Why DFT‐Based Tight Binding Gives a Better Representation of the Potential at Metal‐Solution Interfaces than DFT Does

Paola Quaino,José Luis Nuñez,Bálint Aradi,Tammo van der Heide,Elizabeth Santos,Wolfgang Schmickler
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/celc.202300230
IF: 4
2023-09-27
ChemElectroChem
Abstract:The inner potential φ experienced by an ion differs greatly from the average electrostatic potential as calculated by DFT. The problem is caused by the divergence of the potential at the sites of the nuclei. DFT‐based tight binding gives results in line with values estimated from experiment or from other models, and allows a uniform quantum‐mechanical modeling of electrode and solution. In modelling electrochemical interfaces it is important to treat electrode and electrolyte at the same level of theory. Density functional theory, which is usually the method of choice, suffers from a distinct disadvantage: The inner potential is calculated as the average of the total electrostatic potential. This includes the highly localized potential generated from the nuclei. The resulting inner potential is far too high, of the order of 3.5 V, and not relevant for electrochemistry. In the density functional based tight binding (DFTB) method the electrostatic potential is much smoother, as it stems from atomic charge fluctuations with respect to neutral reference atoms. The resulting values for the electrochemical inner potential are much lower and compare well with those obtained by other, elaborate methods. Thus DFTB recommends itself as a method for treating the electrochemical interface including the inner potential.
electrochemistry
What problem does this paper attempt to address?