obtained from Eqs. (5)
and (6) using N = nNA , where n is the concentration of the
molecules and NA is the Avogadro constant.
B. Nuclear spin-induced circular dichroism
In the NSCD experiment proposed here, the magnetization of a sample of spin-polarized nuclei is aligned with k.
This produces a magnetic field in the medium that is able to
cause magneto-optic effects, even though no significant external magnetic field B 0 is influencing the experiment. Various
means of creating and controlling the nuclear magnetization
in NMOS measurements have been discussed.9–12 These include transferring the magnetized sample from a separate polarization vessel to the optical apparatus,9, 10 a method relying
on relatively slow nuclear spin relaxation processes. Alternatively, the optical measurement can be placed transversally to
the bore of a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer, enabling the creation and manipulation of the magnetization in
the same volume.11, 12
1
′ (IK )
PK IK
εǫτ ν αǫτ,ν
,
6
ǫτ ν
(8)
and the NSCD ellipticity and NSOR angle per unit sample
length, spin polarization, and nuclear concentration can be
written as
ηK =
η(IK )
lPK nK
=−
VK =
1
ωμ0 c0 NA IK
εǫτ ν ℜ μǫ ; μτ , hhf
K,ν ω,0,
12
ǫτ ν
(9)
φ (IK )
lPK nK
=−
1
ωμ0 c0 NA IK
εǫτ ν ℑ μǫ ; μτ , hhf
K,ν ω,0 . (10)
12
ǫτ ν
Here, the QRF notation involves the hyperfine interaction hhf
K
that, in the NR theory for closed-shell systems, is the orbital
hyperfine (paramagnetic nuclear spin-electron orbit, PSO)
operator
HKPSO =
hPSO
K,ν IK,ν ;
ν
hPSO
K,ν =
ℓiK,ν
e¯ μ0
,
γK
3
me 4π
riK
i
(11)
where ℓiK = −ı¯ [(r i − RK ) × ∇i ] is the angular momentum
of i about the position RK of nucleus K. It is seen that the
NSCD and NSOR equations (9) and (10) are obtained from
the expressions (5) and (6) of the corresponding observables
for MCD and Faraday rotation, respectively, due to the external magnetic field, by exchanging the Zeeman interaction of
the latter for the hyperfine interaction. In Eqs. (9) and (10),
we have introduced the NSCD and NSOR constants ηK and
VK for nucleus K, respectively. A convenient unit for these
quantities is rad/(M cm).
III. CALCULATIONS
The calculation of NSCD [Eq. (9)] and NSOR [Eq. (10)]
using the CPP approach was implemented into a development
version of the DALTON program package.45 The efficient response equation solver introduced in Ref. 46 was used. We
performed HF and DFT calculations of these properties for
ethene, benzene, pBQ, and ethanol molecules at fixed groundstate geometries in vacuo, thus a priori neglecting all rovibrational and solvent effects. The following geometries were
used: ethene and benzene, the rz geometries of Refs. 47 and
48, respectively; pBQ and ethanol, re geometries optimized
using DFT with the B3LYP functional49, 50 and the aug-ccpVTZ basis set,51 on the GAUSSIAN 09 software.52
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56
134103-4
Vaara et al.
The basis-set requirements of the excited-state calculations (energy and transition moment from the ground state)
were investigated using DALTON for ethene at the CAMB3LYP level56 using the correlation-consistent basis sets augcc-pVXZ, aug-cc-pCVXZ, as well as the doubly and triplyaugmented d/t-aug-cc-pVXZ (X = D, T, Q, 5, 6) sets.51, 53
The lowest excitation energies and the corresponding oscillator strengths of these systems were investigated at the HF
level as well as with various DFT functionals: PBE,54 PBE0,54
BLYP,50, 55 B3LYP,49, 50 CAM-B3LYP,56 BHandHLYP,50, 57 as
well as the following correlated ab initio coupled-cluster (CC)
levels of presumably increasing accuracy: CC2,58 CCSD,59
and CC3.60 The purpose of using the CC methods was to assess the accuracy of HF and the various DFT functionals that
were, in turn, used for NSCD and NSOR.
The basis-set requirements of NSCD and NSOR (both
for 1 H and 13 C nuclei) were investigated for ethene using
BHandHLYP at standard visible laser wavelengths, in the
dispersive spectral range. This was not done in the transition region of the spectrum, as the results would have reflected the large dependence of the frequency of the transitions on the basis set. We also carefully checked that the applied numerical criteria for the wave function and response
equation convergence, as well as the DFT grid, were sufficiently tight. The BLYP (with exact HF exchange admixture
of 0%), B3LYP (20%), and BHandHLYP (50%) series of generalized gradient/hybrid functionals, as well as HF and the
range-separated CAM-B3LYP hybrid functional, were then
used with the chosen d-aug-cc-pCVTZ basis53 (with highexponent core-valence correlation functions) for the production calculations in the region of selected low-lying transitions
of the target systems. For comparison, MCD calculations using the method of Solheim et al.37 were also performed for
the same transitions.
We used the empirical linewidth factor γ equal to
1000 cm−1 (0.00456 a.u.) and the step between successive
frequencies in the transition region equal to 0.0025 a.u. The
choice of γ affects the calculated spectra, a larger value pro-
J. Chem. Phys. 140, 134103 (2014)
duces broader spectral features with lower peak intensity.
In the present kind of pure electronic structure calculations
where various factors (such as vibronic couplings) affecting
the experimental linewidths are not considered, the value of
γ can be empirically adjusted to approximately to match the
observed spectra. So far there exist no experiments for NSCD
or NSOR in the absorptive spectral region, and we rely in our
selection of γ on the previous application37 of the CPP theory
for MCD in systems of composition comparable to the present
ones.
The NMOS properties corresponding to all the experimentally non-equivalent nuclei of the molecules were computed. In the case of ethanol, the results were averaged over
all the protons in, on the one hand, −CH3 and, on the other
hand, −CH2 − group.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Excitation energies and oscillator strengths
1. Basis-set convergence
Figure 1 illustrates the basis-set convergence of the calculated two lowest electric dipole-allowed excitation energies
in ethene. Results with the various augmented correlationconsistent basis-set families are shown as obtained with
the CAM-B3LYP functional. The corresponding convergence
pattern of the electric-dipole transition moments is displayed
in Figure S1 of the supplementary material.63 The numerical
data corresponding to the figures are listed in Table S1 of the
supplementary material.63
A point to note is that the electric-dipole transition moments and oscillator strengths only have an indirect relevance
for the NMOS observables, which are the primary objective
of this work. Because NSCD and NSOR (similar to MCD) involve, apart from the dynamic electric dipole interaction, also
a static magnetic interaction operator, the relative intensities
of the magneto-optic signals do not directly correspond to calculated dipolar oscillator strengths.
FIG. 1. Basis-set convergence of the calculated, low-lying electric dipole-allowed excitation energies of ethene (C2 H4 ) at the CAM-B3LYP level. Results at
different correlation-consistent basis-set levels. The basis set selected for the production calculations of NSCD and NSOR is marked with a cross. (a) Excitation
energy of the X 1 Ag → 11 B3u transition. (b) Excitation energy of the X 1 Ag → 11 B1u transition.
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56
134103-5
Vaara et al.
The results in Figures 1 and S1 (supplementary
material63 ) indicate the convergence of all the basis set series towards a common basis-set limit. The singly augmented
sets (aug-cc-pVXZ) are expectedly the slowest in this approach, whereas no significant difference is obtained between
the doubly (d-aug) and triply (t-aug) augmented sets. The
singly augmented sets were used in both the standard version
(aug-cc-pVXZ) and the aug-cc-pCVXZ series, in which tight
core-valence correlation functions have been added. Whereas
the latter offer no advantage for the valence excitation energies and oscillator strengths, they are generally found important for hyperfine properties. The figures show with a cross
the results obtained with the d-aug-cc-pCVTZ basis selected
presently for the production calculations of the magneto-optic
properties. This basis is reasonable close to the basis-set limit.
2. Comparison of methods
Figure 2 illustrates the excitation energies for transitions
from the ground state to two lowest dipole-allowed excited
states in ethene, calculated with the t-aug-cc-pVDZ basis set.
Different (HF, CC2, CCSD, CC3, and DFT) methods were
used. For the latter, a selection of functionals was chosen. The
corresponding oscillator strengths are given in Figure S2 of
the supplementary material.63 The numerical data are listed
in Table S2 of the supplementary material.63
The present correlated ab initio estimates (CC2, CCSD,
CC3) are in good agreement with Refs. 61 and 62 for the
excitation energies of both the B3u and B1u states. The various DFT functionals give a systematically increasing deviation (decreasing excitation energies) from these reference values as the exact exchange parameter diminishes, towards the
pure GGA functional (BLYP). BHandHLYP (50% of exact
exchange) and the range-separated CAM-B3LYP functional
fare best in this context. These two functionals also display a
reasonable performance for the oscillator strengths, as referenced to the CC3 and CCSD results.
FIG. 2. Calculated vertical excitation energies (in eV) in ethene (C2 H4 ) using different electron correlation methods and the t-aug-cc-pVDZ basis set.
J. Chem. Phys. 140, 134103 (2014)
Figure S3 and Tables S3–S5 of the supplementary
material63 ) contain the excitation energies and oscillator
strengths for the three lowest dipole-allowed states in benzene, one state in pBQ, and four states in ethanol. Literature
values also shown for benzene64, 65 and pBQ.66–68 Common
to all these cases is that we went only up to CCSD level in
ab initio calculations of both the excitation energies and oscillator strengths, as we reckoned that the more accurate CC3
method would have proved computationally too expensive.
Similarly, the comparison with the available literature values
is impaired by the different molecular geometries used between calculations, as well as the approximations made in the
analysis of experimental data. Our present purpose is to assess the accuracy of the various DFT methods for these excited states, and we pick the CCSD data as the principal point
of comparison. More thorough investigations of the performance of various methods in calculating excitation energies
exist in the literature, and we quote Ref. 68 for a recent example. In the present calibration, we note that the BHandHLYP
and CAM-B3LYP functionals provide again the best match
among the DFT functionals with the CCSD excitation energies for benzene and ethanol, and somewhat less successfully
in the case of pBQ. The quantitative agreement is generally
worse for the oscillator strengths, however the two mentioned
functionals give overall the best results among the present
single-determinantal methods.
B. Nuclear magneto-optic properties
1. Basis-set convergence
A note is in place concerning the sign conventions used
for optical rotation. According to the chemical convention,1
the formulae presented in this paper lead for closed-shell
molecules to a negative rotation angle, both in normal Faraday rotation due to the external field and in NSOR for nuclei
with a positive γ K . A negative angle corresponds to the rotation of the plane of polarization to the direction of the positive electric current in a solenoid that generates the external
field. The convention normally used in the literature reporting
Verdet constants is exactly the opposite (see, e.g., Ref. 69) and
a positive Verdet constant is reported under the same circumstances. We follow the chemical convention in this paper.
We first verified the consistency of the new CPP implementation with the standard response theory method
for NSOR, which was used in earlier reports of this
property.6, 10, 15, 16 Calculated NSOR results at off-resonant
wavelengths for ethene, listed in Table S6 of the supplementary material,63 confirm that far from the transition region the
damped response theory results indeed are in a very good
agreement with the results of the standard approach.
Figure 3 and Table S7 of the supplementary material63
contain the data for the basis-set convergence of the calculated
NSCD ellipticity and NSOR angle for both the 13 C and 1 H
nuclei in ethene, obtained at the BHandHLYP level.
Both the NSCD ellipticity and NSOR angle increase
in absolute value upon shortening the wavelength, towards the first optical transition that appears at 180 nm at
the BHandHLYP/d-aug-cc-pCVTZ level of theory used in
Figures 3(a) and 3(b). Panels (c)–(f) illustrate the difference
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56
134103-6
Vaara et al.
J. Chem. Phys. 140, 134103 (2014)
FIG. 3. Basis-set dependence of the calculated NSCD and NSOR constants, ηK and VK , respectively, for ethane (C2 H4 ) in units of μrad/(M cm). The DFT
functional BHandHLYP was used. Results for both K = 1 H and 13 C. (a) NSCD and (b) NSOR results with d-aug-cc-pCVTZ as functions of λ. Also shown
are the deviations from d-aug-cc-pCVTZ results at λ = 405.0 nm with different basis sets, as a function of the number of basis functions: (c) 13 CSCD and
(d) 13 CSOR, (e) 1 HSCD and (f) 1 HSOR.
of results obtained with the various basis sets as compared to
the d-aug-cc-pCVTZ set, at λ = 405 nm. It is seen that the unaugmented cc-pVXZ and cc-pCVXZ sets do not perform satisfactorily as the results not only converge quite slowly with
the size of the basis set, but they even appear to converge
to erroneous limiting values. In contrast, the singly, doubly,
and triply augmented sets converge to a common limit, and
hardly any difference can be seen between the behavior of the
two latter series. The changes of the results due to supplementing the basis with tight core correlating functions in the
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56
134103-7
Vaara et al.
J. Chem. Phys. 140, 134103 (2014)
FIG. 4. Calculated magnetic response properties of ethene with various DFT functionals and with Hartree-Fock (HF): (a) MCD and (b) Faraday optical rotation
[in mrad/(T M cm)] due to the external magnetic field, and the following nuclear magneto-optic quantities [in μrad/(M cm)]: (c) 13 CSCD, (d) 13 CSOR, (e)
1 HSCD, and (f) 1 HSOR. d-aug-cc-pCVTZ basis set was used.
cc-pCVXZ series as opposed to the cc-pVXZ sets, are relatively small. We select the d-aug-cc-pCVTZ set as a computationally manageable, fairly accurate set for the remaining calculations further in this paper. At the DFT level, the
truncation error implied by this basis set is about 1% for the
presently investigated properties.
2. Results for ethene, benzene,
and para-benzoquinone
Figure 4 shows the calculated magneto-optic properties
in ethene as functions of the wavelength λ around the two lowest dipole-allowed excitations using the HF method, as well as
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56
134103-8
Vaara et al.
DFT, employing functionals with decreasing exact exchange
admixture: BHandHLYP, B3LYP, and BLYP. In addition, results with the range-separated CAM-B3LYP functional are
also shown. The corresponding numerical data are collected
in Table S8 of the supplementary material.63
The results show a consistent shift of the spectral features towards longer wavelengths when moving from HF to
the DFT functionals with a decreasing exact exchange admixture, in accordance with the behaviour of the excitation energies (Table S2 of the supplementary material).63 Based on the
performance of the various methods in the calculation of excitation energies and oscillator strengths, we focus mainly on
the BHandHLYP and CAM-B3LYP data, which are mutually
remarkably similar not only for ethene but also for the other
presently investigated molecules (vide infra).
The calculated MCD spectra of ethene in the rigid
molecule limit were discussed and compared with the experiment in Ref. 28. The present BHandHLYP and CAM-B3LYP
calculations [Figure 4(a)] produce two negative-ellipticity absorption bands centred at the locations of the two excitations,
about 180 and 167 nm (quoting BHandHLYP/CAM-B3LYP
data), corresponding to 1 B1u (transition dipole directed normal to the molecular plane) and 1 B3u (along the direction of
the CC bond) excited states, respectively. The corresponding
Faraday optical rotation spectrum [Figure 4(b)] consists of
two overlapping derivative bands. The MCD and Faraday rotation results with the standard B3LYP and BLYP functionals have additional features in the spectral regions towards
smaller wavelengths, on account of the proximity of further
optical excitations at these levels of theory.
The carbon-13 NSCD signal in ethene [Figure 4(c)] also
shows two peaks with the absorption lineshape, but in contrast to MCD, the spectrum consists of a negative peak at
180 nm and a positive peak at 167 nm. The proton NSCD
[Figure 4(e)] features similarly a combination of two antiphase absorption signals, but for this nucleus the 1 B1u excitation is characterized by a positive peak. The NMOS observables depend on the gyromagnetic ratio γ K of the nucleus in
question [Eqs. (9)–(11)]. As the 13 C and 1 H nuclei have γ K of
the same (positive) sign, the difference in the signs of the corresponding NSCD signals is not due to the properties of these
nuclei but is a feature of the electronic structure. While the
two absorption peaks in the 13 C spectrum are almost of equal
intensity, the protons cause a much larger signal at the 1 B3u
excitation. It should be kept in mind that the detailed lineshape does depend significantly on the choice of the computational method, with particularly the HF method giving rather
different results. Overall the 13 CSCD signals are roughly 50
times more intense in ethene than the 1 H signals, possibly due
to the larger electronic density at the carbon sites, which by far
overcompensates the fact that the magnetic moment of proton
is four times larger than that of 13 C.
The 13 C and 1 H NSOR spectra of ethene [Figures 4(d)
and 4(f), respectively] consist of two overlapping lines with
the derivative lineshape and, similarly as in the corresponding
NSCD spectra, the signals of these two nuclei have opposite
signs. The present damped response theory calculations verify qualitatively the dramatic amplification of the NSOR signals around optical transitions, predicted earlier using conven-
J. Chem. Phys. 140, 134103 (2014)
tional response theory.6, 24 Hence, future NSCD experimental set-ups could use both the ellipticity and optical rotation
as means of detecting nuclear site-specific magneto-optic signals. The same enhancement factor of 50 is valid also for the
13
CSOR signals as compared to those of proton, like in the
NSCD case.
Figure 5 shows the results of the magneto-optic calculations for benzene in the region of the three lowest optical transitions of relevance, to the 1 B1u state with the transition dipole perpendicular to the molecular plane at around
180–182 nm (CAM-B3LYP and BHandHLYP wavelengths
quoted) and two in-plane excitations to 1 E states at circa
177 and 171–172 nm. The corresponding numerical data
are listed in Table S9 of the supplementary material.63 The
data for para-benzoquinone are given in Fig. 6 (for 13 C
and 1 H), Fig. S4 (17 O) and Table S10 of the supplementary
material,63 and they involve the transition to 1 B1u excited
state at 227–233 nm (BHandHLYP and CAM-B3LYP levels).
In both cases, we choose to display only the BHandHLYP
and CAM-B3LYP data in the figures. The results obtained
with the other functionals employed are included in the
tables.
In the case of benzene, the MCD spectrum consists of
one strong negative-ellipticity and two weaker, positive absorption features corresponding to the B1u and two E states,
respectively. As before for ethene, the NSCD spectra do not
stand in one-to-one correspondence with MCD; while the
13
CSCD signal of benzene follows the sign pattern of MCD,
the proton spectrum shows the opposite signature. The intensity of the lower of the two E-type bands is equally large with
the B1u band both in 13 C and 1 HSCD, in contrast to MCD. The
NSOR signals display consistently the derivative patterns corresponding to the features in the respective CD spectra. The
comparison of the magnitudes of the 1 H and 13 C signals indicates that the large amplification factor observed in C2 H4 for
carbon as compared to hydrogen is not a universal feature: in
benzene the carbon signals are only roughly twice as intense
as those of proton.
We investigated only one transition for pBQ in the 200–
300 nm region, and for this molecule MCD shows a positive
absorption peak, whereas all the 13 C, 17 O, and 1 H NSCD spectra show a single negative peak, matched by a derivative lineshape in the respective OR signals. Again, the intensities of
the 13 C and 1 H signals obey roughly the 2:1 pattern, akin to
benzene. The 17 O spectrum (Figure S4 in the supplementary
material63 ) is similar in lineshape to that of 13 C but more intense by two orders of magnitude. Despite the fact these two
isotopes have oppositely signed gyromagnetic ratios, their
NSCD and NSOR signals, which are directly proportional to
the nuclear magnetic moment, have the same phase in pBQ.
Hence, the purely electronic NSCD/NSOR response corresponding to these two nuclei is different in both magnitude
and sign.
From the comparison of MCD and NSCD signals in
C2 H4 , C6 H6 , and pBQ it may be concluded that each system
has a unique pattern of the signs and intensities of the spectral
features, with the NSCD signals not always following those
of MCD. The qualitative interpretation of the NSCD spectra
will require further conceptual work.
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56
134103-9
Vaara et al.
J. Chem. Phys. 140, 134103 (2014)
FIG. 5. Calculated magnetic response properties of benzene with BHandHLYP and CAM-B3LYP DFT functionals: (a) MCD and (b) Faraday optical rotation
[in mrad/(T M cm)] due to the external magnetic field, and the following nuclear magneto-optic quantities [in μrad/(M cm)]: (c) 13 CSCD, (d) 13 CSOR,
(e) 1 HSCD, and (f) 1 HSOR. d-aug-cc-pCVTZ basis set was used.
3. Nuclear spin CD for non-equivalent nuclear
sites: Ethanol
We chose to use ethanol to investigate the nuclear sitespecificity of the NSCD spectroscopic signals. The two nonequivalent carbons (C1 and C2 in the −CH3 and −CH2 −
moieties, respectively) and the three non-equivalent protons
(−CH3 , −CH2 −, and −OH groups, averaged over the experimentally equivalent nuclei in the first two cases) are expected to reflect the chemical environment of the nucleus
in NSCD, similar to what was predicted (also for ethanol)
in the case of NSOR signals in Ref. 6. We display the
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56
134103-10
Vaara et al.
J. Chem. Phys. 140, 134103 (2014)
FIG. 6. (a)–(f) As Fig. 5 but for para-benzoquinone.
calculated magneto-optic spectra for ethanol using different
computational methods (HF and the present DFT functionals) in Figures S5 of the supplementary material63 (MCD/OR
and 17 OSCD/17 OSOR), and specifically for 13 C and 1 H nuclei in Figure 7 at the BHandHLYP level. The HF and other
DFT results for the latter nuclei are illustrated in Figures S6
and S7 of the supplementary material.63 The numerical data
are tabulated in Tables S11 and S12 of the supplementary
material.63
The calculations of ethanol were carried out for the wavelength range around the four lowest dipole-allowed excitations, at 150, 156, and 178 nm to 1 A′′ states and 150 nm to
1 ′
A state, wavelengths quoted from the BHandHLYP results.
Investigation of the 13 C and 1 H NSCD signals [Figures 7(a)
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56
134103-11
Vaara et al.
J. Chem. Phys. 140, 134103 (2014)
FIG. 7. Calculated (BHandHLYP/d-aug-cc-pCVTZ) nuclear magneto-optic properties in ethanol highlighting the differences between the signals of the unequivalent nuclei. (a) 13 CSCD, (b) 13 CSOR, (c) 1 HSCD, and (d) 1 HSOR.
and 7(c), respectively] reveals that the lowest-energy X1 A′
→ 11 A′′ transition is associated with a vanishing NSCD response in both the 13 C signal of the −CH3 group (C1) and
the 1 H spectra from both the −CH3 and −CH2 − groups. In
contrast, C2 (the −CH2 − group) and the 1 H spectra corresponding to the −OH group show a clear response of these
nuclei to this transition. This can be also noted form the corresponding 17 O signal [Figure S5(c) of the supplementary
material].63 Precisely the same nuclei respond in the corresponding NSOR signals in Figures 7(b) and 7(d) [Figure
S5(d) of the supplementary material63 in the case of 17 O].
Consequently, both the NSCD observables and NSOR, calculated here using a methodology that is able to cope with
frequencies in the immediate vicinity of the transitions, confirm the earlier findings6 concerning the NSOR of ethanol
using standard response theory. NMOS observables allow
nuclear site-specific magneto-optical spectroscopy. The O1 H
and 13 CH2 NSCD signals are found to be of roughly similar
intensity at this transition.
The transition to the second 1 A′′ state at 156 nm
(BHandHLYP) gives further confirmation to this observation.
Signals of opposite phases are found at this transition for C1
(positive) and C2 (negative), as well as for −C1 H3 (positive)
and −O1 H (negative), whereas the −CH2 − group protons are
unresponsive at 156 nm. Finally, the spectra at around 150 nm
result from transitions to both 1 A′ and 1 A′′ states, with the former placed at a slightly larger wavelength. The X1 A′ → 11 A′
transition results in a weak and strong positive signal for C2
and all the protons, respectively, particularly in the −OH and
−CH2 − moieties. The X1 A′ → 31 A′′ transition yields consistently a negative feature in the NSCD spectra for all carbons
and protons.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A novel form of nuclear magneto-optic spectroscopy, the
nuclear spin-induced circular dichroism, which arises from
the differential absorption of left- and right-circularly polarized light on account of the magnetic field created by the magnetization of individual nuclei in molecules, is proposed in
this paper. In analogy to MCD, which is due to the externally
applied magnetic field, NSCD can be experimentally detected
from ellipticity induced to the plane-polarized light at wavelength regions close to the optical transitions of the molecule.
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56
134103-12
Vaara et al.
Comparison with MCD on the one hand and Faraday optical
rotation (due to an external magnetic field) on the other hand
suggests that NSCD might yield an even more insightful direction for the ongoing experimental NMOS efforts than the
already observed phenomenon of nuclear spin optical rotation. Strong signals from both phenomena are predicted in the
absorptive spectral regions, and we propose experiments with
a matching pair of tunable laser source and a medium consisting of, e.g., dye molecules with strong absorption band in the
visible range.
We have formulated a third-order time-dependent perturbation theory expression for the NSCD ellipticity, expressed
as the real part of the derivative of the molecular dynamic
polarizability tensor with respect to the nuclear magnetic moment. A first-principles computation method for NSCD has
been implemented to the DALTON quantum-chemical package, involving a variant of damped response theory, which
enables calculations at frequencies in the immediate vicinity
of the transition, as parameterized by an empirical linewidth
factor.
Calculations of NSCD have been presented for lowlying transitions in a series of small organic molecules using the Hartree-Fock and DFT methods, demonstrating that
the NSCD signals are of observable intensity and they yield
a resolution of the varying chemical environments of the nuclei: a different sensitivity of the magneto-optic response results for magnetization of non-equivalent nuclei is observed.
This optical chemical shift, analogous to the corresponding
phenomenon in NSOR, paves way for high-resolution NMOS
using the NSCD effect. The present damped response theory calculations also qualitatively verify earlier predictions of
strongly enhanced NSOR signals when the photon energies
approach the optical transitions.
All the present calculations of NSCD have been based
on the responses of a single molecule to the optical and nuclear magnetic fields. The formulation of bulk magneto-optic
properties has essentially been carried out by multiplying the
calculated single-molecule properties by the number density
of molecules in a medium. Previous research on NSOR14, 16
suggests that the macroscopic nuclear magnetic polarization
of the medium will give an additional, MCD-like, and nonnucleus-specific contribution to the differential absorption observed in NSCD experiments. Furthermore, modification of
the local optical field will also occur in a medium.16 These
additions to the basic NSCD theory will be topics for further
research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge discussions with Dr. Geert
Rikken (Toulouse) who first suggested this topic to us. The
work of J.V. was supported by the Academy of Finland, the
University of Oulu, the Tauno Tönning Foundation, and Societas Scientiarum Fennica. S.C. acknowledges support from
the Italian Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della
Ricerca within the PRIN2009 funding scheme [Grant No.
2009C28YBF_001, Modelli teorici per processi di fotoassorbimento e fotoemissione] and from the University of Trieste
[grant CHIM02-Ricerca]. Computational resources were par-
J. Chem. Phys. 140, 134103 (2014)
tially provided by CSC-IT Center for Science (Espoo, Finland) and the Finnish Grid Initiative project.
1 L.
D. Barron, Molecular Light Scattering and Optical Activity (Cambridge
University Press, 1982).
2 A. D. Buckingham and P. J. Stephens, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 17, 399
(1966).
3 M. Faraday, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London 136, 1 (1846); Philos. Mag. 28,
294 (1846).
4 P. J. Stephens, J. Chem. Phys. 52, 3489 (1970).
5 A. Cotton and H. Mouton, C. R. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci. 141, 317 (1905);
141, 349 (1905); A. Cotton, Rapp. Cons. Phys. Solvay 418 (1932).
6 S. Ikäläinen, M. V. Romalis, P. Lantto, and J. Vaara, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105,
153001 (2010).
7 T. Kjærgaard, S. Coriani, and K. Ruud, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 2, 443
(2012), and references therein.
8 C. Rizzo, A. Rizzo, and D. M. Bishop, Int. Rev. Phys. Chem. 16, 81 (1997),
and references therein.
9 I. M. Savukov, S.-K. Lee, and M. V. Romalis, Nature (London) 442, 1021
(2006).
10 J. Shi, S. Ikäläinen, J. Vaara, and M. V. Romalis, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 4,
437 (2013).
11 D. Pagliero, W. Dong, D. Sakellariou, and C. A. Meriles, J. Chem. Phys.
133, 154505 (2010).
12 D. Pagliero and C. A. Meriles, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 19510
(2011).
13 I. M. Savukov, H.-Y. Chen, T. Karaulanov, and C. Hilty, J. Magn. Reson.
232, 31 (2013).
14 G.-H. Yao, M. He, D.-M. Chen, T.-J. He, and F.-C. Liu, Chem. Phys. 387,
39 (2011).
15 S. Ikäläinen, P. Lantto, and J. Vaara, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 8, 91 (2012).
16 T. S. Pennanen, S. Ikäläinen, P. Lantto, and J. Vaara, J. Chem. Phys. 136,
184502 (2012).
17 T. Lu, M. He, D. Chen, T. He, and F.-C. Liu, Chem. Phys. Lett. 479, 14
(2009).
18 G.-H. Yao, M. He, D.-M. Chen, T.-J. He, and F.-C. Liu, ChemPhysChem
13, 1325 (2012).
19 L.-J. Fu and J. Vaara, J. Chem. Phys. 138, 204110 (2013).
20 L.-J. Fu, A. Rizzo, and J. Vaara, J. Chem. Phys. 139, 181102 (2013).
21 L.-J. Fu and J. Vaara, J. Chem. Phys. 140, 024103 (2014).
22 J. T. Arnold, S. S. Dharmatti, and M. E. Packard, J. Chem. Phys. 19, 507
(1951).
23 A. D. Buckingham and L. C. Parlett, Mol. Phys. 91, 805 (1997).
24 R. H. Romero and J. Vaara, Chem. Phys. Lett. 400, 226 (2004).
25 S. Ikäläinen, P. Lantto, P. Manninen, and J. Vaara, J. Chem. Phys. 129,
124102 (2008).
26 J. Olsen and P. Jørgensen, J. Chem. Phys. 82, 3235 (1985).
27 P. Štěpánek, M. Straka, V. Andrushchenko, and P. Bouř, J. Chem. Phys.
138, 151103 (2013).
28 S. Coriani, P. Jørgensen, A. Rizzo, K. Ruud, and J. Olsen, Chem. Phys.
Lett. 300, 61 (1999); H. Solheim, L. Frediani, K. Ruud, and S. Coriani,
Theor. Chim. Acc. 119, 231 (2008).
29 S. Coriani, C. Hättig, P. Jørgensen, and T. Helgaker, J. Chem. Phys. 113,
3561 (2000); T. Kjærgaard, B. Jansík, P. Jørgensen, S. Coriani, and J.
Michl, J. Phys. Chem. A 111, 11278 (2007).
30 T. Kjærgaard, P. Jørgensen, A. J. Thorvaldsen, P. Salek, and S. Coriani, J.
Chem. Theory Comput. 5, 1997 (2009).
31 Y. Honda, M. Hada, M. Ehara, H. Nakatsuji, and J. Michl, J. Chem. Phys.
123, 164113 (2005).
32 P. Štěpánek and P. Bouř, J. Comput. Chem. 34, 1531 (2013).
33 M. Seth, T. Ziegler, A. Banerjee, J. Autschbach, S. J. A. van Gisbergen,
and E. J. Baerends, J. Chem. Phys. 120, 10942 (2004).
34 T. Kjærgaard, K. Kristensen, J. Kauczor, P. Jørgensen, S. Coriani, and A. J.
Thorvaldsen, J. Chem. Phys. 135, 024112 (2011).
35 P. Norman, D. Bishop, H. J. Aa. Jensen, and J. Oddershede, J. Chem. Phys.
115, 10323 (2001).
36 P. Norman, D. Bishop, H. J. Aa. Jensen, and J. Oddershede, J. Chem. Phys.
123, 194103 (2005).
37 H. Solheim, K. Ruud, S. Coriani, and P. Norman, J. Chem. Phys. 128,
094103 (2008); T. Fahleson, J. Kauczor, P. Norman, and S. Coriani, Mol.
Phys. 111, 1401 (2013).
38 H. Solheim, K. Ruud, S. Coriani, and P. Norman, J. Phys. Chem. A 112,
9615 (2008).
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56
134103-13
39 P.
Vaara et al.
Norman, K. Ruud, and T. Helgaker, J. Chem. Phys. 120, 5027 (2004); A.
Jiemchooroj and P. Norman, ibid. 126, 134102 (2007); A. Jiemchooroj, U.
Ekström, and P. Norman, ibid. 127, 165104 (2007).
40 U. Ekström, and P. Norman, Phys. Rev. A 74, 042722 (2006); U.
Ekström, P. Norman, V. Carravetta, and H. Ågren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97,
143001 (2006).
41 P. Norman, A. Jiemchooroj, and B. E. Sernelius, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 9167
(2003); A. Jiemchooroj, P. Norman, and B. E. Sernelius, ibid. 125, 124306
(2006).
42 K. Kristensen, J. Kauczor, A. J. Thorvaldsen, P. Jørgensen, T. Kjærgaard,
and A. Rizzo, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 214104 (2011).
43 M. Krykunov, M. Seth, T. Ziegler, and J. Autschbach, J. Chem. Phys. 127,
244102 (2007).
44 K.-M. Lee, K. Yabana, and G. F. Bertsch, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 144106
(2011).
45 DALTON , a molecular electronic structure program, Release Dalton2013,
2013, see http://daltonprogram.org; K. Aidas, C. Angeli, K. L. Bak, V.
Bakken, R. Bast, L. Boman, O. Christiansen, R. Cimiraglia, S. Coriani,
P. Dahle, E. K. Dalskov, U. Ekström, T. Enevoldsen, J. J. Eriksen, P.
Ettenhuber, B. Fernández, L. Ferrighi, H. Fliegl, L. Frediani, K. Hald, A.
Halkier, C. Hättig, H. Heiberg, T. Helgaker, A. C. Hennum, H. Hettema,
E. Hjertenæs, S. Høst, I.-M. Høyvik, M. F. Iozzi, B. Jansik, H. J. Aa.
Jensen, D. Jonsson, P. Jørgensen, J. Kauczor, S. Kirpekar, T. Kjærgaard,
W. Klopper, S. Knecht, R. Kobayashi, H. Koch, J. Kongsted, A. Krapp,
K. Kristensen, A. Ligabue, O. B. Lutnæs, J. I. Melo, K. V. Mikkelsen, R.
H. Myhre, C. Neiss, C. B. Nielsen, P. Norman, J. Olsen, J. M. H. Olsen,
A. Osted, M. J. Packer, F. Pawlowski, T. B. Pedersen, P. F. Provasi, S.
Reine, Z. Rinkevicius, T. A. Ruden, K. Ruud, V. Rybkin, P. Salek, C. C. M.
Samson, A. Sánchez de Merás, T. Saue, S. P. A. Sauer, B. Schimmelpfennig, K. Sneskov, A. H. Steindal, K. O. Sylvester-Hvid, P. R. Taylor, A.
M. Teale, E. I. Tellgren, D. P. Tew, A. J. Thorvaldsen, L. Thøgersen, O.
Vahtras, M. A. Watson, D. J. D. Wilson, M. Ziolkowski, and H. Ågren,
“The Dalton quantum chemistry program system,” WIREs Comput. Mol.
Sci. 2013 (published online).
46 J. Kauczor, P. Jørgensen, and P. Norman, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 7, 1610
(2011).
47 J. M. L. Martin and P. R. Taylor, Chem. Phys. Lett. 248, 336 (1996).
48 J. Gauss and J. F. Stanton, J. Phys. Chem. A 104, 2865 (2000).
49 A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 5648 (1993); P. J. Stephens, F. J.
Devlin, C. F. Chabalowski, and M. J. Frisch, J. Phys. Chem. 98, 11623
(1994).
50 C. Lee, W. Yang, and R. G. Parr, Phys. Rev. B 37, 785 (1988).
51 R. A. Kendall, Th. H. Dunning, Jr., and R. J. Harrison, J. Chem. Phys. 96,
6796 (1992).
J. Chem. Phys. 140, 134103 (2014)
52 M.
J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel et al., GAUSSIAN 09, Revision
C.01, Gaussian, Inc., Wallingford, CT, 2010.
53 D. E. Woon and Th. H. Dunning, Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 103, 4572 (1995).
54 J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996);
78, 1396 (1997) (Erratum).
55 A. D. Becke, Phys. Rev. A 38, 3098 (1988).
56 T. Yanai, D. P. Tew, and N. C. Handy, Chem. Phys. Lett. 393, 51 (2004).
57 A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 1372 (1993).
58 O. Christiansen, H. Koch, and P. Jørgensen, Chem. Phys. Lett. 243, 409
(1995).
59 J. Cížek, Adv. Chem. Phys. 14, 35 (1969); G. D. Purvis III and R. J.
Bartlett, J. Chem. Phys. 76, 1910 (1982); G. E. Scuseria, C. L. Janssen, and
H. F. Schaefer III, ibid. 89, 7382 (1988); G. E. Scuseria and H. F. Schaefer
III, ibid. 90, 3700 (1989).
60 O. Christiansen, H. Koch, and P. Jørgensen, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 7429
(1995); H. Koch, O. Christiansen, P. Jørgensen, A. Sánchez de Merás, and
T. Helgaker, ibid. 106, 1808 (1997).
61 E. R. Davidson and A. A. Jarzecki, Chem. Phys. Lett. 285, 155
(1998).
62 L. Serrano-Andrés, M. Merchán, I. Nebot-Gil, R. Lindh, and B. O. Roos,
J. Chem. Phys. 98, 3151 (1993).
63 See supplementary material at http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4869849 for
tables of the calculated, lowest dipole-allowed excitation energies for
ethene, benzene, para-benzoquinone, and ethanol; table of the basis-set
dependence of NSCD and NSOR in ethene; table of comparison between
standard response theory results for NSOR with those of CPP response theory, in the off-resonant spectral regions; tables of calculated MCD, Faraday
OR, NSCD, and NSOR signals in ethene, benzene, para-benzoquinone,
and ethanol; illustrations of the calculated basis-set convergence of the
electric-dipole transition moments to the lowest excited states of ethene,
dependence of the oscillator strengths of the same on the used electron
correlation method, excitation energies for benzene, para-benzoquinone,
and ethanol, and 17 OSCD and 17 OSOR in para-benzoquinone, as well as
MCD, Faraday OR, NSCD, and NSOR in ethanol, as obtained with various
computational methods.
64 N. Nakashima, H. Inoue, M. Sumitami, and K. Yoshihara, J. Chem. Phys.
73, 5976 (1980).
65 A. Hiraya and K. Shobatake, J. Chem. Phys. 94, 7700 (1991).
66 A. Kuboyama, S. Matsuzaki, H. Tagagi, and H. Arano, Bull. Chem. Soc.
Jpn. 47, 1604 (1974).
67 A. R. Meier and G. H. Wagnière, Chem. Phys. 113, 287 (1987).
68 I. Schapiro, K. Sivalingam, and F. Neese, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 9, 3567
(2013).
69 L. R. Ingersoll and D. H. Liebenberg, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 44, 566 (1954).
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
130.236.83.168 On: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 12:22:56