The crystal and molecular structure of bis (pyridoxamine) copper (II) dinitrate monohydrate

The crystal structure of Cu(PM)2(N03hoH20 (where PM is pyridoxamine, CSHI2N202) has been determined from three dimensional x-ray diffraction data. The crystals are triclinic, space group pI, a = 14.248 (2), b = 8.568 (1), c = 9.319 (1) 1, a = 94.08 (1), e = 89.73 (1), y~~ 99.18 (1)°, z = 2, jl(MoK) = 10.90 em-I, Po = 1.61 g/cm3 and Pc = 1.61 g/em3• The structure a was solved by Patterson techniques from data collected on a Picker 4-circle diffractometer to 26max = 45°. All atoms, including hydrogens, have been located. Anisotropic thermal parameters have been refined for all nonhydrogen atoms. For the 2390 independent reflections with F ? 3cr(F) , R = 0.0408. The results presented here provide the first detailed structural information of a metal complex with PM itself. The copper atoms are located on centres of symmetry and each is chela ted by two PM zwitterions through the amino groups and phenolate oxygen atoms. The zwitterionic form found in this structure involves the loss of a proton from the phenolate group and protonation of the pyridine ring nitrogen atoms. The two independent Cu(PM)2 moieties are symmetrically bridged by a single oxygen atom from one of the nitrate groups. The second nitrate group is not coordinated to the copper atoms but is central to an extensive hydrogen bonding network involving the water molecule and uncoordinated functional groups of PM.

Variational Monte Carlo estimation of the dissociation energy of CuH using correlated sampling

A new approach to treating large Z systems by quantum Monte Carlo has been developed. It naturally leads to notion of the 'valence energy'. Possibilities of the new approach has been explored by optimizing the wave function for CuH and Cu and computing dissociation energy and dipole moment of CuH using variational Monte Carlo. The dissociation energy obtained is about 40% smaller than the experimental value; the method is comparable with SCF and simple pseudopotential calculations. The dipole moment differs from the best theoretical estimate by about 50% what is again comparable with other methods (Complete Active Space SCF and pseudopotential methods).