Electron transfer adiabaticity effects

The ultimate approach to simulate non-adiabatic effects is tln-ough the use of a fiill Scln-ddinger wavefunction for both the nuclei and the electrons, using the adiabatic-diabatic transfomiation methods discussed above. The whole machinery of approaches to solving the Scln-ddinger wavefiinction for adiabatic problems can be used, except that the size of the wavefiinction is now essentially doubled (for problems involving two-electronic states, to account for both states). The first application of these methods for molecular dynamical problems was for the charge-transfer system... 

To add non-adiabatic effects to semiclassical methods, it is necessary to allow the trajectories to sample the different surfaces in a way that simulates the population transfer between electronic states. This sampling is most commonly done by using surface hopping techniques or Ehrenfest dynamics. Recent reviews of these methods are found in [30-32]. Gaussian wavepacket methods have also been extended to include non-adiabatic effects [33,34]. Of particular interest here is the spawning method of Martinez, Ben-Nun, and Levine [35,36], which has been used already in a number of direct dynamics studies. 

The height of the potential barrier is lower than that for nonadiabatic reactions and depends on the interaction between the acceptor and the metal. However, at not too large values of the effective eiectrochemical Landau-Zener parameter the difference in the activation barriers is insignihcant. Taking into account the fact that the effective eiectron transmission coefficient is 1 here, one concludes that the rate of the adiabatic outer-sphere electron transfer reaction is practically independent of the electronic properties of the metal electrode. 

Reactions involving transfer of atoms and atomic groups represent a more complicated theoretical problem since they are often partially or entirely adiabatic and, in addition, a number of effects which are not very important in electron transfer reactions must be considered. These effects are ... 

The effects of deviations from the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (BOA) due to the interaction of the electron in the sub-barrier region with the local vibrations of the donor or the acceptor were considered for electron transfer processes in Ref. 68. It was shown that these effects are of importance for long-distance electron transfer since in this case the time when the electron is in the sub-barrier region may be long as compared to the period of the local vibration.68 A similar approach has been used in Ref. 65 to treat non-adiabatic effects in the sub-barrier region in atom transfer processes. However, nonadiabatic effects in the classically attainable region may also be of importance in atom transfer processes. In the harmonic approximation, when these effects are taken into account exactly, they manifest themselves in the noncoincidence of the... 

Both the initial- and the final-state wavefunctions are stationary solutions of their respective Hamiltonians. A transition between these states must be effected by a perturbation, an interaction that is not accounted for in these Hamiltonians. In our case this is the electronic interaction between the reactant and the electrode. We assume that this interaction is so small that the transition probability can be calculated from first-order perturbation theory. This limits our treatment to nonadiabatic reactions, which is a severe restriction. At present there is no satisfactory, fully quantum-mechanical theory for adiabatic electrochemical electron-transfer reactions. 

Finally, we ask, if the reactive triads in Schemes 1 and 19 are common to both electrophilic and charge-transfer nitration, why is the nucleophilic pathway (k 2) apparently not pertinent to the electrophilic activation of toluene and anisole One obvious answer is that the electrophilic nitration of these less reactive [class (ii)] arenes proceeds via a different mechanism, in which N02 is directly transferred from V-nitropyridinium ion in a single step, without the intermediacy of the reactive triad, since such an activation process relates to the more conventional view of electrophilic aromatic substitution. However, the concerted mechanism for toluene, anisole, mesitylene, t-butylbenzene, etc., does not readily accommodate the three unique facets that relate charge-transfer directly to electrophilic nitration, viz., the lutidine syndrome, the added N02 effect, and the TFA neutralization (of Py). Accordingly, let us return to Schemes 10 and 19, and inquire into the nature of thermal (adiabatic) electron transfer in (87) vis-a-vis the (vertical) charge-transfer in (62). 

In the classical activated-complex formalism nuclear tunneling effects are neglected. In addition, the electron transfer is assumed to be adiabatic. These assumptions are relaxed in the semiclassical model. 

To summarize, in this article we have discussed some aspects of a semiclassical electron-transfer model (13) in which quantum-mechanical effects associated with the inner-sphere are allowed for through a nuclear tunneling factor, and electronic factors are incorporated through an electronic transmission coefficient or adiabaticity factor. We focussed on the various time scales that characterize the electron transfer process and we presented one example to indicate how considerations of the time scales can be used in understanding nonequilibrium phenomena. 

The behavior observed is clearly intermediate between these two limits ions are produced and the orientation is important. The existence of an orientation effect shows that every collision does not lead to ionization. As discussed previously, we expect the electron to be transferred adiabatically at the first crossing. However, at the second crossing the ion must be encountering something intermediate between a bound CFjBr" molecular ion and a free Br atomic ion. It must encounter a species in the act of breaking apart, and we can use the experimental orientation data to extract some information about this species. We thus assume that the first crossing is completely adiabatic, and that the probability of K escaping as is the... 

One of the interesting results of the work presented in ref. 27 is the conclusion that the parameter y depends not only on the properties of the donor, but also on those of the acceptor. Analysis of the experimental data shows that, for many electron tunneling reactions, the parameter y depends rather strongly upon the nature of the acceptor (see Chaps. 6 and 7). However, strictly speaking, it is not possible to conclude that this is the consequence only of non-adiabatic effects since the parameter y can also depend on the properties of the acceptor within the scope of the traditional description of the electron tunnel transfer (see Sect. 4). 

Rates of non-adiabatic intramolecular electron transfer were calculated in Ref. [331] using a self-consistent perturbation method for the calculation of electron-transfer matrix elements based on Lippman-Schwinger equation for the effective scattering matrix. Iteration of this perturbation equation provides the data that show the competition between the through-bond and through-space coupling in bridge structures. 

Due to the bridge effect the value of coefficient a(E,d) (38) in the exponent of function gtotOna, Et) (39) may occur very small, so the matrix element remains sufficiently large that the inequality (54a) of Chapter 2 is fulfilled on the significant distances rDA. Then the transition becomes adiabatic even for the electron transfer over considerable distances. Really, the expression for F,y may be rewritten, taking into account the formulas (10), (15), (37) and (38), in the form... 

---