Theoretical investigation of solvent and oxidation/ deprotonation eﬀects on the electronic structure of a mononuclear Ru-aqua-polypyridine complex in aqueous solution †

Mononuclear polypyridine ruthenium (Ru) complexes can catalyze various reactions, including water splitting, and can also serve as photosensitizers in solar cells. Despite recent progress in their synthesis, accurately modeling their physicochemical properties, particularly in solution, remains challenging. Herein, we conduct a theoretical investigation of the structural and electronic properties of a mononuclear Ru-aqua polypyridine complex in aqueous solution, considering five of its possible oxidation/protonation states species: [Ru II (H 2 O)(py)(bpy) 2 ] 2+ , [Ru II (OH)(py)(bpy) 2 ] + , [Ru III (H 2 O)(py)(bpy) 2 ] 3+ , [Ru III (OH)(py)(bpy) 2 ] 2+ and [Ru IV (O)(py)(bpy) 2 ] 2+ , where py = pyridine and bpy = 2,2 0 -bipyridine. At first, we investigate the impact of proton-coupled and non-coupled electron transfer reactions on the geometry and electronic structure of the complexes in vacuum and in solution, using an implicit solvent model. Then, using a sequential multiscale approach that combines quantum mechanics and molecular mechanics (S-QM/MM), we examine the explicit solvent eﬀects on the electronic excitations of the complexes, and compare them with the experimental results. The complexes were synthesized, and their absorption spectra measured in aqueous solution. To accurately describe the QM interactions between the metal center and the aqueous ligand in the MM simulations, we developed new force field parameters for the Ru atom. We analyze the solvent structure around the complexes and account for its explicit influence on the polarization and electronic excitations of the complexes. Notably, accounting for the explicit solvent polarization eﬀects of the first solvation shells is essential to correctly describe the energy of the electronic transitions, and the explicit treatment of the hydrogen bonds at the QM level in the excitation calculations improves the accuracy of the description of the metal-to-ligand charge-transfer bands. Transition density matrix analysis is used to characterize all electronic transitions in the visible and ultraviolet ranges according to their charge-transfer (CT) character. This study elucidates the electronic structure of those ruthenium polypyridyl complexes in aqueous solution and underscores the importance of precisely describing solvent eﬀects, which can be achieved employing the S-QM/MM method.

Theoretical investigation of solvent and oxidation/ deprotonation effects on the electronic structure of a mononuclear Ru-aqua-polypyridine complex in aqueous solution †

Introduction
Since the development of the coordination chemistry of polypyridyl metal complexes 1 in the 1940's and 1960's, ruthenium (Ru) complexes have attracted attention in different areas of chemistry, with wide technological applications since their properties can be designed for different purposes depending on the coordinated ligands.Complexes characterized by high electronic delocalization have applications in nonlinear optics, 2 magnetism, 3 liquid crystals, 4 and molecular sensors, 5 whereas sulfoxide-coordinated complexes are useful in chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer. 6In fact, N-heterocyclic ligand complexes are useful as DNA cleavage agents for therapeutic purposes, 7 as photosensitizers in solar cells [8][9][10][11] and artificial photosynthesis, 12 and as catalysts. 13For example, Ru-aqua polypyridyl complexes can generate high valence species by successive coupled electron-/proton-transfer reactions 14 able to promote oxidation of organic compounds 15 and inorganic substrates. 16n 1982, It was reported the first complex capable of carrying out the oxidation of water, a water oxidation catalyst (WOC). 17his complex, known as Blue Dimer, cis,cis-[(bpy) 2 (H 2 O)Ru(m-O)-Ru(H 2 O)(bpy) 2 ] 4+ where bpy = 2,2 0 -bipyridine, is an oxo-ligand bridged di-nuclear Ru-complex.This catalyst inspired the next developments as demonstrated by the hegemony of WOCs with two metal centers until 2005, when Zong and Thummel demonstrated that mononuclear complexes can exhibit higher electrocatalytic activity, 18 whose mechanism was elucidated in 2008 using the [Ru(H 2 O)(bpm)(tpy)] 2+ (bpm = 2,2 0 -bipyrimidine and tpy = 2,2 0 ;6 0 ,2 00 -terpyridine) complex as catalyst. 19The catalytic active species was demonstrated to be the high valence [Ru V (O)(bpm)(tpy)] 3+ species, generated by reaction with a Ce IV oxidizing agent (cerium ammonium nitrate, CAN), where the O-O bond was formed by water nucleophilic attack (WNA) to the Ru V = O moiety. 20However, following studies carried out with the [Ru(pic)(bda)] (bda 2À = 2,2 0 -bipyridine-6,6 0 -dicarboxylate and pic = 4-picoline) complex family indicated that the water oxidation reaction mechanism activated complex was in fact binuclear.In other words, a catalytic active intermediate should be formed in situ by the interaction of two M-O units (I2M). 21In addition, bulky axial ligands such as isoquinoline and phthalazine were very effective in enhancing the high catalytic activity of some of those compounds. 21Currently, there are several mononuclear catalysts able to mediate the four-electron oxidation of water to dioxygen. 22,23onsidered one of the precursors in the application of transition metal complexes in artificial photosynthesis, the cis-[Ru II (H 2 O)(py)(bpy) 2 ] 2+ complex 24 (where py = pyridine, see Fig. 1), prepared in the early 1980s, was one of the first polypyridine complexes capable of two sequential protoncoupled electron-transfer processes generating a high oxidation state species, at a potential as low as 0.95 V. 24 More recently, in 2019, this complex was adopted as a electrocatalyst model, in a study by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) in connection with the liquid-jet approach, aiming the characterization of the relevant intermediate species involved in the electrocatalytic water splitting process, 25 with minimal interference on the reaction mechanism.Herein, we focus on the investigation of the electronic and optoelectronic properties of five different oxidation/protonation species of this complex, namely: [Ru II (H 2 O)(py)(bpy) 2 ] 2+ , [Ru II (OH)(py)(bpy) 2 ] + , [Ru III (H 2 O)(py)-(bpy) 2 ] 3+ , [Ru III (OH)(py)(bpy) 2 ] 2+ and [Ru IV (O)(py)(bpy) 2 ] 2+ .
8][39][40][41][42] However, implementing the classical atomistic simulations, that should be a powerful tool for researchers to access the structure and dynamics of Rucomplexes, still is a challenging task.4][45] All parameters in a force field are highly sensitive to the oxidation and spin state of the metal, to the nature of the ligands coordinated to the metal center, and to the effects of microsolvation in potentially proton donor or acceptor regions; etc. [46][47][48][49][50] Thus, defining the force field of the metal and the complex represent the major challenges given the high variability on the charge-transfer and degree of delocalization dependent on solvent effects, as well as the covalent and ionic character of the metal-ligand interactions.
In fact, a fine theoretical description of such systems has been precluded by the difficulties in parameterization and modeling due to the strong intramolecular covalent interactions as well as solvent effects, especially in the case of aqua complexes prone to strong solvent effects and proton-coupled electron-transfer reactions in protic solvents, especially in aqueous solution.In this work, we present a theoretical/experimental study about the solvent effects on the structural and electronic properties of the five different species obtained by successive proton-coupled redox processes of [Ru II (H 2 O)(py)-(bpy) 2 ] 2+ complex in aqueous solution.The effects of the solvent and oxidation/deprotonation reactions (namely ET = electrontransfer, PT = proton-transfer, and PCET = proton-coupled electron-transfer reactions) on the structural conformation, electronic density distribution and the frontier molecular orbitals, as well as their electronic transitions in the UV-visible range, were investigated.Such study was carried out adjusting the force field (FF) parameters of the metal center using QM-based calculations of the complexes' interaction potential, making possible a more quantitative evaluation of the solvent structure around and the key role of the intermolecular hydrogen bonds formed by the coordinated water ligand derived species (OH À and O 2À ) and free water molecules for a more precise description of their structural, electronic and optical properties.

Methodology
A careful theoretical study on the solvent effects on the structural and electronic properties of five species derived from the [Ru II (H 2 O)(py)(bpy) 2 ] complex in aqueous solution is presented.At first, we investigated the effects of the solvent, and the effects of the oxidation/deprotonation reactions (namely ET: electrontransfer, PT: proton-transfer, PCET: proton-coupled electrontransfer reactions) in the structural conformation, electronic density distribution and in the frontier molecular orbitals.Next, using a hybrid approach combining molecular mechanics simulations with quantum mechanics calculations sequentially (S-QM/MM method), 51 we explored the solvent effects in the electronic transitions of the complexes in the visible and ultraviolet regions.Such simulations were made possible from the adjustment of force field (FF) parameters of the metallic center using QM-based calculations of the complexes' interaction potential.Thus, the new set of FF parameters are also one of the contributions of this work to the literature of Ruaqua complexes.From the simulations, the solvent structure surrounding the complexes were elucidated in their atomistic details and statistically uncorrelated configurations [52][53][54][55] were extracted to compose the QM calculations of the opto-electronic properties.Such calculations, in turn, were also performed within a QM/MM scheme, where the solute and part of the solvent were treated at the QM level, and the remaining solvent molecules were considered as an electrostatic embedding.Within this framework, the role of the intermolecular hydrogen bonds formed between the coordinated aqua ligand and the water molecules in solution to the opto-electronic properties were elucidated.
Quantum mechanics (QM) calculations were carried out within the Density Functional Theory (DFT) 56,57 framework using the hybrid B3LYP functional 58,59   ] 2+ systems.Other spin densities were addressed before as being less energetically stable. 25The basis set augcc-pVDZ 60,61 was adopted for C, O, N and H atoms and the basis set with pseudopotential aug-cc-pVDZ-PP 62 was adopted for Ru.This basis set combination was denominated (aug)-cc-pVDZ-(PP-Ru).The molecular structures of the complexes were obtained from geometry optimization processes and their dynamical stability confirmed by checking the vibrational frequencies calculated at the same level of theory.
The solvent distribution around the complexes was simulated using the Monte Carlo method considering a Ru-complex surrounded by 4000 water molecules in a cubic box, with an initial side length of about 50 Å.During the simulations, the intramolecular conformation of the solute was held fixed in its optimized geometry, except for the aqua ligand derived species interacting with a water molecule, which was simulated as any other solvent molecule.The isothermal-isobaric (NPT) ensemble was employed at room temperature (298.15K) and pressure (1 atm).The simulations consisted of a thermalization stage of 8 Â 10 8 Monte Carlo steps, followed by an equilibrium sampling of 16 Â 10 8 Monte Carlo steps.
The interatomic interactions were modeled by the Lennard-Jones (LJ) and Coulomb potentials.The LJ parameters for N, C and H atoms were extracted from the OPLS-AA force field 63 using the pyridine molecule and the TIP3P model 64 was adopted for water molecules.The Ru LJ parameters were tuned to correctly describe the QM energy profile of Ru and the coordinated water molecule in the aqua complexes, prioritizing the equilibrium distance and the binding energy.The potential energy profile of the aqua complexes was obtained from a QM energy scan calculation varying the distance of the coordinated water molecule and the Ru ion around the equilibrium position, in 15 equally separated distances from 1.8 to 3.3 Å.The Counter Poise Correction 65,66 was adopted to correct any basis set superposition errors.Herein, the QM calculations were realized at the same theory level adopted in the geometry optimizations of all Ru-complex species, as described above.The use of the restricted or unrestricted Kohn-Sham formalisms to calculate the dissociation of the coordinated water molecule in Ru II H 2 O was investigated (see Tables S5 and S6, ESI †), and very similar energy profiles were obtained with both formalisms.
The atomic charges of the Coulomb term were obtained using the fit of the QM electrostatic potential of the Ru-complex with the CHELPG (Charges from the Electrostatic Potential on a Grid) procedure. 67The polarization of the Ru-complex due to the aqueous solution was included in the QM calculation by the Polarizable Continuum Model (PCM). 68This procedure for evaluating the atomic charges of the polarized solute in aqueous solution has been shown to be better than the standard procedure based on atomic charges calculations of the solute in vacuum at the QM level suggested by the common force fields, i.e.0][71][72] Standard procedures such as Metropolis sampling technique, image method, periodic boundary condition, cut-off-radius, and long-range correction 73 were adopted as before. 74All interactions were explicitly computed considering a cut-off-radius about 22 Å.
Furthermore, a sequential multi-scale approach combining quantum mechanics and molecular mechanics (S-QM/MM) 51,75,76 was utilized to obtain the theoretical electronic spectra of all five ruthenium complex species in solution.After performing the Monte Carlo simulation, a total of 100 statistically uncorrelated Monte Carlo configurations were selected.Then, the Time Dependent Density Functional Theory (TD-DFT) was used to calculate the first 50 electronic transitions of the complexes in each Monte Carlo configuration, with solvent effects treated at different levels of approximation.The solvent effects were accounted under three different approximations: (i) as an electrostatic embedding composed of the atomic point charges of the 1000 closest solvent molecules (X + PC); (ii), and as before but considering the water molecules that makes hydrogen bonds with the complex as part of the QM region (X + HB + PC); and (iii) treating the solvent as a continuous dielectric with the Polarizable Continuum Model (X + PCM).
The QM calculations were performed using the Gaussian 09 package. 77The Monte Carlo simulations were performed with the DICE program. 780][81][82] In order to improve clarity and facilitate the reading, now on a simplified nomenclature will be adopted for the complexes.The closed-shell systems will be identified as [Ru II  In order to compare the calculated spectra with the experimental results, all Ru-complex species were generated upon oxidation and/or deprotonation reactions of the [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ complex, and the Ultraviolet-Visible spectra were measured in the laboratory, as described in the ESI.†

Results and discussion
In the first three sections, the effects of the solvent on the structural and electronic properties, and the effects of the oxidation/deprotonation reactions (namely ET, PT, PCET reactions) (1) in the structural conformation, (2) in the atomic charge distributions and (3) in the frontier molecular orbitals of all five ruthenium complex species, will be discussed based on implicit PCM solvent model.Next, it will be presented (4) the parametrization of new non-bonded parameters for Ru, (5) the analysis of the solvent structure around the complexes obtained from the atomistic MM simulations, and (6) the investigation of the explicit solvent effects on the electronic transitions of the Ru-complex species in the framework of the S-QM/MM approach.

Structural conformation
All species are composed by a central Ru atom hexa-coordinated with two bipyridines (bpy 1 and bpy 2 ), a pyridine (py) and a water derived ligand (a water molecule, a hydroxide ion, or an oxide ion), whose metal ion can be found in different oxidation states, varying from 2 to 5, depending on the environment conditions. 25These complexes have some structural similarities with the [Ru II (bpy) 3 ] 2+ complex, [83][84][85][86] where the coordinated water derived ligand and the pyridine are replaced by a third bipyridine ligand, as shown in ESI.† In the gas phase, from geometry optimization, the relative positioning of bpy 1 and bpy 2 is very similar in all those Ru-complex species (Fig. 2), where the Polypyridine ligands confer characteristic spectroscopic and redox properties to the Ru-complex species, that can also be influenced by environment conditions.From vacuum to aqueous solution, the bond length changes induced by the implicit solvent are not so significant.For example, we observed the reduction of all Ru-N bond lengths of all Ru-complex species and reduction (increase) of the Ru-O bond length in those with a coordinated water (hydroxide or oxide) ligand, however the changes are smaller than 0.03 Å. Dihedral angles involving the pyridine or any of the water derived ligands and the metal ion are the most affected by the solvent, undergoing changes from 8 to 53 degrees.In contrast, dihedral angles involving the bipyridine and the metal ion changed at most 3 degrees, thus demonstrating their higher structural stability and low sensitivity to solvent effects (Detailed information is available in ESI †).Fig. 2 shows the superposition of the optimized geometries of all Ru-complex species in vacuum and in aqueous solution, as well as the root mean square deviation (RMSD) values of the vacuum (VAC) and solution (SOL) geometries.The RMSD VAC/SOL is 0.16, 0.  the most charged one, being a counterintuitive result considering the major contribution of the solute-solvent electrostatic interactions.This demonstrates that the extent of structural changes induced by solvent effects may not be only correlated to their total charges, but also to specific solute/solvent interactions, as addressed later on.
The oxidation of the metal ion always increases its electron withdrawing character inducing an increase of the acidity of coordinated water or hydroxo ligand leading to their deprotonation.Accordingly, the oxidized/deprotonated Ru-complex species can be generated by reaction with a strong enough oxidizing agent by mechanisms limited by an electron-transfer step, that can be followed or preceded by acid-base equilibrium, more specifically a proton transfer (PT), or a protoncoupled electron-transfer (PCET) mechanism.Such reactions cause structural changes in the Ru-complex species, but the most relevant ones take place in the coordination sphere of the metal complex.Among the oxidized/deprotonated species, the bond lengths of Ru with the three  2+ .On the other hand, following this trend, the Ru-N 11 bond length was gradually increased (see Fig. 3) as expected for a significant Trans Influence. 87dditionally, the angles and dihedrals associated with the bipyridine ligands and the metal center are less sensitive to PT, ET, or PCET reactions, demonstrating once again the structural stability conferred to the Ru-complex species by these ligands.On the other hand, the pyridine and the water derived ligands are very sensitive to those types of reactions, that can induce dihedral rotation changes of up to 50 degrees.Some of such changes can be seen in Fig. 2, and in more details in the ESI.†

Atomic charges distribution
In addition to the structural changes discussed above, the atomic charges distribution on the complexes was shown to be very sensitive to solvation effects, as well as changes in the metal ion oxidation state and associated protonation/deprotonation reactions.Accordingly, the most important changes in the electronic density distribution were captured and analyzed using the CHELPG 88 atomic charge calculation scheme in which atomic charges are fitted to reproduce the molecular electrostatic potential around the Ru-complex species.At first, there is a clear separation between the charges on the Ru-atom, more positive and close to 1 atomic unit (a.u.); negative charges on the nitrogen atoms, ranging from around À0.5 and 0.0 a.u.; and the negative charge on the oxygen atom lower than approximately À0.5 a.u.Although there is no direct correspondence between the atomic charge on pyridine N 11 and the Ru-N 11 or Ru-O bond lengths, it is always the most negative for the Ru-complex species in solution with 1+ and 2+ total charge, and the less negative for the species with the highest total charge (3+).Somehow, it can be a clue for the solvent contributions to the Trans Influence, since the charges on Ru(III) ion in vacuum and in solution are more vulnerable to the polarization of the medium, being more positive in solution when coordinated to a water molecule (0.41 a.u.), and more negative when coordinated to a hydroxide ion (À0.18 a.u.).Nevertheless, only a minor shift of the density of polarized charges could be observed in the other Ru-complex species, that varied at most 0.03 a.u.relative to the corresponding charges in vacuum.Analyzing the sum of the atomic charges of the bpy 1 , bpy 2 and py ligands (Fig. 4), it can be seen that the solvent polarization makes the polypyridine ligands less positive in the aqua complexes, and more positive in the hydroxo and oxo complexes.Therefore, the medium polarization effects greatly shift the electron density dynamic such that the Ru atom can act as an electron donor or acceptor when coordinated to H 2 O or OH À , whereas the polypyridine ligands act as electron acceptors or donors, respectively.
Effects of PT, ET, and PCET reactions can also be observed on the charge distribution of the Ru-complex species, see Fig. 4. The mono-oxidation of [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ in solution causes variations of +0.36 a.u. in the metal center, +0.61 a.u. in the polypyridine ligands (bpy 1 + bpy 2 + py) and +0.03 a.u. in the ligand water molecule electronic density.For [Ru II (OH)] + the variations are +0.39,+0.37 and +0.24 a.u., respectively.Therefore, less than 40% of the electronic density lost in the monoelectronic oxidation of these Ru-complex species comes from their metal center.On the other hand, the mono-deprotonation of [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ (or [Ru III (H 2 O)] 3+ ) in solution causes variations of À0.61 (À0.58), +0.35 (+0.11) and À0.74 (À0.53) a.u. in the charge densities on the metal center, polypyridine (bpy 1 + bpy 2 + py) and water derived ligands, respectively.Therefore, the loss of 1 proton leads to changes in the electronic distribution which depend on the oxidation state of the Ru-complex species, where the greatest variations are observed in the metal center and in the water derived ligands.Notably, when the [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ (or [Ru III (H 2 O)] 3+ ) complex is deprotonated in solution, the Ru charge density decreases from 0.94 to 0.33 a.u.(1.30 to 0.72 a.u.).
Furthermore, the charge variations due to the oxidation, or deprotonation, reactions can also drastically depend on the solvent effects.For example, the mono-deprotonation of [Ru III (H 2 O)] 3+ in vacuum causes a variation of À0.59 a.u. in the total charge density on the polypyridine ligands, which represents the largest shift in the opposite direction (by +0.11 a.u.) as compared with that observed in aqueous solution.This is a direct consequence of the electron density shift due to polarization effect of the medium, since the polypyridine ligands behave as electron density acceptor or donor in the aqua and hydroxo complex species, respectively.In PCET reactions a compensatory movement of the electronic density is observed, and the atomic charge variations are less abrupt.For example, the mono-oxidation/deprotonation of [Ru III (H 2 O)] 3+ to [Ru IV (O)] 2+ species causes variations of 0.29, À0.09, and À0.20 a.u. in the metal center, polypyridine ligands (bpy 1 + bpy 2 + py) and water derived ligands charge densities, respectively.Other possible PCET reactions can be seen in Fig. 4.
The deprotonation of the water molecule coordinated to the metal center leads to a remarkable reduction in the length of the Ru-O bond.This is expected since the loss of a proton enhance the electronic density on the oxygen atom and its basicity, as well as its covalent interaction with the electron deficient metal center.Similarly, the oxidation of the Ru also entails a reduction in the Ru-O distance since it leads to a decrease in the ionic radius and an increase in the positive charge on Ru, thus enhancing the ionic and the covalent interactions.Consequently, the combination of both effects (deprotonation and oxidation) induce a dramatic Ru-O bond length decrease from 2.24 Å in [Ru II H 2 O] 2+ to 1.92 Å in the [Ru III OH] 2+ complex.This means that the associated potential/bond energy is much more negative (and the bond much stronger) upon oxidation coupled with deprotonation.This is perfectly consistent with the fact that the atomic charge densities, adjusted to represent the electrostatic potential of Ru and O atoms, becomes more separated after any of these processes.The calculated atomic charges for all Ru-complex species, in vacuum and in solution are available in ESI.†

Frontier molecular orbitals
The analysis of the occupied and unoccupied frontier molecular orbitals (FMOs) reveals the effect of the solvent and the ET/PT/ PCET reactions on the electronic density, with important consequences in the electronic transitions of the Ru-complex species.The energy level diagram of the FMOs in vacuum and in aqueous solution are depicted in Fig. 5, where HOMO stands for ''Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital'', SOMO for ''Singly Occupied Molecular Orbital'' (with half-filled HOMO), and LUMO stands for ''Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital''.The L contribution from a single bipyridine, bpy 1 or bpy 2 , respectively for Ru III and Ru IV species.This reveals a predominant metal-to-ligand charge-transfer character of the H(or S)OMO:LUMO electronic transitions in both closed-shell species, but that is drastically reduced in the open-shell systems in higher oxidation state, as expected.
As general trend, the FMOs energies are remarkably destabilized (it becomes less negative) by the solvent, and the magnitude of this destabilization is proportional to the total charge of the complexes: 2.32 eV for the complex with charge 1+; ranging from 5.15 to 5.31 eV for the complexes with charge 2+, and 7.96 eV for the complex with charge 3+.Such destabilizing orbitals effect can happen, for example, when the FMOs dipole moments do not have the same direction as the molecular dipole moment, thus inducing a destabilizing effect. 89onversely, the H(or S)OMO and LUMO orbitals stability are also connected to the total charges of the Ru-complex species.In solution, the H(or S)OMO (and LUMO) energies are À5.02 (À2.Specially for closed-shell systems, the HOMO-LUMO energy gap can be associated to the system electronic excitability, resistance to charge transfer, and other properties.The chemical potential (m), for example, characterizes the tendency of electrons to escape from the valence band and the chemical hardness (Z) measures the internal charge transfer resistance of the system. 90According to the Maximum Hardness Principle, molecular systems in equilibrium must be in a state of maximum hardness 90 and transition states must be in a state of minimum hardness. 91According to the definitions given by Parr and Pearson [92][93][94] and the Koopmans theorem, m = (e L + e H )/ 2 and Z = (e L À e H )/2, where e L and e H are the energy of LUMO and HOMO respectively. 89For [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ (and [Ru II (OH)] + ), m is worth À9.70 (À6.15) and À4.42 (À3.73) eV in vacuum and in solution, respectively.It means that the solvation or the abstraction of a proton makes the chemical potential less negative, facilitating the removal of electrons from the complexes, thus making easier any chemical process.These are expected, since the loss of a proton decreases the electrostatic attraction between nucleus and electron in the complexes thus decreasing the resistance to electron transfer, since electrons will need less energy to escape.Otherwise, the chemical hardness (Z) for [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ (and [Ru II (OH)] + ) is 1.73 (1.69) and 1.19 (1.29) eV in vacuum and in solution, respectively.Therefore, the solvation makes the chemical hardness a little less positive for both closed-shell Ru-complex species, indicating that they have lower resistance to charge transfer processes in aqueous solution.Moreover, the increase/decrease of Z upon mono-deprotonation of [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ in vacuum/solution demonstrates a predominant role of the solvent in determining the charge transfer resistance of the complex under PT reactions.A table containing the values of the FMOs for all Ru-complex species is available in ESI.†

Optimized non-bonded parameters for Ru
The electronic properties of metal complexes are very susceptible to their oxidation and spin states, to the chemical nature of the ligands, and also to the environment conditions (pH, polarity, etc.).The molecular mechanics simulation of such systems in solution is highly dependent on the choice of suitable bonded and non-bonded force field parameters for the metal center and ligands, whose development is still a challenging task.In the last decades, a few non-bonded parameters for Ru-complexes, based on the Lennard-Jones plus Coulomb (LJC) potential (e, s, q), have been proposed (see Table 1).Allinger et al., 95 Adlhart et al. 96 and Rappe ´et al. 97 presented LJ parameters for Ru without mentioning its oxidation state, and more recently Sebesta et al. 46 was the first to propose different sets of parameters for both Ru II and Ru III .Even though different sets of parameters for transition metals in many different oxidation states have been proposed by Sebesta et al., the parameterization procedure used by the authors does not consider the metals in a polypyridine coordination environment.Moreover, it has not been found in the Literature any parametrization proposal for Ru coordinated to polypyridine ligands simultaneously with an aqua, a hydroxo or an oxo ligand.
The work of Allinger et al. 95 is quite general and comprises more than 100 atoms of the periodic table, including the Ru atom.The authors presented a broad set of LJ parameters developed for the MM3 force field.Adlhart et al. 96 presented LJ parameters for Ru from a modified version of the sybyl/tripos 5.2 98 force field.As mentioned by the authors, the LJ parameters were developed to be used in a QM/MM study of olefinmetathesis reaction catalyzed by Ru carbene complexes.Rappe ét al. 97 developed the famous Universal Force Field (UFF) where the authors presented a full periodic table force field for molecular mechanic simulations, that includes LJ parameters for Ru.Sebesta et al., 46 in turn, brings up the first parameterization study for Ru considering two different oxidation states (Ru II and Ru III ).The authors employed the supramolecular approximation 99 to adjust the LJC parameters for various transition metals considering a neutral metal complex and a ''test'' molecule.[M(NH 3 ) x Cl y ] and [M(H 2 O) x (SH) y ] type structures were adopted as neutral complexes, where M is a transition metal and x or y indicate a variable number of ligands.As test molecules, they adopted NH 3 , CH 4 and H 2 O.The nonbonded parameters were then obtained to provide the best description of the metal-ligand quantum interaction energies.
The coordination of the metal with a water molecule, a hydroxide or an oxide ion can completely modify the electronic structure of the complex.For metal complexes with a coordinated aqua ligand, it is mandatory also consider the interaction of the metal center with the water molecules in solution to properly describe the intra and intermolecular non-bonded interactions of the complexes.In this work, we propose a set of non-bonded parameters for Ru in the oxidation states II, III and IV (''Our'' in Table 1), based on the accurate description of the QM energy profile of Ru and the coordinated water molecule in the polypyridyl coordination environment of the studied closed-shell Ru-complex species.Fig. 6 shows the LJC energy profile of the water ligand in the [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ and [Ru III H 2 O] 3+ complexes obtained with the LJC parameters presented in Table 1 in comparison with the QM energy profile calculated with B3LYP/(aug)-cc-pVDZ(PP-Ru).From the literature, the set of parameters proposed by Allinger et al. is the one that provides the LJC energy profiles closest to the QM ones, but with less negative minimum energy (E min ), by 4.7 kcal mol À1 for Ru II , by 1.8 kcal mol À1 for Ru III ; and distorted r 0 by 0.2 Å for Ru II , and by 0.1 Å for Ru III .Moreover, the set of parameters proposed by Sebesta et al. is the one that provides the LJC energy profiles furthermost to the QM ones, with even less Our set of LJC parameters, obtained with the precision of two digits, gave the best agreement of the LJC and QM energy profiles, with an excellent description of the minimum energy (E 0 ) and equilibrium distance r 0 for both Ru II and Ru III , reaching a deviation of only 1.4 and 0.8 kcal mol À1 for the QM minimum energies of the Ru II and Ru III complexes, respectively.Also, we fitted exactly the QM minimum distance in both oxidation states.Equal e values were obtained for Ru II , Ru III and Ru IV , and different s values were obtained for Ru II , Ru III and Ru IV .The fitted s value for Ru III is 0.2 Å larger than for Ru II and Ru IV complexes.Moreover, a more positive charge for Ru III and Ru IV than Ru II were obtained by fitting the electrostatic potential of the Ru-complex species using the CHELPG method.Even though the charge of Ru II is expected to be more positive after a mono-oxidation, as we have obtained, the parameters proposed by Sebesta et al. do not follow this tendency, since a charge of Ru III smaller than Ru II is proposed by them.Last, but not less important, as long as we have adopted B3LYP without long range dispersion corrections, the LJ parameters adjusted for Ru accurately describe only the region near the Ru-O equilibrium distance.

Solvent structure around the complexes
Analyzing the Monte Carlo simulations of the complexes in solution, the solvent structure around the complexes was mapped by the minimum distance distribution function (MDDF) 100 (Fig. 7a).The first peaks, observed in r o 2 Å, refer to the micro-solvation region, where the formation of hydrogen bonds between the complexes and the solvent occurs.For larger distances, it is observed the formation of a first solvation layer with peak at 2.7 Å and minimum at 4.1 Å, integrating up to 25 water molecules (Fig. 7b), and a second solvation layer with peak varying between 5.5 and 5.7 Å, and minimum around 7 Å, integrating up to 200 water molecules.The radial distribution functions (RDFs) between the Ru and O atoms of the complexes and the O and H atoms of the solvent, g(r) Ru-Ow , g(r) Ru-Hw , g(r) O-Ow and g(r) O-Hw (Fig. 7) show how the solvent is structured in a micro-solvation region around the Ru-complex species, where hydrogen bonds take place.In the case of the aqua complexes, the position of the first peak in g(r) O-Ow precedes the position of the first peak in g(r) O-Hw , and the opposite is true for complexes coordinated with a hydroxo or an oxo ligand.This is notoriously an effect of the different types of hydrogen bonds made by different Ru-complex species, which can either donate or accept protons from the water molecules in the solvent as detailed below.
In the aqua complexes, the integral of any RDFs involving Ru, Ow, and Hw, up to a distance of 3.6 Å, is exactly equal to 1, which demonstrates that during the Monte Carlo simulations only the coordinated water molecule interacts directly with the metallic center.The average distance, during the simulations, between the oxygen of the coordinated water molecule and the Ru atom was 2.3 AE 0.1 Å (r 1 in g(r) Ru-Ow ), for the species in the oxidation states II or III, that is slightly larger than the distances obtained from the optimized geometries in solution (2.214 Å for [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ and 2.148 Å for [Ru III (H 2 O)] 3+ .This is a consequence of the explicit treatment of the specific interactions in the simulations, which compete with the metallic center increasing the Ru-O bond.
In the hydroxo or oxo complexes, these moieties were treated as part of the solute (fixed in the optimized geometry relative positions), and therefore, their atoms were not counted in g(r) Ru-Ow and g(r) Ru-Hw .Concerning these complexes, the intensity of the first peak in g(r) O-Hw is smaller for [Ru III (OH)] 2+ , indicating that in the 3+ oxidation state, the hydroxide complex attracts less hydrogens of water molecules in solution.In other words, compared to [Ru III (OH)] 2+ , the [Ru II (OH)] + complex can stablish a larger number of hydrogen bonds as a proton acceptor.Lastly, in the [Ru IV (O)] 2+ complex, the position of the first peak in g(r) O-Hw (r 1 = 1.8 Å) is prior to the position of the first peak in g(r) O-Ow (r 1 = 2.8 Å).This is an expected result since the oxide ion has a negative charge that necessarily attracts protons from the solution, making hydrogen bonds as a proton acceptor.In any complex, hydrogen bonds are stablished only between the coordinated aqua, hydroxo or oxo ligand and water molecules in solution, never involving the metallic center directly.
To account for the number of hydrogen bonds (N HB ) formed by the Ru-complex species, the criteria r o 3.5 Å and Y o 401 were adopted for the maximum distance between electronegative atoms X and Y participating in the hydrogen bond, and the XYH angle of formation.Additionally, an energetic criterion was adopted according to which only hydrogen bonds with an interaction energy (E HB ) of at least À0.01 kcal mol À1 are computed.Two types of hydrogen bonds were observed, the O-HÁ Á ÁOw type, where the Ru-complex donates a proton to a water molecule in solution and the OÁ Á ÁHw-Ow type, where the Ru-complex accept a proton from a water molecule in solution, see Fig. 8.The average number (N), distance (r), angle (y) and energy (E HB ) of the accounted hydrogen bonds are listed in Table 2. Histograms showing the distributions of r, y and E HB are presented in ESI.† In the Ru-complex species with a coordinated water molecule, the O-HÁ Á ÁOw hydrogen bonds are preponderant, whereas hydrogen bonds, in which the Ru-complex acts as proton acceptor, is a very rare event (N HB o 0.05).On the other hand, Ru-complex species with a coordinated hydroxide can make hydrogen bonds both as proton donor and acceptor as well.The [Ru II (OH)] + complex makes on average 0.4 hydrogen bonds as a donor and 2 hydrogen bonds as an acceptor.The [Ru III (OH)] 2+ complex makes on average 1 hydrogen bond as a donor and another 1.3 hydrogen bonds as an acceptor.Therefore, the OÁ Á ÁHw-Ow hydrogen bonds are preferred by the hydroxo complexes.Finally, the [Ru IV (O)] 2+ complex makes on average 1.1 hydrogen bonds only as an acceptor.
The distribution of hydrogen bond distances is generally unimodal (see histograms in ESI †), ranging from approximately 2.4 to 3.5 Å, with mean values in the 2.8 and 2.9 Å range.The distribution of bond angles also has unimodal character, ranging from 0 to 40 degrees and with average values in the range of 10. species.This behavior can be assigned to the two types of hydrogen bonds (O-HÁ Á ÁOw, and OÁ Á ÁHw-Ow) realized by these Ru-complex species, which have different energy distributions.The [Ru III (H 2 O)] 3+ complex establishes the most intense hydrogen bonds with the solvent, with an average energy of À13.5 kcal mol À1 , followed by [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ , with an average energy of À9.2 kcal mol À1 .The [Ru II (OH)] + and [Ru III (OH)] 2+ complexes establish hydrogen bonds with an average energy of À1.9 and À8.0 kcal mol À1 (OHÁ Á ÁOw) and À7.9 and À4.3 kcal mol À1 (OÁ Á ÁHw-Ow), respectively.The weakest hydrogen bonds are realized by the [Ru IV (O)] 2+ complex, with an average energy of À3.7 kcal mol À1 .All values with respective standard deviations are listed in Table 2.
In general, the Coulomb interaction plays a fundamental role in the formation of hydrogen bonds in solution.Small shifts of the atomic charges in a molecule can completely change the characteristics of the hydrogen bonds formed. 101,102he H-bonds made by [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ are on average 70% less intense than that realized by the [Ru III (H 2 O)] 3+ species.This behavior is justified by the higher total charge and smaller size of the complex in the 3+ oxidation state.Considering hydroxo complexes, for example, the differences in the number and average energy of OHÁ Á ÁOw and OÁ Á ÁHw-Ow type hydrogen bonds are mainly related to the atomic charge densities on the oxygen and hydrogen atoms of the hydroxo ligand.The atomic charges on the oxygen atom are À0.89 and À0.76, and on the hydrogen atom are 0.29 and 0.39, for [Ru II (OH)] + and [Ru III (OH)] 2+ , respectively.Notably, the charge on the O-atom is more negative in the 2+ oxidation state thus attracting more protons from solution, and the charge on the H-atom is larger in the 3+ oxidation state, thus attracting more strongly the O-atom of the water molecules in solution.Furthermore, the number of H-bonds and the modulus of the OÁ Á ÁHw-Ow interaction energy by the hydroxo and oxo complexes increases as a function of the O-atom negative charge, which is À0.57, À0.76, and À0.89 for [Ru IV (O)] 2+ , [Ru III (OH)] 2+ , and [Ru II (OH)] + , respectively.Furthermore, we will see in the next section that H-bonds play an important role in defining the electronic excitation energies of the complexes.

UV-vis absorption spectroscopy
The ultraviolet-visible (UV-vis) absorption spectra of the studied complexes in aqueous solution (Fig. 10 and ESI †) show absorption bands in the ultraviolet (l o 400 nm) and in the visible (400 nm o l o 700 nm) ranges, whose intensities follow the increasing trend of the transition energies.The absorption Fig. 8 Illustration of the hydrogen bonds realized by the Ru-complex species in solution obtained from the superposition of 100 statistically uncorrelated Monte Carlo configurations.Red indicates Ru-complex species as hydrogen donor and gray as acceptor.
Table 2 Average number (N), distance (r), angle (y) and energy (E HB ) of the hydrogen bonds made by the Ru-complex species with water molecules (Hw 2 Ow) in solution, as a proton donor (O-HÁ Á ÁOw) and as a proton acceptor (OÁ Á ÁHw-Ow) , respectively.This type of absorption spectra profile, with a more intense band in the ultraviolet and less intense bands in the longer wavelength regions, is typical of Ru-polypyridine complexes. 103n order to assign the measured UV-Vis absorption spectra, the electronic excitations of the Ru-complex species were calculated using the TD-DFT theory with the B3LYP functional and the (aug)-cc-pVDZ(PP-Ru) basis sets.In preliminary tests (ESI †) it was demonstrated that this combination of methods and basis sets provides the best theoretical/experimental spectral matching with one of the lowest computational cost.In addition to B3LYP, the following methods were also tested: single-excitation CI, M06-2X, BHANDH, CAM-B3LYP, LC-oPBE, and PBE0.Among these, the B3LYP and PBE0 methods showed the best performance, but with PBE0 energy values slightly overestimated.The following basis set types were considered: (i) all-electron basis sets for non-metallic atoms, combined with basis sets with effective core potential for Ru; (ii) all-electron basis sets for metallic and non-metallic atoms; and (iii) allelectron basis sets with Douglas-Kroll-Hess type zero-order relativistic correction.Interestingly, the inclusion of relativistic effects via effective potential was shown to be adequate to calculate the electronic transition energies of our Ru-complex species.Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 9, the solvent effects were investigated using both the traditional Polarizable Continuum Model (PCM) 68 and the S-QM/MM approach.Two approximations have been considered in the last case, namely: (i) treating the solvent molecules as point charges (PC approximation) and (ii) treating the solvent molecules that make hydrogen bonds with the Ru-complex species by quantum mechanics and the remaining as point charges (HB + PC approximation).The spectra of [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ and [Ru II (OH)] + calculated in vacuum and in solution, using the three solvent effects approximation levels (see ESI † for other complexes), are shown in Fig. 9: The energies and intensities of the calculated electronic excitations in solution are in good agreement with the experimental data, where the transitions in the visible range showed to be more sensitive to the solvent effects.From the convolution of the calculated electronic excitations with Lorentzian functions with 0.25 eV of width at half-height, the following theoretical values were obtained for the longer wavelength absorption peak of [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ (and [Ru II (OH)] + ) species: 432 (520) nm in vacuum and 444 (510), 442 (482) and 456 (491) nm in solution using the PCM, PC and HB + PC approximations, respectively.Comparing with the experimental values of this absorption band (472 nm for [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ and 506 nm for [Ru II (OH)] + ), the inclusion of solvent effects and the improvement of their description by considering explicitly the solvent molecules as point charges (PC approximation) and additional inclusion of a quantum mechanical treatment of the solvent molecules that realize hydrogen bonds with the complexes (HB + PC), contributed to a more accurate description of the UV-Vis spectra of these complexes.
5][106][107][108][109] The necessity of including at least the first solvation shell in the QM calculations has also been emphasized for the calculation of electronic properties of Ru complexes. 106,110In our work, especially for [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ , we have also investigated the impact of including a larger number of explicit solvent molecules, going beyond hydrogen bonds.We took into account the complete first solvation shell when calculating the first five electronic excitations, albeit considering only five Monte Carlo configurations.Fig. S10 (ESI †) illustrates that the incorporation of the first solvation shell does not significantly improve the agreement with experimental results in terms of the energy of the excitations.Additionally, regardless of whether we employed the B3LYP or PBE0 functionals, our conclusions remained consistent.However, it is worth noting that the B3LYP functional exhibited a closer alignment with experimental observations.Therefore, treating only the hydrogen bonds at the quantum mechanical (QM) level and employing the electrostatic embedding approach to account for the remaining solvent molecules represents a reasonable compromise to describe and characterize the electronic spectra of the studied Ru-aqua complexes in aqueous solution.
In order to advance in the understanding of these UV-Vis absorption spectra, the assignment of the calculated electronic excitations was realized according to their spatial distribution on the molecular structure of the Ru-complex species (Fig. 10f-j).0][81][82] The complexes were fragmented into 5 groups of atoms (bpy1, bpy2, py, aqueous group and the Ru atom) and the transitions were quantitatively assigned based on their MLCT, MC, LMCT, LLCT, and LC contributions.See Fig. 10(f)-(j).
For [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ and [Ru II (OH)] + , the absorption bands with peaks at 472, 336 nm and 506, 366 nm, respectively, are mainly composed by MLCT-type transitions (about 60%), and in lesser journal is © the Owner 2023 Phys.Chem.Chem.Phys.degree by LLCT and LC transitions (B30%).Also, there is an increase of the LLCT and LC contributions in the UV region below 300 nm, that goes up to 56%, and a reduction of the MLCT transitions to 30%, indicating that the UV band around 290 nm is mainly composed by transitions centered in the pyridyl ligands.The oxidation of the [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ species to [Ru III (H 2 O)] 3+ causes a drastic reduction of the contributions of the MLCT transitions down to 16% since the Ru(III) ion is a much stronger electron acceptor than Ru(II), thus increasing the LMCT contribution to 32%, considering the first 30 transitions.The MLCT contributions dropped to 18% around 300 nm while the LC and LLCT contributions were enhanced to almost 70%.
In [Ru III (OH)] 2+ , the MCLT contributions (34%) play an important role until up to 300 nm, competing with the LC and LLCT contributions (up to 35%), and the LMCT contributions (15%).In the 300 nm region, the MLCT contributions were estimated in 24% while the LC, LLCT and LMCT Fig. 10 (a)-(e) Theoretical UV-Vis electronic excitations (colored vertical lines) of the Ru-complex species in aqueous solution calculated over 100 statistically uncorrelated solute/solvent configurations extracted from Monte Carlo simulations, using the TD-DFT theory with B3LYP/(aug)-cc-pVDZ/ (PP-Ru).Solvent effects treated with the HB + PC approach within the scope of the sequential QM/MM method, and using solvent configurations extracted from the simulations.Experimental spectra are presented for comparison.(f)-(j) Average map of the MC (pink), MLCT (red), LMCT (blue), LC (green) and LLCT (yellow) contributions of the calculated electronic excitations, obtained from the analysis of the transition density matrices.
contributions added up to 71%.In the case of the [Ru IV (O)] 2+ complex, the LC and LLCT contributions corresponded to 47% of the first 30 transitions, and this number rose to 69% when the last 20 transitions were considered.In contrast, the MLCTs contributed with 25% for the first 30 transitions and only 21% for the last 20 transitions.The LMCT contributions corresponded to 17% of the contributions in the first set and only 7% in the second set of electronic transitions.Thus, the [Ru IV (O)] 2+ complex has the second highest percentage of LMCT contributions among the first 30 transitions, second only to the [Ru III (H 2 O)] 3+ complex.In general, the contribution of MC transitions is relatively low among all type of transitions in any of those Ru-complex species, being less than 16% of the total.
In more detailed contribution maps (see ESI †), it is possible to observe that the MLCT contributions involve predominantly the transfer of electron density from the metal to the bipyridine ligands (bpy1 and bpy2), and to a lesser extent, from the metal to the pyridine ligand.In contrast, in the LMCT contributions, the electronic density is transferred predominantly from the bipyridine ligands to the ruthenium ion.There are also LMCT contributions involving the pyridine, the bipyridines and the water derived ligands in a minor extent.On the other hand, the bipyridine ligands concentrate almost all of the LLCT contributions.Specifically, in the [Ru II (OH)] + and [Ru IV (O)] 2+ complexes, it is also observed that the water derived ligands donates a small portion of its electronic density to the other ligands.Over the entire calculated spectrum, the OH-LCT and O-LCT contributions were both computed to be around 20%, as detailed in the ESI.†

Conclusions
We conducted a comprehensive and systematic investigation on the solvent effects on the molecular and electronic structures of the mononuclear [Ru(OH 2 )] 2+ complex and its four oxidation/deprotonation derivatives in aqueous solution.Various approximations for the solute/solvent interactions were employed, including implicit (PCM) and explicit (S-QM/MM) solvent models, which combined classical Monte Carlo simulations and Quantum Mechanics calculations within the DFT and TD-DFT frameworks.
Our findings reveal that the solvation, oxidation, and deprotonation of the [Ru-OH 2 ] 2+ species lead to structural changes primarily in the Ru coordination sphere, with the distances and angles between the metal center and the water derived ligands or pyridine ligand atoms being the most sensitive.Global geometric changes resulting from solvation do not correlate with the total charge of the ruthenium complex species, as evidenced by the shortening of the Ru-N and Ru-O bond distances in the aqua complexes and lengthening in hydroxo and oxo complexes.Conversely, the oxidation of the Ru(II) complexes increases the Ru-N bond lengths, especially the bond opposite to the O-atom, whereas shortening the Ru-O bond length, which is more pronounced in hydroxo complexes.
In contrast, deprotonation of the aqua/hydroxo ligand consistently leads to a shortening of the Ru-O bond and elongation/ contraction of the opposite Ru-N bond, with the pyridine ligand being less sensitive to such effects than to the oxidation of the metal center.Notably, the bipyridine ligands remained insensitive to electron or proton-transfer processes.
Alongside geometric changes, oxidation and deprotonation processes have opposite effects on the electron density at the metal site.The conversion of the aqua into the hydroxo ligand and then into the oxo ligand lead to the transfer of electronic density and decrease of the positive charge on Ru-atom, whereas its oxidation tends to increase it.The polarization of the Ru-complex species due to the presence of the aqueous solution leads to larger variations in the electronic density on the metal center and water-derived ligands.Among all of the atoms in the [Ru(OH 2 )] 2+ complex, the Ru atom is the most sensitive to oxidation and deprotonation processes, undergoing the largest changes in the electronic density distribution.
The frontier molecular orbitals of the complexes, HOMO or SOMO and LUMO have predominantly d(metal) and p*(bipyridines) orbital character, respectively.This implies that the electronic transitions between these orbitals have metal-toligand charge-transfer (MLCT) character.Notably, the solvent tend to destabilize the frontier molecular orbitals relative to vacuum as the total charge of the complex increases.Furthermore, analysis of the effect of solvation, oxidation, and deprotonation processes on the HOMO-LUMO energy gap suggests that the migration of electronic density is lower in the more highly charged complexes, but tends to increase when the aqua ligand is successively deprotonated to the hydroxo and oxo ligands.
The solvation shell surrounding the complexes in solution displays similarity, with differences only found in the microsolvation region where intermolecular hydrogen bonding plays a significant role.In the aqua complexes, the Ru-O distance is primarily influenced by hydrogen bonding rather than the oxidation state of the complex.Meanwhile, the hydroxo complexes form a higher number of hydrogen bonds compared to the other species, with the strongest hydrogen bond being present in the complex with the highest total charge.
The UV-Vis absorption spectra of the [Ru(OH 2 )] 2+ complex and its oxidation/deprotonation species were simulated using the B3LYP/(aug)-cc-pVDZ/(PP-Ru) theory level, which provided the best description at the lowest computational cost.The UV-Vis spectra of the Ru-complex species were found to be more sensitive to solvent effects in the visible region, where closedshell species exhibit broad MLCT absorption bands and solution pH-sensitive electronic transitions, wich lose intensity or disappear when the complex is oxidized, while LC and LLCT bands prevail in the ultraviolet region.The MLCT bands in the visible have a predominant contribution of metal-to-bipyridine charge-transfer transitions and are best described when the complex/solvent hydrogen bonds are treated at the QM level and the other water molecules are treated as point charges.The theoretical and experimental UV spectra were found to be in excellent agreement, validating the LJC parameters developed

Fig. 1
Fig. 1 Chemical structure of the [Ru(py)(bpy) 2 X] complexes.The N-atoms of pyridine (py) and bipyridine (bpy 1 , bpy 2 ), and the X ligand (O-atom of H 2 O, OH À and O 2À), are all coordinated to a central Ru atom in a pseudooctahedral site.Depending on the complex, the X position can be singularly occupied by an aqua, a hydroxo, or an oxo ligand.
N 19 -Ru-N 25 and N 11 -Ru-N 3 angles are in the 76.21 to 78.91 interval; N 11 -Ru-N 19 , N 11 -Ru-N 25 , and N 3 -Ru-N 25 in the 88.11 to 100.41; N 3 -Ru-N 19 in the 173.11 to 176.21; and O-Ru-N 3 and O-Ru-N 19 are in the 85.11 to 97.41 interval.In contrast, the relative positioning of the pyridine and the water molecule is quite dependent on the characteristics of the Ru-complex species.The [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ and [Ru II (OH)] + species exhibited the O-Ru-N 45 -C dihedral (where C is the closest pyridine carbon to oxygen) respectively at 16.61 and 29.11; whereas they were respectively shifted to À26.61 and À30.41 in the oxidized [Ru III (H 2 O)] 3+ and [Ru III (OH)] 2+ species.Interestingly, a further oxidation to [Ru IV (O)] 2+ species bring those atoms almost to the same plane and the dihedral angle goes down to only 1.41 as consequence of the removal of the steric effects of the hydrogen atoms of water, or hydroxide, and the closest pyridine ligand in the Ru-complex species.

Fig. 2
Fig.2Superposition of the optimized structures of the Ru-complex species (at B3LYP/(aug)-cc-pVDZ(PP-Ru) level) in vacuum (green color) and in aqueous solution (using PCM model, in red color).Root mean square deviation (RMSD) of the vacuum and solution geometries (RMSD V/S ) is shown for each species.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5 Energy level diagram of the frontier molecular orbitals and spin orbitals of the Ru-complex species in vacuum (vac) and in aqueous solution (sol).H(or S)OMO:LUMO energy gap indicated in the diagram and orbitals (sol) plotted (isovalue of 0.04) below.

Fig. 7
Fig. 7 (a) Minimum density distribution function (MDDF) of the Ru-complex species in aqueous solution.(b) Snapshot of the Monte Carlo simulation showing the [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ complex surrounded by the solvent water molecules in the first solvation shell.(c-h) Radial distribution functions between Ru, O, and the oxygen (Ow) and hydrogen (Hw) atoms of the solvent molecules for [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ (c) and (d), [Ru II (OH)] + (e) and (f) and [Ru IV (O)] 2+ (g) and (h).The characteristic distances indicating the beginning of each RDF, the position of the first peak and the position of the first valley are indicated in the graphs by the labels r 0 , r 1 and r 2 , respectively.The RDFs of Ru-complex species in the 3+ oxidation state are shown in ESI.† 4 and 33.9 degrees.The energy distributions are unimodal for the [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ , [Ru III (H 2 O)] 3+ and [Ru IV (O)] 2+ complexes, but bimodal for [Ru II (OH)] + and [Ru III (OH)] 2+

Fig. 9
Fig.9Theoretical UV-Vis absorption spectra of the [Ru II (H 2 O)] 2+ and [Ru II (OH)] + complexes, in vacuum and in aqueous solution.Electronic transitions calculated with the TD-DFT method, using B3LYP/(aug)-cc-pVDZ(PP-Ru).Solvent effects treated according to the PCM, PC and HB + PC approaches.Experimental spectra (Exp) are presented for comparison.The number are the calculated (in black) and experimental (in color) values of the maximum wavelength in nm.Conv = convoluted spectrum obtained from calculated electronic excitations where Excit = calculated electronic excitations with intensity defined by the calculated oscillator strength.

Table 1
Lennard Jones and Coulomb parameters for Ru atom negative E 0 (1.9 kcal mol À1 for Ru II , and 17.9 kcal mol À1 for Ru III ) and even more distorted r 0 (0.5 Å for Ru II , and 0.7 Å for Ru III ).LJC energies profiles intermediary to the LJC profiles of Allinger et al. and Sebesta et al. were obtained when the parameterizations proposed by Rappe ´et al. and Adlhart et al. was considered.