{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03196022727272727, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01065340909090909, 'mean_word_length': 5.047210300429184, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Molecular modeling of organic corrosion inhibitors: why bare metal cations are not appropriate models of oxidized metal surfaces and solvated metal cations.

The applicability of various models of oxidized metal surfaces - bare metal cations, clusters of various size, and extended (periodic) slabs - that are used in the field of quantum-chemical modeling of corrosion inhibitors is examined and discussed. As representative model systems imidazole inhibitor, MgO surface, and solvated Mg(2+) ion are considered by means of density-functional-theory calculations. Although the results of cluster models are prone to cluster size and shape effects, the clusters of moderate size seem useful at least for qualitative purposes. In contrast, the bare metal cations are useless not only as models of oxidized surfaces but also as models of solvated cations, because they bind molecules several times stronger than the more appropriate models. In particular, bare Mg(2+) binds imidazole by 5.9 eV, while the slab model of MgO(001) by only 0.35 eV. Such binding is even stronger for 3+ cations, e.g., bare Al(3+) binds imidazole by 17.9 eV. The reasons for these fantastically strong binding energies are discussed and it is shown that the strong bonding is predominantly due to electron charge transfer from molecule to metal cation, which stems from differences between molecular and metal ionization potentials.