19.02.2013 Views

Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18

Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18

Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • 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.

solute–solvent coupl<strong>in</strong>g through the off-diagonal matrix element of the electric<br />

field of the solute. 40 This coupl<strong>in</strong>g represents a non-Condon dependence of the<br />

ET matrix element on the nuclear solvent polarization (this contribution is<br />

commonly neglected <strong>in</strong> MH theory 13 ). In the case of weak electronic overlap,<br />

all off-diagonal matrix elements are neglected <strong>in</strong> the free energy surfaces, and<br />

the above equations are transformed to the well-known case of two <strong>in</strong>tersect<strong>in</strong>g<br />

parabolas (Figure 2) represent<strong>in</strong>g the diabatic ET free energy surfaces<br />

FiðY d Þ¼F0i þ ðYd l d Þ 2<br />

The reaction rate constant is then given by the Golden Rule perturbation<br />

expansion <strong>in</strong> the solvent-dependent ET matrix element Heff ab ½PnŠ. 43 Careful<br />

account for non-Condon solvent dependence of the ET matrix element generates<br />

the Mulliken-Hush matrix element <strong>in</strong> the rate preexponent (see below). In<br />

the opposite case of strong electronic overlap, the off-diagonal matrix elements<br />

cannot be neglected, and one should consider the CT free energy<br />

surfaces, <strong>in</strong>stead of ET free energy surfaces, with partial transfer of the electronic<br />

density. The free energy surfaces are then substantially nonparabolic; we<br />

discuss this case <strong>in</strong> the section on Electron Delocalization Effect.<br />

Heterogeneous Discharge<br />

The diabatic two-state representation for homogeneous CT can be<br />

extended to heterogeneous CT processes between a reactant <strong>in</strong> a condensedphase<br />

solvent and a metal electrode. The system Hamiltonian is then given<br />

by the Fano–Anderson model 44,45<br />

H ¼ HB þ½E De PnŠc þ c þ X<br />

Paradigm of Free Energy Surfaces 165<br />

k<br />

4l d<br />

Ek c þ k ck þ X<br />

ðHkc<br />

k<br />

þ k<br />

½52Š<br />

c þ h:c:Þ ½53Š<br />

where k is the lattice reciprocal vector, the two summations are over the wave<br />

vectors of the electrons of a metal, ek is the k<strong>in</strong>etic energy of the conduction<br />

electrons (hence ek ¼ k 2 =2me, withme be<strong>in</strong>g the electron mass), and ‘‘h.c.’’<br />

designates the correspond<strong>in</strong>g Hermetian conjugate. In Eq. [53], c þ and c are<br />

the Fermionic creation and annihilation operators of the localized reactant<br />

state. c þ k and ck are the creation and annihilation operators, respectively, for<br />

a conduction electron with momentum k, andHk is the coupl<strong>in</strong>g of this metal<br />

state to the localized electron state on the reactant. The energy of the localized<br />

reactant state <strong>in</strong>cludes solvation by the solvent electronic polarization<br />

(<strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> E) and the <strong>in</strong>teraction of the electron electric field De with the<br />

nuclear solvent polarization Pn. The transferred electron is much faster than<br />

the ions dissolved <strong>in</strong> the electrolyte. Therefore, on the time scale of charge

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!