International
Tables for
Crystallography
Volume C
Mathematical, physical and chemical tables
Edited by E. Prince

International Tables for Crystallography (2006). Vol. C. ch. 8.7, p. 715

Section 8.7.3.3. Physical constraints

P. Coppens,a Z. Sub and P. J. Beckerc

a 732 NSM Building, Department of Chemistry, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-3000, USA,bDigital Equipment Co., 129 Parker Street, PKO1/C22, Maynard, MA 01754-2122, USA, and cEcole Centrale Paris, Centre de Recherche, Grand Voie des Vignes, F-92295 Châtenay Malabry CEDEX, France

8.7.3.3. Physical constraints

| top | pdf |

There are several physical constraints that an electron-density model must satisfy. With the exception of the electroneutrality constraint, they depend strongly on the electron density close to the nucleus, which is poorly determined by the diffraction experiment.

8.7.3.3.1. Electroneutrality constraint

| top | pdf |

Since a crystal is neutral, the total electron population must equal the sum of the nuclear charges of the constituent atoms. A constraint procedure for linear least squares that does not increase the size of the least-squares matrix has been described by Hamilton (1964[link]). If the starting point is a neutral crystal, the constraint equation becomes [\textstyle\sum \Delta P_{i}S_{i}=0,\eqno (8.7.3.10)]where [S_{i}=\textstyle\int g({\bf r})\,{\rm d}{\bf r}], g being a general density function, and the [\Delta P_{i}] are the shifts in the population parameters. For the multipole model, only the monopolar functions integrate to a non-zero value. For normalized monopole functions, this gives [ \textstyle\sum \limits _{\rm monopoles} \Delta P_{i}=0.\eqno (8.7.3.11)]If the shifts without constraints are given by the vector y and the constrained shifts by yc, the Hamilton constraint is expressed as [ {\bf y}_{{c}}^T={\bf y}^T-{\bf y}^T{\bi Q}^T({\bi QA}^{-1}{\bi Q}^T)^{-1}{\bi QA}^{-1},\eqno (8.7.3.12)]where the superscript T indicates transposition, A is the least-squares matrix of the products of derivatives, and Q is a row vector of the values of [S_{i}] for elements representing density functions and zeros otherwise.

Expression (8.7.3.12)[link] cannot be applied if the unconstrained refinement corresponds to a singular matrix. This would be the case if all population parameters, including those of the core functions, were to be refined together with the scale factor. In this case, a new set of independent parameters must be defined, as described in Chapter 8.1[link] on least-squares refinements. Alternatively, one may set the scale factor to one and rescale the population parameters to neutrality after completion of the refinement. This will in general give a non-integral electron population for the core functions. The proper interpretation of such a result is that a core-like function is an appropriate component of the density basis set representing the valence electrons.

8.7.3.3.2. Cusp constraint

| top | pdf |

The electron density at a nucleus i with nuclear charge [Z_{i}] must satisfy the electron–nuclear cusp condition given by [ \lim _{{\bf r}_{i}\rightarrow 0}\left ({\partial \over \partial {\bf r}}_{ i}+2Z_{i}\right) \rho _{0{i}} ({\bf r}_{i}) =0,\eqno (8.7.3.13)]where [\rho _{0{i}}({\bf r}_{i})=(1/4\pi)\textstyle\int\rho({\bf r})\,{\rm d}\Omega_i] is the spherical component of the expansion of the density around nucleus i.

Only 1s-type functions have non-zero electron density at the nucleus and contribute to (8.7.3.13)[link]. For the hydrogen-like atom or ion described by a single exponent radial function R(r) = N exp (−ζr), (8.7.3.13)[link] gives [\zeta =2Z/a_0], where Z is the nuclear charge, and [a_0] is the Bohr unit. Thus, a modification of ζ for 1s functions, as implied by (8.7.3.6)[link] and (8.7.3.7)[link] if applied to H atoms, leads to a violation of the cusp constraint. In practice, the electron density at the nucleus is not determined by a limited resolution diffraction experiment; the single exponent function R(r) is fitted to the electron density away from, rather than at the nucleus.

8.7.3.3.3. Radial constraint

| top | pdf |

Poisson's electrostatic equation gives a relation between the gradient of the electric field ∇2Φ(r) and the electron density at r. [ \nabla ^2\Phi ({\bf r}) =-4\pi \rho ({\bf r}). \eqno (8.7.3.14)]As noted by Stewart (1977[link]), this equation imposes a constraint on the radial functions R(r). For [R_l(r)=N_l r^{n(l)}\exp (-\zeta _lr)], the condition [n(l)\geq l] must be obeyed for [R_l r^{-l}] to be finite at r = 0, which satisfies the requirement of the non-divergence of the electric field ∇V, its gradient ∇2V, the gradient of the field gradient ∇3V, etc.

8.7.3.3.4. Hellmann–Feynman constraint

| top | pdf |

According to the electrostatic Hellmann–Feynman theorem, which follows from the Born–Oppenheimer approximation and the condition that the forces on the nuclei must vanish when the nuclear configuration is in equilibrium, the nuclear repulsions are balanced by the electron–nucleus attractions (Levine, 1983[link]). The balance of forces is often achieved by a very sharp polarization of the electron density very close to the nuclei (Hirshfeld & Rzotkiewicz, 1974[link]), which may be represented in the X-ray model by the introduction of dipolar functions with large values of ζ. The Hellmann–Feynman constraint offers the possibility for obtaining information on such functions even though they may contribute only marginally to the observed X-ray scattering (Hirshfeld, 1984[link]).

As the Hellmann–Feynman constraint applies to the static density, its application presumes a proper deconvolution of the thermal motion and the electron density in the scattering model.

References

First citation Hamilton, W. C. (1964). Statistical methods in physical sciences. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
First citation Hirshfeld, F. L. (1984). Hellmann–Feynman constraint on charge densities, an experimental test. Acta Cryst. B40, 613–615.Google Scholar
First citation Hirshfeld, F. L. & Rzotkiewicz, S. (1974). Electrostatic binding in the first-row AH and A2 diatomic molecules. Mol. Phys. 27, 1319–1343.Google Scholar
First citation Levine, I. L. (1983). Quantum chemistry, 3rd edition. Boston/London/Sydney: Allyn and Bacon Inc.Google Scholar
First citation Stewart, R. F. (1977). One-electron density functions and many-centered finite multipole expansions. Isr. J. Chem. 16, 124–131.Google Scholar








































to end of page
to top of page