4.7 Article

Modelling realistic TiO2 nanospheres: A benchmark study of SCC-DFTB against hybrid DFT

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 147, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4994165

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under European Union's HORIZON research and innovation programme (ERC) [647020]
  2. CINECA supercomputing center [LI05p GRV4CUPT]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs) are nowadays considered fundamental building blocks for many technological applications. Morphology is found to play a key role with spherical NPs presenting higher binding properties and chemical activity. From the experimental point of view, the characterization of these nano-objects is extremely complex, opening a large room for computational investigations. In this work, TiO2 spherical NPs of different sizes (from 300 to 4000 atoms) have been studied with a two-scale computational approach. Global optimization to obtain stable and equilibrated nanospheres was performed with a self-consistent charge density functional tight-binding (SCC-DFTB) simulated annealing process, causing a considerable atomic rearrangement within the nanospheres. Those SCC-DFTB relaxed structures have been then optimized at the DFT(B3LYP) level of theory. We present a systematic and comparative SCC-DFTB vs DFT(B3LYP) study of the structural properties, with particular emphasis on the surface-to-bulk sites ratio, coordination distribution of surface sites, and surface energy. From the electronic point of view, we compare HOMO-LUMO and Kohn-Sham gaps, total and projected density of states. Overall, the comparisons between DFTB and hybrid density functional theory show that DFTB provides a rather accurate geometrical and electronic description of these nanospheres of realistic size (up to a diameter of 4.4 nm) at an extremely reduced computational cost. This opens for new challenges in simulations of very large systems and more extended molecular dynamics. Published by AIP Publishing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据