Abstract
A lot of effort is nowadays put into the development of novel water oxidation catalysts. In this context, mechanistic studies are crucial in order to elucidate the reaction mechanisms governing this complex process, new design paradigms and strategies how to improve the stability and efficiency of those catalysts. This review is focused on recent theoretical mechanistic studies in the field of homogeneous cobalt-based water oxidation catalysts. In the first part, computational methodologies and protocols are summarized and evaluated on the basis of their applicability toward real catalytic or smaller model systems, whereby special emphasis is laid on the choice of an appropriate model system. In the second part, an overview of mechanistic studies is presented, from which conceptual guidelines are drawn on how to approach novel studies of catalysts and how to further develop the field of computational modeling of water oxidation reactions.
1. Introduction
In the past decade, artificial water splitting has become a hot topic in research on renewable energy sources. A crucial step in this process is the oxidation of water to molecular oxygen. There are numerous catalysts which have been shown to facilitate this reaction, both of homogeneous and heterogeneous nature. Even though some of them show outstanding catalytic performance, we still lack fundamental understanding of the catalytic process. The latter is crucial in order to systematically improve those catalysts in terms of their catalytic performance and long term stability. The complexity of such systems often makes experimental investigations of catalytic intermediates a very tedious task. Computational approaches provide additional insight, by either helping to explain experimental findings or by simulations of systems and processes for which no experimental data is available. In the following, we will review some of the recent theoretical studies based on homogeneous transition metals complexes used for water oxidation with emphasis on cobalt-based catalysts. The latter has not been the most commonly used metal for artificial water oxidation catalysts (WOCs). However, it has become more and more popular in recent years, and when it comes to mimicking the cuboidal structure of nature's oxygen evolution cluster (OEC), cobalt-based WOCs turned out to be more active compared to their manganese-based counterparts (Evangelisti et al., , ).
We focus our attention not only on the outcome of the studies at hand, but also on the applied methodology. This review contains two main sections: In the first one we discuss the currently accepted mechanisms for water oxidation. We will in particular discuss the choice of the model system and computational approaches applied to tackle specific questions associated with those mechanisms. In the second section, we give the reader a brief overview on the current state of field by discussing the most important contributions with respect to homogeneous Co-based WOCs.
2. Water oxidation mechanisms
From a chemical point of view the water oxidation is a straight forward process (see Equation 1) where the oxygen atoms of two water molecules are oxidized, while the protons and electrons are released, and the two oxygen atoms combine to form molecular oxygen:
Even if enough energy is supplied to the system to overcome the thermodynamic barrier (i.e., 4.92 eV at standard conditions) the reaction still does not occur spontaneously. Only in the presence of a suitable catalyst reasonable turnover numbers can be achieved. But which properties should such a catalyst have? An intuitive definition of an ideal catalyst was recently given by Balcells (), who states that an ideal catalyst has to fulfill the following four criteria: (1) high activity under mild conditions (neutral pH, room temperature, atmospheric pressure); (2) longterm stability in order to achieve high turnover numbers; further it should be easy to recycle the catalyst after it has lost its activity; (3) cheap and “green”, i.e., friendly toward the environment; this is mostly true for catalysts containing first row transition metals such as cobalt discussed later on. However, the organic ligand framework might still be a health risk for certain animals or plants; (4) modular, the catalyst should be easy to modify and to immobilize or couple to other catalytically active species. Not all of those criteria are easily targetable by computational studies, however in particular (1) offers various opportunities where theoretical studies can greatly enhance the fundamental understanding of the catalytic processes at hand.
The basic questions behind (1) are in general: What is the catalytic mechanism, what is the rate-limiting step, and how can the catalytic performance possibly be improved?
In order to elucidate these issues we have to decompose the reaction (Equation 1) into its elementary reactions. In principle there are four oxidations [electron transfers (ETs)], four deprotonations [proton transfers (PTs)], the oxygen-oxygen bond formation (will be discussed later in more detail), the release of molecular oxygen [O2 dissociation (O2DI)] as well as the association of a water molecule to regenerate the catalyst [aqua association (AQAS)]. Some of those elementary reactions might occur combined such as proton coupled electron transfers (PCETs); likewise, the release of molecular oxygen and the regeneration might happen in a concerted fashion.
In general, all water oxidation mechanisms can be categorized into three phases: in the first stage of the catalytic cycle, the catalyst undergoes several oxidations (ETs) and deprotonations (PTs) to reach a high oxidized state that contains an oxyl / oxo ligand (see Figure 1). The latter is involved in the oxygen-oxygen bond formation, either by a water nucleophilic attack (WNA) or by a radical-coupling (RC) reaction. The latter is sometimes also referred to as interaction of two metal oxo (I2M) species. For this review, we will use the more general term RC. After the bond formation, further oxidation (ET) and deprotonation (PT) reactions might take place before in the last stage of the mechanism molecular oxygen is released (O2DI), and the initial state of catalyst is regenerated by coordination of a novel substrate (AQAS).
Figure 1
The exact order of those building blocks is dependent on the nature of the catalyst, i.e., the transition metal center(s) and associated oxidation state(s) as well as ligands and environment. There are also different flavors of the oxygen-oxygen bond formation reactions. For example, for the WNA, either a water molecule (WNA) or a hydroxide (WNA(OH)) can be the nucleophile which attacks the oxo / oxyl species in an intra- (i-WNA) or intermolecular reaction. Similarly, the RC mechanism can either be intra- (i-RC) or intermolecular (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
In the next section we will focus on the choice of appropriate computational settings and model systems picking up questions arising from points mentioned above.
3. Choosing a model system and an appropriate computational setting
Often it is a straight forward process to propose a water oxidation mechanism for a novel catalyst. However, experimentally it is challenging to get hands on intermediates which might help to elucidate details of the catalytic cycle. Here, computational chemistry is an essential tool to obtain an in-depth understanding on the electronic structure of the catalyst and possible intermediates thereof during catalysis. The work-horse of computational chemistry, density functional theory (DFT), usually is a suitable choice. Yet, in the course of this review we try to point out some limitations when it comes to modeling WOCs.
In order to get an overview of possible intermediates involved in the catalytic cycle, the first step is to calculate their relative stability in terms of electronic or free energies. Starting from those, a selection of structures can be made which are within a reasonable energy range, and can serve as building blocks for the full catalytic cycle. However, it is not enough to solely propose possible intermediates based on their relative stability, also their physical properties have to be in agreement with observable quantities such as spectroscopic data, reduction potentials (Ered) and pKA values describing their reactivity under reaction conditions. For a broad overview on which properties of WOCs are accessible by DFT we refer the reader to a review by Mavros et al. (2014). For an overview in terms of reaction barriers and mechanisms we refer to the work of Balcells () and Liao and Siegbahn (2017). As pointed out by these authors, when modeling the thermodynamics and reaction barriers it boils down to the choice of a reasonable model system which is able to capture both solvation effects as well as spin-state energetics. The latter will be discussed in the following in the context of solvation effects, reaction barriers and the oxo/oxyl species.
3.1. Solvation effects
WOCs are operable in aqueous solutions whereby water is not only the solvent but also the substrate. Description of solvation effects hence becomes a crucial point when modeling properties such as Ered and pKA values or reaction barriers. In principle two different approaches exist on how to model the aqueous environment of the catalyst. On the one hand, there are implicit (or continuum) solvent models such as the conductor-like screening model (COSMO), the polarizable continuum model (PCM), and others, where the interactions of the individual solvent molecules are averaged and represented as a dielectric continuum which interacts with the solute (Tomasi et al., 2007). Directed interactions such as hydrogen-bonds are thus not well described (Cramer and Truhlar, ; Tomasi, 2004; Skyner et al., 2015). Implicit solvation models suffer from an additional drawback, namely their (empirical) parameterization. In general such models are parameterized for a set of small organic molecules with a neutral charge computed at a rather low level of theory (i.e., small basis set and generalized gradient approximation (GGA) functionals). As a consequence their application to more complex systems such as charged transition metal complexes might not be fully justified in all cases. Nevertheless, they have been successfully applied to such systems when relative rather than absolute solvation free energies were of interest (Baik and Friesner, ). Another important point one should keep in mind is that the parameterization does not allow for a systematic improvement of the solvation free energies when moving to a higher level of theory in the calculations (Ho et al., ). With the development of the conductor-like screening model for real solvents (COSMO-RS), important improvements to the existing methodology of implicit solvation models were made, which allowed to alleviate some of their limitations such as the description of hydrogen bonding (Klamt, ). On the other hand, there are explicit (or atomistic) solvent models where the solvent molecules are an essential part of the model system. The main drawback of models which include explicit solvent molecules is the prerequisite to know which solvent molecules are essential for a sophisticated description of the system under investigation. Selection and subsequent optimization of certain solvent configurations may thus strongly bias the outcome of calculations. Extensive configuration sampling e.g., by molecular dynamics (MD) is often necessary making such models computationally demanding. Both static implicit and explicit solvation models were routinely combined, in particular for the calculation of reaction barriers for O−O bond formation where inclusion of several explicit water molecules in addition to a solvent continuum model had turned out to be crucial to stabilize the transition state by hydrogen bonds (Gil-Sepulcre et al., ). Recently, Hodel et al. () published a study investigating the influence of different solvation models on the thermodynamics of ligand exchange reactions at a cobalt-based WOC. Employing implicit (COSMO and COSMO-RS), static explicit (solvation shells were extracted from DFT-MD) and dynamic explicit (sampled configurations from DFT-MD) solvation models, electronic energy differences obtained by COSMO-RS were found to be in better agreement with the difference obtained from DFT-MD than the one obtained with COSMO, while the static explicit solvation (as expected) depends on the chosen configuration and can thus lead to ambiguous electronic energy differences. Besides the relative stabilities of intermediate species, also reaction barriers were calculated employing nudged-elastic-band (NEB) to a model with explicit solvation, and metadynamic calculations where the solvent was treated dynamically (see section 3.2 for more details). Due to inadequate and static explicit solvation, NEB calculations resulted in a vast overestimation of the electronic reaction barrier. By virtue of the large system size required for an appropriate explicit solvation, sampling by DFT-MD is very costly. Here, the quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics (QM/MM) methodology promises to be a cheaper alternative, where the system (e.g., the transition metal complex and the first solvation shell) is treated at a QM level of theory, and the remaining part is dealt with using classical mechanics. Further examples of the application of the different solvation approaches can be found in section 4.
No matter which solvation model is applied it still remains an idealized model of the “real” reaction mixture which is often much more complex than models cover nowadays. Besides counter-ions, there are buffer molecules (Evangelisti et al., ) and — in the case of chemical oxidation – sacrificial oxidizing agents as well as their reduced products. Those complex mixtures are not only challenging from a theoretical point of view, also experimentalists have to come up with advanced strategies to verify the integrity of the catalysts before, during and after catalysis. If and how those components affect the calculated properties has to be determined for each system individually. In particular, when modeling the O−O bond formation, the pH determines whether a water molecule or a hydroxide is the nucleophile. Further, solvated cations might help to stabilize the transition state by participating in the hydrogen bonding network affecting the local pH or by direct coordination of the formed hydroperoxo species as proposed by Bucci et al. () for a mononuclear iridium catalyst. The role of the oxidant can be even more pronounced as in the case of peroxymonosulfate, which cannot only be involved in ET transfer reactions but rather transfer an oxygen of its peroxo group to the catalyst, which in turn becomes the substrate for the O−O bond formation (Khan et al., ). This incomplete list of possible interactions illustrates that the complexity of the “real” system might not be caught by oversimplified models.
3.2. Reaction barriers
In order to elucidate the reaction mechanism, knowledge about the thermodynamics and other properties (see section 3.4) is not enough. Further insight regarding the kinetics is required which can be obtained by calculating reaction barriers. In order to be able to compare them to experimental turn-over-frequencies (TOFs), identification of the rate-determining-step (RDS) is necessary. For water oxidation mechanisms one often assumes that the chemical steps, i.e., the oxygen-oxygen bond formation, the release of molecular oxygen or the association of water, are rate limiting. Among those reactions, the most critical is the oxygen-oxygen bond formation (Fan et al., ). In general the calculation of reaction barriers is a difficult task since, depending on the model system, the reaction coordinate might be of high dimensionality and therefore localization of a transition state becomes challenging. In the following we will discuss the WNA and RC mechanisms for the O−O bond formation in more detail and point out critical choices which have to be made in order to model such reactions. A WNA either by a water or hydroxide molecule is governed by the spatial accessibility and the electrophilicity of the oxo / oxyl ligand of the catalyst. When a water molecule acts as a nucleophile, it has become a paradigm to introduce an intramolecular base with an appropriate orientation to deprotonate the approaching water, thereby increasing its nucleophilicity (Dogutan et al., ). Lately, this concept has also been applied to model systems of heterogeneous catalysts by Frydendal et al. () and Busch et al. () where a hydrogen acceptor is placed next to oxo / oxyl ligand, which deprotonates the approaching nucleophile. In this way, the calculation of highly unstable hydroperoxo species (M−OOH) can be avoided since directly the superoxo species M−OO is formed. This mechanism is referred to as “bifunctional” (see Figure 2 - WNA(i-B assisted)). However, if it is the goal to calculate the barrier for the O−O bond formation, combination with an ET is not an option. From a conceptual point of view, there is no difference whether the superoxo species M−OO is formed by a classical WNA ([WNA-PCET]-PCET) or by a bifunctional WNA ([WNA-PT-PCET]-ET), the latter just includes an additional PT into the first transformation as indicated by the brackets. Please note, the brackets representing a concerted reaction in a chemical sense might be chosen for computational reasons only and are probably not always intuitive. So, if an intramolecular base enhances the nucleophilicity of H2O why is not OH− used from the beginning? Besides the experimental conditions which often do not allow the existence of OH− there is another problem, namely the Coulomb repulsion between OH− and the oxo / oxyl species (discussed later in detail - see section 3.3) (Crandell et al., ).
A critical choice in the calculation of the reaction barrier for the WNA mechanism is the solvation model. The use of an implicit solvation model is often not enough since the approaching nucleophile and transition state might require further stabilization by hydrogen bonding. Hence, it is common to include several water molecules into the transition state models (see Tong et al., 2011; Gil-Sepulcre et al., ). If the number of water molecules is increased this approach quickly reaches its limitations, namely when the degrees of freedom of the solvent and solute become so large that sampling is required. An example where this model was pushed toward its limit is the work by Hodel and Luber (,). Inclusion of the whole first solvation shell led to novel insight into the proton-transfer patters using climbing image-nudged elastic band (CI-NEB) calculations for the O−O bond formation. However, the obtained electronic energy differences from such static solvation models strongly depend on their initial geometries. Combining both ab initio molecular dynamics (AIMD) and NEB calculations (Mattioli et al., 2013) investigated water oxidation mechanisms by cobalt oxide clusters as models for heterogeneous Co-oxides. The next logical step to go beyond the static model of NEBs is sampling the whole configurational space of the solute and solvent. The metadynamic protocol first proposed by Laio and Parrinello () offers the opportunity to sample the phase space with regards to observables which are indicative for the reaction. The latter was successfully applied to small model WOCs in explicit solvation (Vallés-Pardo et al., 2012; Piccinin et al., 2013). While metadynamics simulations give a more realistic picture of the reaction than static approaches and might allow further insight on how the solvent molecules participate in the O−O bond formation, they are still depended on the choice of the observables, the bias potential (collective variables), and the quality of the sampling, all of which make such simulations computationally very demanding and therefore de facto limit their application to small systems. Besides metadynamics, there are other protocols where AIMD simulations have been biased in order to model reaction barriers. Bernasconi et al. () obtained activation barriers by applying the thermodynamic integration scheme where the constrained O−O bond of an FeIV = O complex was scanned in a discrete interval. Their approach allowed them to observe a step-wise mechanism for the WNA, where first the approaching H2O is oxidized by the transition metal complex, in a second step the O−O bond formation takes place between the two radicaloid species, followed by a deprotonation to form the well-known hydroperoxo species (see Figure 3). Unlike conventional water oxidation where molecular oxygen is the final product, the model catalysts discussed by Bernasconi et al. () produce hydrogen peroxide. The same step-wise mechanism was earlier reported by Funes-Ardoiz et al. () for a set of copper catalysts, they referred to it as a single electron transfer-water nucleophilic attack (SET-WNA).
Figure 3
As indicated earlier, the hydroperoxo species formed by a WNA is a rather unstable intermediate which might require further stabilization by solvent molecules or aqua ions. The RC mechanism completely avoids the formation of such an intermediate and thus is supposedly less dependent on external factors. However, it suffers from other complications, among them are the intermolecular interactions between the two oxo-moieties, such as π − π stacking of their ligands (dispersion) or the interaction with the solvent. Further, there is the question how the actual bond formation should be described, thereby in particular the spin state and its change during the reaction are of interest.
Recently, Fan et al. (
Until now we primarily focused on secondary interactions which govern the formation of the encounter complex and not on the O−O bond formation per se. The latter is usually described as an open-shell singlet state (Nakano, 2017), where the two radicals have anti-parallel spin, description of which is difficult with single determinant methods such as DFT. The broken-symmetry (BS) approach by Yamaguchi et al. (1986) and Noodleman et al. (1988) often turned out to be a rather good approximation to the real multi-determinant problem. Further, a rigorous treatment by more accurate wave function based methods is mostly computationally not feasible for transition metal based WOCs. Since the early work of Yamaguchi et al. (1986) and Noodleman et al. (1988) alternative formulations have been proposed (Ferre et al.,
The discussion of electronic structure leads us directly to the next topic - namely how to accurately describe the metal-oxo species, which by now we have identified as the key intermediate for all water oxidation mechanisms.
3.3. Metal-oxo
Those species are not only interesting in the context of water oxidation, they also play an important role in various other processes, for instance as cofactors in cytochrome P450 enzymes which catalyze oxygen atom transfer reactions in biological systems. Such porphyrin-complexes have been studied in detail with a large variety of methods, reviewing of which is beyond the scope of the current work. We therefore focus on a few selected publications which are related to water oxidation.
Before we discuss the advantages and failures of different methods when describing metal-oxo species let us start from a purely chemical point of view. In literature metal-oxo species are often referred to as {M=O}(n−2)+ ↔ {M−O•}(n−2)+, but this simplified picture is somehow misleading since it describes the oxidation states of the individual components Mn+ + O2− and M(n−1)+ + O•− prior to the actual bond formation (i.e., mixing of metal and ligand orbitals). A simplified picture of the molecular orbitals (MOs) of MnV = O is shown in Figure 4, where in an idealized ionic ligand field the π orbitals would be entirely localized on oxygen while the π* orbitals would be localized on the metal center. However, in reality mixing between the 2p and 3d orbitals occurs and the radical is delocalized over the whole M−O bond (Venturinelli Jannuzzi et al., 2016). An accurate description of the latter is required in order to rationalize the O−O bond formation. But this is exactly where DFT is known to often fail, the calculation of spin state energetics (see Szalay et al., 2012; Roos et al., 2016, for a more sophisticated review on that topic). The use of multiconfigurational ab initio methods such as complete active space self-consistent-field (CASSCF) (Roos et al., 1980), restricted active space self-consistent-field (RASSCF) (Olsen et al., 1988; Malmqvist et al., 1990), generalized active space self-consistent-field (GASSCF; Olsen et al., 1988; Fleig et al.,
Figure 4

Simplified MO diagrams for different spin-states of MnV = O. Reprinted with permission from Ashley and Baik (
The quality of multiconfigurational calculations strongly depends on the choice of an appropriate and sufficiently large active space, however the extraordinary high computational cost often becomes a limiting factor. An attempt to make large active spaces computational feasible is the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) methodology (for fundamentals and recent developments, see e.g., Chan and Sharma,
3.4. Reduction potentials and other properties
Validation of the proposed mechanisms is usually quite challenging since the calculated intermediates often cannot be isolated nor characterized. Nevertheless, experimental reduction potentials and pKA values are regularly available for one or more steps of the catalytic cycle and thereby might serve as a direct link to the experiment. Even though numerous protocols exist (for a recent review see Ho and Coote,
The standard free energy of the electron affinity (EA, Mn+ + e− → M(n−1)+) in solution (sol), , is related to the standard reduction potential E° by the Faraday constant (F),
It is composed of the free energy of the EA in the gas phase (gas), , and the associated solvation free energy ΔGsolv. can be rewritten according to the definition of the Gibbs Free energy as the difference of the enthalpy and the Temperature multiplied by entropic contributions ΔSgas. The latter can be calculated by quantum chemical programs as the sum of difference in electronic energy (), the difference in zero-point-energy (ΔZPE) and the difference of the thermal correction term ΔHT. The last term is usually obtained by applying the rigid-rotator approximation within a harmonic potential (Baik and Friesner,
The possibility to calculate from and ΔGsolv is often referred to as Born-Haber or thermochemical cycle, and is best known in the context of implicit solvation models (Wang et al., 2010). In order to calculate the change in free energy of an ET () or of the proton affinity (PA) in case of a PT (), one needs to define the free energy of an electron and a proton respectively. There are common values which have been used on a regular basis in literature. However, to take full advantage of error cancellation sometimes an isodesmic scheme is used, where the electron in case of an ET respectively the proton in case of a PT is transferred between two species and never exists as a sole entity (see Keith et al.,
For a computational chemist, a reduction is rather straight forward by increasing the number of electrons in the studied system. However, an experimental chemist is especially interested in oxidation states of certain atoms, e.g., the transition metals. This is problematic since the concept of oxidation states lacks a rigorous theoretical foundation at a quantum mechanical level. There are many electronic-structure based methods to determine the oxidation state by either partitioning the total charge density among atoms and ions such as Bader, Voroni charges or projection techniques such as Mulliken charges or Löwdin charges (Sit et al., 2011). Each of those methods has its advantages and flaws which will not be discussed here. For transition metal complexes, where an ionic metal center is surrounded by neutral or ionic ligands such methods often reach their limitation. There have been several concepts suggested based on localization procedures, none of which has yet become the standard tool. However, they are often able to give a picture which is closely related to concept of oxidation states (Aullón and Alvarez,
On a side note, we expect that relativistic effects should have a negligible contribution toward all the properties discussed in this section, since they become usually only relevant for elements with an atomic number larger than 50 (Bond,
In the following section, recent developments in the field of homogeneous transition metal catalysts for water oxidation will be discussed. Thereby we will focus on cobalt-based WOCs, which have been shown to be e.g., stable mimics for nature's OEC. Further, homogeneous model systems might help to elucidate the water oxidation reaction mechanism of the well-known heterogeneous CoOx. For other well studied transition metal WOCs we refer to recent reviews (e.g., Kärkäs et al.,
4. Cobalt-based water oxidation catalysts
Computational studies on the water oxidation mechanism of Co-based WOCs are rather scarce. Nevertheless, some WOCs were studied with great care, among them are the so-called Hangman-Corroles (Dogutan et al.,
Figure 5

Schematic illustration of a Hangman-Corrole studied by Lai et al. (
Based on calculations of reduction potentials, free energies of deprotonations, PCETs, as well as transition states for the O−O bond formation by a WNA and the displacement of molecular oxygen by a solvent molecule, the following reaction mechanism was proposed for the Hangman-Corroles: Starting from a CoIII−OH2 state, two consecutive PCETs lead to a reactive state, where a WNA takes place, the carboxylate of the Hangman construct thereby acting as an intra-molecular base and facilitating the O−O bond formation. After an additional PCET, either deprotonation of the carboxylic acid followed by the substitution of molecular oxygen by a solvent molecule or a fourth PCET takes place after which the displacement of the superoxide by a water molecule occurs. Applying the nomenclature established earlier, the mechanism can be described as: PCET-PCET-[(i-PT)-WNA]-PCET-PT-O2DI-AQAS-ET or PCET-PCET-[(i-PT)-WNA]-PCET-PCET-[O2DI-AQAS]. A key factor determining the likelihood for a WNA is the electrophilicity of the oxo / oxyl ligand, which in turn is governed by the oxidation state of the metal center. Here, the WNA takes place at a formal CoV center. However, calculations by Ertem and Cramer (
The influence of different transition metals on the activation barrier was studied by Lai et al. (
A structural analog of the Hangman-Corroles without an intramolecular base was investigated by Lei et al. (
A common structural feature of most WOCs is the coordination by polydentate nitrogen bearing ligands such as corroles, porphyrines, or pyridine derivatives. Another catalyst with such a pyridine ligand scaffold is [CoII(Py5)(OH2)]2+ [Py5 = 2,6-(bis(bis-2-pyridyl)-methoxymethane)pyridine] (see Figure 6; Wasylenko et al., 2011). In contrast to the WOCs described above, it is the first time that the catalytic ground state contains CoII instead of CoIII. This has implications on the reaction mechanism: first, the ligand sphere of CoII complexes is prone to ligand exchange, secondly high oxidation states such as CoV can be avoided. On the other side, the lower oxidation state in principle reduces the electrophilicity of the reactive CoIII−O• species which in turn makes a WNA mechanism less likely. Nevertheless, the catalytic cycle proposed by Crandell et al. (
Figure 6

Schematic illustration of [CoII(Py5)(OH2)]2+ investigated by Crandell et al. (
Figure 7

Free energy profile of the O−O bond formation catalyzed by [CoII(Py5)(OH2)]2+. Note the associative mechanism where the nucleophile first coordinates to the cobalt center. Crandell et al. (
Recently, Younus et al. (2017) reported a mononuclear Co-catalyst with a completely different ligand frame work (see Figure 6). The latter is composed of bidentate triazol-carboxylates that coordinate with one oxygen of the carboxylate as well as one nitrogen atom of the triazol to the metal center. The final complex is composed of two of those ligands in a trans configuration [CoII(TCA)2(OH2)2] (TCA = 1-mesityl-1,2,3-1H-triazole-4-carboxylate). Based on experimental data the following reaction mechanism was proposed: PCET-PCET-[WNA-PCET]-PCET-[O2DI-AQAS]. The two alternative pathways, i.e., RC and a bifunctional mechanism, were also considered. However, a RC mechanism could be excluded by experiments, and the bifunctional mechanism was ruled out since there is no suitable hydrogen acceptor in close proximity to facilitate a concerted mechanism.
Moving on from mononuclear Co-based WOCs to dinuclear catalysts, only a few examples of mechanistic studies can be found in the literature. An example is [(TPA)2(OH)2]4+ (TPA = tris(2-pyridylmethyl)amine) by Ishizuka et al. (
Figure 8

Schematic illustration of [(TPA)2(μ−O)2]2+ as studied by Ishizuka et al. (
A dinuclear WOC [(CoIII(trpy))2(μ−bpp)(μ−OO)]3+ (trpy = 2,2′;6′:2″-terpyridine; bpp− = bis(2-pyridyl)-3,5-pyrazolate), which was found to be also a hydrogen reduction catalyst, was reported by Fukuzumi et al. (
Fernando and Aikens (
Figure 9

Schematic illustration of three [(CoIII(OH2)2(OH)2)2(μ−OH)2] isomers. Electronic energy difference given relative to the left structure, 0.0 eV (left), 0.12 eV (middle), 0.21 eV (right). Reproduced from geometrical data published by Fernando and Aikens (
The active species for all three possible nucleophiles is reported to be a CoV−O• (formally CoVI = O) obtained after three consecutive PCETs, all of which have to happen at the same metal center. While the authors do not attempt to assign formal oxidation states to the individual metal centers, the nomenclature of the oxyl as well as the reported spin multiplicity clearly suggest a single-site mechanism. In this light, the question arises why the second metal center is even necessary, a question which was not discussed in the study. So why is the dinuclear model system still important? It might be envisioned to be the smallest building block of CoxO3, which is known to be a potent heterogeneous WOC, even more since Kanan and Nocera (
Catalytically active and stable polynuclear WOCs with four centers exhibit a cuboidal structure (see Figure 10). Like for the dinuclear species, there is a large number of possible protonation isomers. Fernando and Aikens (
Figure 10

Schematic illustration of the [(CoIII(OH2)2(OH)(μ3-O))4] model system as used by Wang and Van Voorhis (2011) (top, left), Kwapien et al. (
Kwapien et al. (
A different protonation state of the same model system as discussed above, where two bridging oxo ligands bear a proton in the resting state, was investigated by Li and Siegbahn (
A molecular catalyst featuring a cubodial core is [(μ3-O)4(μ2-OAc)4(py)4], often referred to as Dismukes-cubane (McCool et al., 2011; La Ganga et al.,
Figure 11

Schematic illustration of [(μ3-O)4(μ2-OAc)4(py)4] where a single water molecule is associated (left, Li and Siegbahn (
Since the Dismukes-cubane does not feature an aqua or hydroxy ligand, which is a prerequisite for water oxidation, binding of a H2O or OH− has to occur prior to entering the catalytic cycle. The latter was experimentally observed by Nguyen et al. (2015). They were also able to isolate a singly oxidized form of the catalyst, [CoIV(μ3-O)4(μ2-OAc)3(OAc)(py)4]. The latter is able to evolve molecular oxygen upon addition of hydroxide. Since the reduction potential to reach a CoV state is too large, they suspected [CoIV(μ3-O)4(OH)(μ2-OAc)3(OAc)(py)4] to disproportionate. In principle the mechanism proposed by Nguyen et al. (2015) (ET-PT-ET-WNA(OH)-PCET-[ET-A2AS(OH)-O2DI]) is in agreement with earlier proposals for model systems by Li and Siegbahn (
Recently, Brodsky et al. (
Besides the CoIII-based cubanes of McCool et al. (2011) there is a family of CoII cubanes which has been investigated by Evangelisti et al. (
A similar study was conducted to elucidate the role of the redox-inert metal center in [Ln(hmp)4(OAc)(OH)4OH2] (LnCo3(OR)4; Ln = Er, Tm) (Evangelisti et al.,
Figure 12

Schematic illustration of the cubanes studied by Patzke and co-workers: {Co4(OR)4} (left, Evangelisti et al. (
Figure 13

Approximate minimum energy pathways obtained by NEB optimizations for a WNA on two isomers of [Er(hmp)4(μ2-OAc)2(OH)3(O)]. Top: Oxo-ligand is on the same face of the cubane as the erbium ion, note how the hydroxyl ligand acts as proton acceptor. Bottom: Oxo-ligand is on the face as another cobalt center, here the hydrogen bonding network is unable to transfer the proton to the hydroxyl ligand, instead a hydronium is formed. Reproduced from geometrical data published by Hodel and Luber (
In a follow up study Schilling et al. (2017) investigated the “distorted” cubane structures in more detail. It turned out that distorted structures are intermediates toward fully open cubane core structures (see Figure 14). The opening of the cubane cage is reminiscent of findings for the OCE where the dangling manganese is known to “pull-out” one corner of the cubane core (Krewald et al.,
Figure 14

Approximate reaction path for the opening of the cubane core of {LnCo3(OR)4}, Ln = Er, Tm. Schilling et al. (2017), Copyright Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. Reproduced with permission.
Not long ago the third generation of CoII cubanes was presented by Song et al. (2017), which features two aqua ligands on the same face of the cube mimicking the surface of CoxO3. While the mechanism for water oxidation catalyzed by [ ((dpy(OH)(O))4)(OAc)2(OH2)2]2+ (dpy(OH)(O) = di-2-pyridinylmethanediolat) is still under investigation, unprecedented new insight into the hydrogen bonding network of the active face of the cubane cubane were obtained using DFT-MD calculations. Song et al. (2017) also have shown experimentally that it is possible substitute some of the cobalt centers by NiII. However, they were not able to isolate cubanes with a specific substitution pattern, but solid evidence comes from mass spectrometry that statistical substitution takes place. Doping of heterogeneous cobalt-oxides with nickel-ions has already been frequently used however not for homogeneous catalysts. Whether those mixed metal cubanes can help to identify the mechanism governing water oxidation is still under investigation.
Besides the organometallic cubane clusters, there are also carbon-free CoII WOCs, such as the polyoxometalates (POMs) presented by Soriano-López et al. (2017) Those complexes are composed of a tetra-cobalt oxide core which is sandwiched by two lacunary polytungstate cages [XW9O34 (X = P or V)] forming [Co4(OH2)2(XW9O34)2]10− (see Figure 15). The cobalt atoms do not form a cuboidal core but rather a mimic of a cobalt oxide layer. As a consequence, only the two terminal metal centers possess aqua ligands, which limits O−O bond formation to inter – rather than intramolecular pathways. Since a bimolecular pathway seems unlikely due to the sheer size of the POM, only one option is left: PT-ET-PCET-[WNA-(i-PT)-ET]-PCET-[O2DI-AQAS] and concerted variations of it. Free energy calculations favored the sequence stated before which is identical to the mechanism proposed for the CoII-cubanes. The only difference is the capability of bridging oxo moieties (Co−O−W) to act as a proton acceptor, and thereby facilitate a WNA.
5. Summary and conclusion
In the following some general conclusions on the calculated mechanisms are presented. We want to emphasize that the goal of this summary is not to judge whether the proposed mechanisms are in agreement with experiments or not. The purpose is mere to compare the mechanisms from a theoretical point of view. Comparing the proposed mechanisms for a certain type of ligand framework and nuclearity, we find some correlations that might help to elucidate the reaction mechanism of yet undiscovered catalysts. However, there might also be the chance that up to now the proposed mechanisms are somewhat biased by the previous studies and in particular by the computational protocol applied.
There is general agreement on the first steps of the mechanism of mononuclear cobalt WOCs, which are supposed to undergo two PCETs before the O−O bond is formed by a WNA. Depending on the WOCs initial oxidation state, two electron transfers lead to either a formal CoIV or CoV. All potential CoV complexes are bearing non-innocent ligands which potentially are oxidized instead of the metal center, hence a formal oxidation state of CoIV might be a sufficient requirement for water oxidation. Further, for the discussed mononuclear catalysts a bimolecular RC mechanism (I2M) was either excluded by experiments or rendered unlikely due to the strict octahedral coordination mode of the cobalt center as well as the sterically demanding ligands. An extension of the coordination sphere as observed for certain ruthenium-based catalysts seems unlikely for the used ligand-frameworks, which are rather confined in their flexibility.
The picture is similar for dinuclear catalysts in terms of the catalytically active species and formal oxidation state (CoIV = O). However, when it comes to the O−O bond formation, i-RC becomes a respectable alternative to a WNA, since bulky ligands are hardly the limiting factor for intramolecular reactions. Regarding the CoIII cubodial model systems there is consent among all authors: two PCETs are followed by the O−O bond formation. The preferred mechanism for the latter depends on the protonation state (i.e., protonated μ–O, oxo-ligands on the same face of the cubane etc.) which in turn is dependent on the solvation model. The proposed mechanism for the Dismukes-Cubane changed slightly over the past years: from a WNA, over a WNA(OH), to an i-WNA(OH). The reason for the changes are mainly routed in the uncertainty about the exact structure (i.e., substitution of OAc-ligands by H2O or OH−) as well as the protonation state of the species in solution. Nevertheless, in general the mechanism is still consistent with the ones proposed for model systems. This is also true for the CoII-cubanes, which both supposedly follow a reaction scheme analogous to the one proposed for CoIII model systems. However, also here the authors have explored a variety of structures depending on which and how many of the OAc-ligands were exchanged. The non-cubodial cobalt-core of the CoII-POM was found to follow a similar water oxidation mechanism as the CoII-cubanes, since all those catalysts have in common that the number of metal centers accessible by solvent is limited.
From all those studies we can draw guidelines how to approach mechanistic studies of novel catalysts and how to improve current computational approaches. Of uttermost importance is the choice of an appropriate model system. Since the reaction takes place in the condensed phase, special attention has to be given to possible ligand substitutions and protonation state(s). The latter is in particular dependent on the experimental conditions, where the pH usually is controlled by buffers. But not only the catalyst and buffer ions are part of the reaction solution, there are also counter ions (e.g., of the catalyst or the oxidant) and chemical oxidants as, in the case of photocatalytic water oxidation, photosensitzers and sacrificial electron acceptors. If and how those other molecules influence the reaction mechanism is often not directly obvious and might be worth to be investigated.
Regarding the catalyst itself, for most of them solvent-solute interaction are non-negligible. Besides static calculations, which are biased to the initial guess used in the calculations, AIMD approaches, although computationally more expensive, can lead to a more complete picture of the catalytic process. If one attempts to identify the rate limiting step in terms of an activation barrier, one has to keep in mind that there are other potentially rate limiting reactions besides the O−O bond formation. Hence, an appropriate solvation model has to be chosen for the modeling of thermodynamics and reaction barriers. So far, there is no gold standard which can be routinely applied to all kinds of systems, which makes the choice crucial. When it comes to modeling the electronic structure of the catalyst, special care has to be given to potentially non-innocent ligands, metal-oxo species as well as to metal-metal interactions in the case of poly-nuclear WOCs. In this context, multiconfigurational methods might help to overcome the limitations of DFT. However, often the complexity and size of the WOCs does not allow for a sufficiently large active space in multiconfigurational calculations, which currently limits their application to rather small systems. Nevertheless, the necessity to use such methods is for example illustrated by O−O bond formation, for which a MIV=O or MV=O species is a prerequisite. The accurate description of the latter is a rather difficult task due to the open-shell nature of both the metal center and the oxo ligand. Another issue are formal oxidation states, since this chemical concept has no strict counter part in quantum mechanics, and thus may lead to misunderstandings among theoreticians and between theoreticians and experimentalists.
Statements
Author contributions
The authors MS and SL jointly developed the concept of the review and wrote the manuscript. All shown structures were plotted using coordinates of optimized structures provided by the authors of the corresponding publications or if not available, where rebuild without optimization according to figures in the manuscripts, visualized using CYLView which is developed by Legault (
Funding
The work has been supported by the University Research Priority Program Solar Light to Chemical Energy Conversion (LightChEC) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant. No. PP00P2_170667). Our calculations have been supported by the Swiss National Supercomputing Center, accounts s745 and s788.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Michael Böhler for discussions and the water oxidation cycle template schemes.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AshleyD. C.BaikM.-H. (2016). The electronic structure of [mn(v)=o] what is the connection between oxyl radical character, physical oxidation state, and reactivity?ACS Catal.6, 7202–7216. 10.1021/acscatal.6b01793
2
AullónG.AlvarezS. (2009). Oxidation states, atomic charges and orbital populations in transition metal complexes. Theor. Chem. Acc.123, 67–73. 10.1007/s00214-009-0537-9
3
BaikM.-H.FriesnerR. A. (2002). Computing redox potentials in solution: density functional theory as a tool for rational design of redox agents. J. Phys. Chem. A106, 7407–7412. 10.1021/jp025853n
4
BalcellsD. (2016). Insight into Metal-Catalyzed Water Oxidation From a DFT Perspective, Vol. 65. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
5
BernasconiL.KazaryanA.BelanzoniP.BaerendsE. J. (2017). Catalytic oxidation of water with high-spin iron(iv)-oxo species: Role of the water solvent. ACS Catal.7, 4018–4025. 10.1021/acscatal.7b00568
6
BímD.RulíšekL.SrnecM. (2016). Accurate prediction of one-electron reduction potentials in aqueous solution by variable-temperature h-atom addition/abstraction methodology. J. Phys. Chem. Lett.7, 7–13. 10.1021/acs.jpclett.5b02452
7
BlakemoreJ. D.CrabtreeR. H.BrudvigG. W. (2015). Molecular catalysts for water oxidation. Chem. Rev.115, 12974–13005. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00122
8
BondG. C. (2000). Relativistic effects in coordination, chemisorption and catalysis. J. Mole. Catal. A Chem.156, 1–20. 10.1016/S1381-1169(00)00075-3
9
BrodskyC. N.HadtR. G.HayesD.ReinhartB. J.LiN.ChenL. X.et al. (2017). In situ characterization of cofacial co(iv) centers in co4o4 cubane: Modeling the high-valent active site in oxygen-evolving catalysts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.114, 3855–3860. 10.1073/pnas.1701816114
10
BucciA.Menendez RodriguezG.BellachiomaG.ZuccacciaC.PoaterA.CavalloL.et al. (2016). An alternative reaction pathway for iridium-catalyzed water oxidation driven by cerium ammonium nitrate (can). ACS Catal.6, 4559–4563. 10.1021/acscatal.6b01325
11
BuschM.HalckN. B.KrammU. I.SiahrostamiS.KrtilP.RossmeislJ. (2016). Beyond the top of the volcano?-a unified approach to electrocatalytic oxygen reduction and oxygen evolution. Nano Energy29, 126–135. 10.1016/j.nanoen.2016.04.011
12
ChanG. K.SharmaS. (2011). The density matrix renormalization group in quantum chemistry. Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem.62, 465–481. 10.1146/annurev-physchem-032210-103338
13
ChengJ.SulpiziM.SprikM. (2009). Redox potentials and pka for benzoquinone from density functional theory based molecular dynamics. J. Chem. Phys.131, 154504. 10.1063/1.3250438
14
ChuS.CocciaE.BarboriniM.GuidoniL. (2016). Role of electron correlation along the water splitting reaction. J. Chem. Theory Comput.12, 5803–5810. 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00632
15
CramerC. J.TruhlarD. G. (1999). Implicit solvation models: Equilibria, structure, spectra, and dynamics. Chem. Rev.99, 2161–2200. 10.1021/cr960149m
16
CrandellD. W.GhoshS.BerlinguetteC. P.BaikM.-H. (2015). How a [CoIV =O]2+ fragment oxidizes water: Involvement of biradicaloid [CoII−(·O·)]2+ species in forming the O−O bond. ChemSusChem8, 844–852. 10.1002/cssc.201403024
17
Di GiovanniC.Gimbert-SuriñachC.NippeM.Benet-BuchholzJ.LongJ. R.SalaX.et al. (2016). Dinuclear cobalt complexes with a decadentate ligand scaffold: Hydrogen evolution and oxygen reduction catalysis. Chem. A Eur. J.22, 361–369. 10.1002/chem.201503567
18
DogutanD. K.StoianS. A.McGuireR.SchwalbeM.TeetsT. S.NoceraD. G. (2011). Hangman corroles: efficient synthesis and oxygen reaction chemistry. J. Am. Chem. Soc.133, 131–140. 10.1021/ja108904s
19
DongxiaM.Li ManniG.GagliardiL. (2011). The generalized active space concept in multiconfigurational self-consistent field methods. J. Chem. Phys.135:044128. 10.1063/1.3611401
20
DuanL.AraujoC. M.AhlquistM. S.SunL. (2012a). Highly efficient and robust molecular ruthenium catalysts for water oxidation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.109, 15584–15588. 10.1073/pnas.1118347109
21
DuanL.BozoglianF.MandalS.StewartB.PrivalovT.LlobetA.et al. (2012b). A molecular ruthenium catalyst with water-oxidation activity comparable to that of photosystem ii. Nat. Chem.4, 1755–4330. 10.1038/nchem.1301
22
DuanL.WangL.IngeA. K.FischerA.ZouX.SunL. (2013). Insights into ru-based molecular water oxidation catalysts: Electronic and noncovalent-interaction effects on their catalytic activities. Inorg. Chem.52, 7844–7852. 10.1021/ic302687d
23
DuanL.WangL.LiF.LiF.SunL. (2015). Highly efficient bioinspired molecular ru water oxidation catalysts with negatively charged backbone ligands. Acc. Chem. Res.48, 2084–2096. 10.1021/acs.accounts.5b00149
24
ErtemM. Z.CramerC. J. (2012). Quantum chemical characterization of the mechanism of a supported cobalt-based water oxidation catalyst. Dalton Trans.41, 12213–12219. 10.1039/C2DT31871G
25
EvangelistiF.GüttingerR.MoréR.LuberS.PatzkeG. R. (2013). Closer to photosystem ii: a Co4O4 cubane catalyst with flexible ligand architecture. J. Am. Chem. Soc.135, 18734–18737. 10.1021/ja4098302
26
EvangelistiF.MoréR.HodelF.LuberS.PatzkeG. R. (2015). 3d-4f {coii3ln(or)4} cubanes as bio-inspired water oxidation catalysts. J. Am. Chem. Soc.137, 11076–11084. 10.1021/jacs.5b05831
27
FanT.ZhanS.AhlquistM. S. G. (2016). Why is there a barrier in the coupling of two radicals in the water oxidation reaction?ACS Catal.6, 8308–8312. 10.1021/acscatal.6b02697
28
FernandoA.AikensC. M. (2015). Reaction pathways for water oxidation to molecular oxygen mediated by model cobalt oxide dimer and cubane catalysts. J. Phys. Chem. C119, 11072–11085. 10.1021/jp511805x
29
FerreN.GuiheryN.MalrieuJ.-P. (2015). Spin decontamination of broken-symmetry density functional theory calculations: deeper insight and new formulations. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.17, 14375–14382. 10.1039/C4CP05531D
30
FleigT.OlsenJ.MarianC. M. (2001). The generalized active space concept for the relativistic treatment of electron correlation. i. kramers-restricted two-component configuration interaction. J. Chem. Phys.114, 4775–4790. 10.1063/1.1349076
31
FreitagL.KnechtS.AngeliC.ReiherM. (2017). Multireference perturbation theory with cholesky decomposition for the density matrix renormalization group. J. Chem. Theory Comput.13, 451–459. 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00778
32
FrydendalR.BuschM.HalckN. B.PaoliE. A.KrtilP.ChorkendorffI.et al. (2015). Enhancing activity for the oxygen evolution reaction: the beneficial interaction of gold with manganese and cobalt oxides. ChemCatChem7, 149–154. 10.1002/cctc.201402756
33
FukuzumiS.MandalS.MaseK.OhkuboK.ParkH.Benet-BuchholzJ.et al. (2012). Catalytic four-electron reduction of O2 via rate-determining proton-coupled electron transfer to a dinuclear cobalt-μ-1,2-peroxo complex. J. Am. Chem. Soc.134, 9906–9909. 10.1021/ja303674n
34
Funes-ArdoizI.Garrido-BarrosP.LlobetA.MaserasF. (2017). Single electron transfer steps in water oxidation catalysis. redefining the mechanistic scenario. ACS Catal.7, 1712–1719. 10.1021/acscatal.6b03253
35
GangulyS.RenzD.GilesL. J.GagnonK. J.McCormickL. J.ConradieJ.et al. (2017). Cobalt-and rhodium-corrole-triphenylphosphine complexes revisited: The question of a noninnocent corrole. Inorg. Chem.56, 14788–14800. 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b01828
36
GhoshS.SonnenbergerA. L.HoyerC. E.TruhlarD. G.GagliardiL. (2015). Multiconfiguration pair-density functional theory outperforms kohn–sham density functional theory and multireference perturbation theory for ground-state and excited-state charge transfer. J. Chem. Theory Comput.11, 3643–3649. 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00456
37
Gil-SepulcreM.BöhlerM.SchillingM.BozoglianF.BachmannC.ScherrerD.et al. (2017). Ru water oxidation catalysts based on py5 ligands. ChemSusChem10, 4517–4525. 10.1002/cssc.201701747
38
Gimbert-SuriãchC.MoonshiramD.FrancàsL.PlanasN.BernalesV.BozoglianF.et al. (2016). Structural and spectroscopic characterization of reaction intermediates involved in a dinuclear co–hbpp water oxidation catalyst. J. Am. Chem. Soc.138, 15291–15294. 10.1021/jacs.6b08532
39
GuoS.WatsonM. A.HuW.SunQ.ChanG. K. (2016). N-electron valence state perturbation theory based on a density matrix renormalization group reference function, with applications to the chromium dimer and a trimer model of poly(p-phenylenevinylene). J. Chem. Theory Comput.12, 1583–1591. 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b01225
40
HoJ. (2015). Are thermodynamic cycles necessary for continuum solvent calculation of pkas and reduction potentials?Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.17, 2859–2868. 10.1039/C4CP04538F
41
HoJ.CooteM. L. (2009). A universal approach for continuum solvent pka calculations: are we there yet?Theor. Chem. Acc.125:3. 10.1007/s00214-009-0667-0
42
HoJ.KlamtA.CooteM. L. (2010). Comment on the correct use of continuum solvent models. J. Phys. Chem. A114, 13442–13444. 10.1021/jp107136j
43
HodelF. H.DeglmannP.LuberS. (2017). Exploring solvation effects in ligand-exchange reactions via static and dynamic methods. J. Chem. Theory Comput.13, 3348–3358. 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00214
44
HodelF. H.LuberS. (2016a). Redox-inert cations enhancing water oxidation activity: The crucial role of flexibility. ACS Catal.6, 6750–6761. 10.1021/acscatal.6b01218
45
HodelF. H.LuberS. (2016b). What influences the water oxidation activity of a bioinspired molecular CoII4O4 cubane? an in-depth exploration of catalytic pathways. ACS Catal.6, 1505–1517. 10.1021/acscatal.5b02507
46
HodelF. H.LuberS. (2017). Dehydrogenation free energy of co2+(aq) from density functional theory-based molecular dynamics. J. Chem. Theory Comput.13, 974–981. 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b01077
47
HolmesA. A.TubmanN. M.UmrigarC. J. (2016). Heat-bath configuration interaction: An efficient selected configuration interaction algorithm inspired by heat-bath sampling. J. Chem. Theory Comput.12, 3674–3680. 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00407
48
IshizukaT.WatanabeA.KotaniH.HongD.SatonakaK.WadaT.et al. (2016). Homogeneous photocatalytic water oxidation with a dinuclear CoIIIpyridylmethylamine complex. Inorg. Chem.55, 1154–1164. 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.5b02336
49
KananM. W.NoceraD. G. (2008). In situ formation of an oxygen-evolving catalyst in neutral water containing phosphate and Co2+. Science321, 1072–1075. 10.1126/science.1162018
50
KeithJ. A.GriceK. A.KubiakC. P.CarterE. A. (2013). Elucidation of the selectivity of proton-dependent electrocatalytic co2 reduction by fac-re(bpy)(co)3cl. J. Am. Chem. Soc.135, 15823–15829. 10.1021/ja406456g
51
KhanS.YangK. R.ErtemM. Z.BatistaV. S.BrudvigG. W. (2015). Mechanism of manganese-catalyzed oxygen evolution from experimental and theoretical analyses of 18o kinetic isotope effects. ACS Catal.5, 11134–11142. 10.1021/acscatal.5b01976
52
KlamtA. (2011). The cosmo and cosmo-rs solvation models. Wiley Interdiscipl. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci.1, 699–709. 10.1002/wcms.56
53
KondoM.MasaokaS. (2016). Water oxidation catalysts constructed by biorelevant first-row metal complexes. Chem. Lett.45, 1220–1231. 10.1246/cl.160639
54
KrewaldV.ReteganM.CoxN.MessingerJ.LubitzW.DeBeerS.et al. (2015). Metal oxidation states in biological water splitting. Chem. Sci.6, 1676–1695. 10.1039/C4SC03720K
55
KumagaiY.IkenoH.TanakaI. (2009). All-electron ci calculations of 3d transition-metal l 2,3 xanes using zeroth-order regular approximation for relativistic effects. J. Phys. Condensed Matter21:104209. 10.1088/0953-8984/21/10/104209
56
KurashigeY.SaitowM.ChalupskýJ.YanaiT. (2014). Radical o-o coupling reaction in diferrate-mediated water oxidation studied using multireference wave function theory. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.16, 11988–11999. 10.1039/C3CP55225J
57
KwapienK.PiccininS.FabrisS. (2013). Energetics of water oxidation catalyzed by cobalt oxide nanoparticles: assessing the accuracy of dft and dft+u approaches against coupled cluster methods. J. Phys. Chem. Lett.4, 4223–4230. 10.1021/jz402263d
58
KärkäsM. D.VerhoO.JohnstonE. V.ÅkermarkB. (2014). Artificial photosynthesis: Molecular systems for catalytic water oxidation. Chem. Rev.114, 11863–12001. 10.1021/cr400572f
59
La GangaG.PuntorieroF.CampagnaS.BazzanI.BerardiS.BonchioM.et al. (2012). Light-driven water oxidation with a molecular tetra-cobalt(iii) cubane cluster. Faraday Discuss.155, 177–190. 10.1039/C1FD00093D
60
LaiW.CaoR.DongG.ShaikS.YaoJ.ChenH. (2012). Why is cobalt the best transition metal in transition-metal hangman corroles for O−O bond formation during water oxidation?J. Phys. Chem. Lett.3, 2315–2319. 10.1021/jz3008535
61
LaioA.ParrinelloM. (2002). Escaping free-energy minima. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.99, 12562–12566. 10.1073/pnas.202427399
62
LegaultC. Y. (2008-2018). Cylview, 1.0b. Available online at: http://www.cylview.org/download.html.
63
LeiH.HanA.LiF.ZhangM.HanY.DuP.et al. (2014). Electrochemical, spectroscopic and theoretical studies of a simple bifunctional cobalt corrole catalyst for oxygen evolution and hydrogen production. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.16, 1883–1893. 10.1039/C3CP54361G
64
LiX.SiegbahnP. E. (2013). Water oxidation mechanism for synthetic co-oxides with small nuclearity. J. Am. Chem. Soc.135, 13804–13813. 10.1021/ja4053448
65
Li ManniG.CarlsonR. K.LuoS.MaD.OlsenJ.TruhlarD. G.et al. (2014). Multiconfiguration pair-density functional theory. J. Chem. Theory Comput.10, 3669–3680. 10.1021/ct500483t
66
Li ManniG.SmartS. D.AlaviA. (2016). Combining the complete active space self-consistent field method and the full configuration interaction quantum monte carlo within a super-ci framework, with application to challenging metal-porphyrins. J. Chem. Theory Comput.12, 1245–1258. 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b01190
67
LiakosD. G.SpartaM.KesharwaniM. K.MartinJ. M.NeeseF. (2015). Exploring the accuracy limits of local pair natural orbital coupled-cluster theory. J. Chem. Theory Comput.11, 1525–1539. 10.1021/ct501129s
68
LiaoR.-Z.SiegbahnP. E. M. (2017). Quantum chemical modeling of homogeneous water oxidation catalysis. ChemSusChem10, 4225–4225. 10.1002/cssc.201702128
69
MaY.KnechtS.KellerS.ReiherM. (2017). Second-order self-consistent-field density-matrix renormalization group. J. Chem. Theory Comput.13, 2533–2549. 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b01118
70
MalmqvistP. A.RendellA.RoosB. O. (1990). The restricted active space self-consistent-field method, implemented with a split graph unitary group approach. J. Phys. Chem.94, 5477–5482. 10.1021/j100377a011
71
MalrieuJ.-P.TrinquierG. (2012). A recipe for geometry optimization of diradicalar singlet states from broken-symmetry calculations. J. Phys. Chem. A116, 8226–8237. 10.1021/jp303825x
72
MandalS.ShikanoS.YamadaY.LeeY.-M.NamW.LlobetA.et al. (2013). Protonation equilibrium and hydrogen production by a dinuclear cobalt–hydride complex reduced by cobaltocene with trifluoroacetic acid. J. Am. Chem. Soc.135, 15294–15297. 10.1021/ja408080z
73
MarenichA. V.HoJ.CooteM. L.CramerC. J.TruhlarD. G. (2014). Computational electrochemistry: prediction of liquid-phase reduction potentials. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.16, 15068–15106. 10.1039/C4CP01572J
74
MattioliG.GiannozziP.Amore BonapastaA.GuidoniL. (2013). Reaction pathways for oxygen evolution promoted by cobalt catalyst. J. Am. Chem. Soc.135, 15353–15363. 10.1021/ja401797v
75
MavrosM. G.TsuchimochiT.KowalczykT.McIsaacA.WangL.-P.van VoorhisT. V. (2014). What can density functional theory tell us about artificial catalytic water splitting?Inorg. Chem.53, 6386–6397. 10.1021/ic5002557
76
McCoolN. S.RobinsonD. M.SheatsJ. E.DismukesG. C. (2011). A co4o4 “cubane” water oxidation catalyst inspired by photosynthesis. J. Am. Chem. Soc.133, 11446–11449. 10.1021/ja203877y
77
NajafpourM. M.RengerG.HołyńskaM.MoghaddamA. N.AroE.-M.CarpentierR.et al. (2016). Manganese compounds as water-oxidizing catalysts: From the natural water-oxidizing complex to nanosized manganese oxide structures. Chem. Rev.116, 2886–2936. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00340
78
NakanoM. (2017). Electronic structure of open-shell singlet molecules: Diradical character viewpoint. Top. Curr. Chem.375, 47. 10.1007/s41061-017-0134-7
79
NakataniN.GuoS. (2017). Density matrix renormalization group (dmrg) method as a common tool for large active-space casscf/caspt2 calculations. J. Chem. Phys.146:094102. 10.1063/1.4976644
80
NguyenA. I.WangJ.LevineD. S.ZieglerM. S.TilleyT. D. (2017). Synthetic control and empirical prediction of redox potentials for Co4O4 cubanes over a 1.4 v range: implications for catalyst design and evaluation of high-valent intermediates in water oxidation. Chem. Sci.8, 4274–4284. 10.1039/C7SC00627F
81
NguyenA. I.ZieglerM. S.Oña-BurgosP.Sturzbecher-HohneM.KimW.BelloneD. E.et al. (2015). Mechanistic investigations of water oxidation by a molecular cobalt oxide analogue: Evidence for a highly oxidized intermediate and exclusive terminal oxo participation. J. Am. Chem. Soc.137, 12865–12872. 10.1021/jacs.5b08396
82
NoodlemanL.CaseA. D.AizmanA. (1988). Broken symmetry analysis of spin coupling in iron-sulfur clusters. J. Am. Chem. Soc.110, 1001–1005. 10.1021/ja00212a003
83
NyhlénJ.DuanL.ÅkermarkB.SunL.PrivalovT. (2010). Evolution of o2 in a seven-coordinate RuIV dimer complex with a [hohoh]- bridge: a computational study. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.49, 1773–777. 10.1002/anie.200906439
84
Olivares-AmayaR.HuW.NakataniN.SharmaS.YangJ.ChanG. K. (2015). The ab-initio density matrix renormalization group in practice. J. Chem. Phys.142, 034102. 10.1063/1.4905329
85
OlsenJ.RoosB. O.Jo/rgensenP.JensenH. J. A. (1988). Determinant based configuration interaction algorithms for complete and restricted configuration interaction spaces. J. Chem. Phys.89, 2185–2192. 10.1063/1.455063
86
PiccininS.SartorelA.AquilantiG.GoldoniA.BonchioM.FabrisS. (2013). Water oxidation surface mechanisms replicated by a totally inorganic tetraruthenium–oxo molecular complex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.110, 4917–4922. 10.1073/pnas.1213486110
87
PierlootK.PhungQ. M.DomingoA. (2017). Spin state energetics in first-row transition metal complexes: Contribution of (3s3p) correlation and its description by second-order perturbation theory. J. Chem. Theory Comput.13, 537–553. 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b01005
88
ReevesK. G.KanaiY. (2014). Theoretical oxidation state analysis of ru-(bpy)3: Influence of water solvation and hubbard correction in first-principles calculations. J. Chem. Phys.141:024305. 10.1063/1.4886406
89
RigsbyM. L.MandalS.NamW.SpencerL. C.LlobetA.StahlS. S. (2012). Cobalt analogs of ru-based water oxidation catalysts: overcoming thermodynamic instability and kinetic lability to achieve electrocatalytic o2 evolution. Chem. Sci.3, 3058–3062. 10.1039/C2SC20755A
90
RoosB.LindhR.MalmqvistP. A.VeryazovW. P.-O.Valera (2016). Multiconfigurational Quantum Chemistry.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
91
RoosB. O.TaylorP. R.SiegbahnP. E. (1980). A complete active space scf method (casscf) using a density matrix formulated super-ci approach. Chem. Phys.48, 157–173. 10.1016/0301-0104(80)80045-0
92
RosenthalJ.NoceraD. G. (2007). Role of proton-coupled electron transfer in O−O bond activation. Acc. Chem. Res.40, 543–553. 10.1021/ar7000638
93
RulíšekL. (2013). On the accuracy of calculated reduction potentials of selected group 8 (fe, ru, and os) octahedral complexes. J. Phys. Chem. C117, 16871–16877. 10.1021/jp406772u
94
SaitowM.BeckerU.RiplingerC. F.ValeevE. F.NeeseF. (2017). A new near-linear scaling, efficient and accurate, open-shell domain-based local pair natural orbital coupled cluster singles and doubles theory. J. Chem. Phys.146:164105. 10.1063/1.4981521
95
SalaX.MajiS.BofillR.García-AntónJ.EscricheL.LlobetA. (2014). Molecular water oxidation mechanisms followed by transition metals: State of the art. Acc. Chem. Res.47, 504–516. 10.1021/ar400169p
96
SchapiroI.SivalingamK.NeeseF. (2013). Assessment of n-electron valence state perturbation theory for vertical excitation energies. J. Chem. Theory Comput.9, 3567–3580. 10.1021/ct400136y
97
SchillingM.HodelF. H.LuberS. (2017). Discovery of open cubane-core structures for biomimetic {lnco3(or)4} water oxidation catalysts. ChemSusChem10, 4561–4569. 10.1002/cssc.201701527
98
SchillingM.PatzkeG. R.HutterJ.LuberS. (2016). Computational investigation and design of cobalt aqua complexes for homogeneous water oxidation. J. Phys. Chem. C120, 7966–7975. 10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b00712
99
ShafferD. W.XieY.ConcepcionJ. J. (2017). O−O bond formation in ruthenium-catalyzed water oxidation: single-site nucleophilic attack vs. O−O radical coupling. Chem. Soc. Rev.46, 6170–6193. 10.1039/C7CS00542C
100
SharmaS.HolmesA. A.JeanmairetG.AlaviA.UmrigarC. J. (2017). Semistochastic heat-bath configuration interaction method: selected configuration interaction with semistochastic perturbation theory. J. Chem. Theory Comput.13, 1595–1604. 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b01028
101
SitP. H.CarR.CohenM. H.SelloniA. (2011). Simple, unambiguous theoretical approach to oxidation state determination via first-principles calculations. Inorg. Chem.50, 10259–10267. 10.1021/ic2013107
102
SkynerR. E.McDonaghJ. L.GroomC. R.van MourikT.MitchellJ. B. (2015). A review of methods for the calculation of solution free energies and the modelling of systems in solution. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.17, 6174–6191. 10.1039/C5CP00288E
103
SmithP. F.HuntL.LaursenA. B.SagarV.KaushikS.CalvinhoK. U.et al. (2015). Water oxidation by the [co4o4(oac)4(py)4]+ cubium is initiated by oh- addition. J. Am. Chem. Soc.137, 15460–15468. 10.1021/jacs.5b09152
104
SmithP. F.KaplanC.SheatsJ. E.RobinsonD. M.McCoolN. S.MezleN.et al. (2014). What determines catalyst functionality in molecular water oxidation? dependence on ligands and metal nuclearity in cobalt clusters. Inorg. Chem.53, 2113–2121. 10.1021/ic402720p
105
SongF.MoréR.SchillingM.SmolentsevG.AzzaroliN.FoxT.et al. (2017). {co4o4} and {coxni4-xo4} cubane water oxidation catalysts as surface cut-outs of cobalt oxides. J. Am. Chem. Soc.139, 14198–14208. 10.1021/jacs.7b07361
106
Soriano-LópezJ.MusaevD.L. HillC.Galan MascarosJ.J. CarbóJ.PobletJ. (2017). Tetracobalt-polyoxometalate catalysts for water oxidation: Key mechanistic details. J. Catal.350, 56–63. 10.1016/j.jcat.2017.03.018
107
SpartaM.NeeseF. (2014). Chemical applications carried out by local pair natural orbital based coupled-cluster methods. Chem. Soc. Rev.43, 5032–5041. 10.1039/C4CS00050A
108
SulpiziM.SprikM. (2010). Acidity constants from dft-based molecular dynamics simulations. J. Phys. Condensed Matter22:284116. 10.1088/0953-8984/22/28/284116
109
SzalayP. G.MüllerT.GidofalviG.LischkaH.ShepardR. (2012). Multiconfiguration self-consistent field and multireference configuration interaction methods and applications. Chem. Rev.112, 108–181. 10.1021/cr200137a
110
ThomA. J.SundstromE. J.Head-GordonM. (2009). Loba: a localized orbital bonding analysis to calculate oxidation states, with application to a model water oxidation catalyst. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.11, 11297–11304. 10.1039/B915364K
111
ThomsenJ. M.HuangD. L.CrabtreeR. H.BrudvigG. W. (2015). Iridium-based complexes for water oxidation. Dalton Trans.44, 12452–12472. 10.1039/C5DT00863H
112
TomasiJ. (2004). Thirty years of continuum solvation chemistry: a review, and prospects for the near future. Theor. Chem. Acc.112, 184–203. 10.1007/s00214-004-0582-3
113
TomasiJ.CancèsE.PomelliC. S.CaricatoM.ScalmaniG.FrischM. J.et al. (2007). Modern Theories of Continuum Models (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd).
114
TongL.DuanL.XuY.PrivalovT.SunL. (2011). Structural modifications of mononuclear ruthenium complexes: A combined experimental and theoretical study on the kinetics of ruthenium-catalyzed water oxidation. Angewandte Chem. Int. Ed.50, 44–449. 10.1002/anie.201005141
115
Vallés-PardoJ. L.GuijtM. C.IannuzziM.JoyaK. S.de GrootH. J.BudaF. (2012). Ab initio molecular dynamics study of water oxidation reaction pathways in mono-ru catalysts. ChemPhysChem13, 140–146. 10.1002/cphc.201100546
116
Venturinelli JannuzziS. A.PhungQ. M.DomingoA.FormigaA. L.PierlootK. (2016). Spin state energetics and oxyl character of mn-oxo porphyrins by multiconfigurational ab initio calculations: Implications on reactivity. Inorg. Chem.55, 5168–5179. 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.5b02920
117
VidossichP.LledosA. (2014). The use of localized orbitals for the bonding and mechanistic analysis of organometallic compounds. Dalton Trans.43, 11145–11151. 10.1039/C4DT00251B
118
WangL.DuanL.StewartB.PuM.LiuJ.PrivalovT.et al. (2012). Toward controlling water oxidation catalysis: Tunable activity of ruthenium complexes with axial imidazole/dmso ligands. J. Am. Chem. Soc.134, 18868–18880. 10.1021/ja309805m
119
WangL.DuanL.WangY.AhlquistM. S.SunL. (2014). Highly efficient and robust molecular water oxidation catalysts based on ruthenium complexes. Chem. Commun.50, 12947–12950. 10.1039/C4CC05069J
120
WangL.-P.Van VoorhisT. (2011). Direct-coupling o2 bond forming a pathway in cobalt oxide water oxidation catalysts. J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2, 2200–2204. 10.1021/jz201021n
121
WangT.BrudvigG. W.BatistaV. S. (2010). Study of proton coupled electron transfer in a biomimetic dimanganese water oxidation catalyst with terminal water ligands. J. Chem. Theory Comput.6, 2395–2401. 10.1021/ct1002658
122
WarshelA.WeissR. M. (1980). An empirical valence bond approach for comparing reactions in solutions and in enzymes. J. Am. Chem. Soc.102, 6218–6226. 10.1021/ja00540a008
123
WasylenkoD. J.GanesamoorthyC.Borau-GarciaJ.BerlinguetteC. P. (2011). Electrochemical evidence for catalytic water oxidation mediated by a high-valent cobalt complex. Chem. Commun.47, 4249–4251. 10.1039/C0CC05522K
124
YamaguchiK.FukuiH.FuenoT. (1986). Molecular orbital (mo) theory for magnetically interacting organic compounds. ab-inition mo calcuations of the effective exchange integrals for cyclophane-type carbene dimers. Chem. Lett.15, 625–628. 10.1246/cl.1986.625
125
YangX.BaikM.-H. (2004). Electronic structure of the water-oxidation catalyst [(bpy)2(OHx)RuORu(OHy)(bpy)2]z+: Weak coupling between the metal centers is preferred over strong coupling. J. Am. Chem. Soc.126, 13222–13223. 10.1021/ja0462427
126
YangX.BaikM.-H. (2006). cis,cis-[(bpy)2RuVO]2O4+ catalyzes water oxidation formally via in situ generation of radicaloid RuIV−O·. J. Am. Chem. Soc.128, 7476–7485. 10.1021/ja053710j
127
YangX.BaikM.-H. (2008). The mechanism of water oxidation catalysis promoted by [tpyRu(IV)=O]2L3+: A computational study. J. Am. Chem. Soc.130, 16231–16240. 10.1021/ja8034043
128
YounusH. A.AhmadN.ChughtaiA. H.VandichelM.BuschM.Van HeckeK.et al. (2017). A robust molecular catalyst generated in situ for photo- and electrochemical water oxidation. ChemSusChem10, 862–875. 10.1002/cssc.201601477
Summary
Keywords
water oxidation, catalysis, computational chemistry, density functional theory, reaction mechanism
Citation
Schilling M and Luber S (2018) Computational Modeling of Cobalt-Based Water Oxidation: Current Status and Future Challenges. Front. Chem. 6:100. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2018.00100
Received
30 January 2018
Accepted
20 March 2018
Published
18 April 2018
Volume
6 - 2018
Edited by
Giovanni Li Manni, Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research (MPG), Germany
Reviewed by
Albert Poater, University of Girona, Spain; Giampaolo Barone, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Italy
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2018 Schilling and Luber.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Sandra Luber sandra.luber@chem.uzh.ch
This article was submitted to Theoretical and Computational Chemistry, a section of the journal Frontiers in Chemistry
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
