Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18
Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18
Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18
- No tags were found...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
154 Charge-Transfer Reactions <strong>in</strong> Condensed Phases<br />
long-distance <strong>in</strong>tramolecular reactions. Many systems with <strong>in</strong>tramolecular<br />
electronic transitions over a relatively short distance between the <strong>in</strong>itial and<br />
f<strong>in</strong>al centers of electron localization have been synthesized <strong>in</strong> recent years. 21,22<br />
They commonly <strong>in</strong>corporate the same basic design <strong>in</strong> which the donor and<br />
acceptor units are l<strong>in</strong>ked <strong>in</strong> one molecule through a bridge moiety. In a case<br />
of closely separated donor and acceptor units, electronic states on these two<br />
sites are strongly coupled, result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a substantial delocalization of the electronic<br />
density. The electronic density is only partially transferred, and the process<br />
can be classified as a CT transition.<br />
The MH formulation for the activation barrier and the related connection<br />
between activation ET parameters and optical observables generally do<br />
not apply to CT reactions. Hence the researcher is left without a procedure<br />
of calculat<strong>in</strong>g the activation barrier from spectroscopy. Not be<strong>in</strong>g able to calculate<br />
the barrier is a deficiency, and this chapter discusses some emerg<strong>in</strong>g<br />
approaches to develop a theory of CT processes with an explicit account for<br />
electronic delocalization effects. In application to optical transitions, this theory<br />
should lead to the development of a band shape analysis broadly applicable<br />
to Class II and III systems. The effect of electronic delocalization on the solvent<br />
component of the FCWD is emphasized here. The previously reviewed<br />
problem of delocalization effects on <strong>in</strong>tramolecular vibrations 23 is not<br />
<strong>in</strong>cluded. We also review some new approaches go<strong>in</strong>g beyond the two-state<br />
approximation <strong>in</strong> terms of <strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g polarizability of the donor–acceptor<br />
complex (assumption 2), and discuss some recent studies on nonl<strong>in</strong>ear solvation<br />
effects (assumption 4). There are some very recent <strong>in</strong>dications <strong>in</strong> the literature<br />
po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g to a possibility of an effective coupl<strong>in</strong>g between vibrational<br />
modes of the donor–acceptor complex and solvent fluctuations (assumption<br />
3), but no consensus on when and why these effects are significant has yet<br />
been reached. We briefly discuss the available experimental and theoretical<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
The first part of this chapter conta<strong>in</strong>s an <strong>in</strong>troduction to the statistical<br />
mechanical formulation of the CT free energy surfaces. Importantly, it shows<br />
how to extend the traditional MH picture of two ET parabolas to a more general<br />
case of two CT free energy surfaces of a two-state donor–acceptor complex.<br />
The notation we utilize below dist<strong>in</strong>guishes between these two cases <strong>in</strong><br />
the follow<strong>in</strong>g fashion: we use the <strong>in</strong>dices 1 and 2 to denote the two ET free<br />
energy surfaces, as <strong>in</strong> Figure 2, and refer to the lower and upper CT free energy<br />
surfaces with ‘‘ ’’ and ‘‘þ’’, respectively. The parameters enter<strong>in</strong>g the activation<br />
barrier of CT transitions depend on the choice of the basis set of wave<br />
functions of the <strong>in</strong>itial and f<strong>in</strong>al states of the donor–acceptor complex. The<br />
standard MH formulation is based on the choice of a localized, diabatic basis<br />
set. When this choice is adopted, we use the superscript ‘‘d’’ to refer to diabatic<br />
wave functions. An alternative description is possible <strong>in</strong> terms of adiabatic<br />
wave functions, and this situation is dist<strong>in</strong>guished by the superscript ‘‘ad’’.<br />
We also provide a basis-<strong>in</strong>variant formulation of the theory for a two-state