Adiabatic and Nonadiabatic Limits

on the other hand, the electronic frequency is small compared with the nuclear frequency (Vj,i v ), the exponentials in Equation 10.66 may be Taylor expanded  

Notice that this rate constant is independent of v . The only nuclear dependence is via the activation energy AG.  

---

The Marcus theory, as described above, is a transition state theory (TST, see Section 14.3) by which the rate of an electron transfer process (in both the adiabatic and nonadiabatic limits) is assumed to be determined by the probability to reach a subset of solvent configurations defined by a certain value of the reaction coordinate. The rate expressions (16.50) for adiabatic, and (16.59) or (16.51) for nonadiabatic electron transfer were obtained by making the TST assumptions that (1) the probability to reach transition state configuration(s) is thermal, and (2) once the reaction coordinate reaches its transition state value, the electron transfer reaction proceeds to completion. Both assumptions rely on the supposition that the overall reaction is slow relative to the thermal relaxation of the nuclear environment. We have seen in Sections 14.4.2 and 14.4.4 that the breakdown of this picture leads to dynamic solvent effects, that in the Markovian limit can be characterized by a friction coefficient y The rate is proportional to y in the low friction, y 0, limit where assumption (1) breaks down, and varies like y when y oo and assumption (2) does. What stands in common to these situations is that in these opposing limits the solvent affects dynamically the reaction rate. Solvent effects in TST appear only through its effect on the free energy surface of the reactant subspace. 

In the adiabatic limit, the results normally obtained from theories of energy transfer are not immediately applicable, because pre-excitation of the oscillators must be taken into account. The general formulation may be derived from ref. 88. Also in polyatomic molecules the coupling of the driven oscillator with other parts of the molecule has been shown to influence energy transfer. Much work remains to be done. If the intermediate case between the adiabatic and nonadiabatic limit is considered, one might estimate (A ) by... 

In eqn (12.19), the effects of nonadiabatic transition including the nuclear tunneling are properly taken into account by rj and naturally the main task is to evaluate the thermally averaged transition probability P fl, < ), which has to be evaluated using the Monte Carlo technique for multi-dimensional systems. It is easily shown that the Marcus-Hush formula in adiabatic and nonadiabatic limits can be recovered from eqn (12.19) and eqn (12.20) within the high-temperature approximation. 

Applications are then presented in Section IV. These examples should served as a guide as to what kinds of problems can be studied with these techniques and the limitations and possibilities for these methods. We present three examples (1) a dynamical test of the centroid quantum transition-state theory for electron transfer (ET) reactions in the crossover regime between adiabatic and nonadiabatic electron transfer, (2) the primary electron transfer reaction in bacterial photosynthesis, and (3) the diffusion kinetics of a Brownian particle in a periodic potential. Finally, Section V offers an outlook and a perspective of the current status of the field from our vantage point. 

In the nonadiabatic limit ( < 1) B = nVa/Vi sF, and at 1 the adiabatic result k = k a holds. As shown in section 5.2, the instanton velocity decreases as t] increases, and the transition tends to be more adiabatic, as in the classical case. This conclusion is far from obvious, because one might expect that, when the particle loses energy, it should increase its upside-down barrier velocity. Instead, the energy losses are saturated to a finite //-independent value, and friction slows the tunneling motion down. 

In this section, we switch gears slightly to address another contemporary topic, solvation dynamics coupled into the ESPT reaction. One relevant, important issue of current interest is the ESPT coupled excited-state charge transfer (ESCT) reaction. Seminal theoretical approaches applied by Hynes and coworkers revealed the key features, with descriptions of dynamics and electronic structures of non-adiabatic [119, 120] and adiabatic [121-123] proton transfer reactions. The most recent theoretical advancement has incorporated both solvent reorganization and proton tunneling and made the framework similar to electron transfer reaction, [119-126] such that the proton transfer rate kpt can be categorized into two regimes (a) For nonadiabatic limit [120] ... 

For noncatalytic homogeneous reactions, a tubular reactor is widely used because it cai handle liquid or vapor feeds, with or without phase change in the reactor. The PFR model i usually adequate for the tubular reactor if the flow is turbulent and if it can be assumed tha when a phase change occurs in the reactor, the reaction takes place predominantly in one o the two phases. The simplest thermal modes are isothermal and adiabatic. The nonadiabatic nonisothermal mode is generally handled by a specified temperature profile or by heat transfer to or from some specified heat source or sink and a corresponding heat-transfer area and overall heat transfer coefficient. Either a fractional conversion of a limiting reactant or a reactoi volume is specified. The calculations require the solution of ordinary differential equations. 

FIGURE 10.2 Adiabatic (left) and nonadiabatic (right) energy profiles and rate constant expressions associated with the limit regimes of the Marcus theory. 

Adiabatic reactions, occurring on a single-sheet PES correspond to B = 1, and the adiabatic barrier height occurs instead of E. The low-temperature limit of a nonadiabatic-reaction rate constant equals... 

The problem of nonadiabatic tunneling in the Landau-Zener approximation has been solved by Ovchinnikova [1965]. For further refinements of the theory beyond this approximation see Laing et al. [1977], Holstein [1978], Coveney et al. [1985], Nakamura [1987]. The nonadiabatic transition probability for a more general case of dissipative tunneling is derived in appendix B. We quote here only the result for the dissipationless case obtained in the Landau-Zener limit. When < F (Xe), the total transition probability is the product of the adiabatic tunneling rate, calculated in the previous sections, and the Landau-Zener-Stueckelberg-like factor... 

---