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.
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