Electron-transfer . nonadiabatic solvent

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] ... 

Samanta, A. A., and S. K. Gosh. 1995. Density functional approach to the solvent effects on the dynamics of nonadiabatic electron transfer reactions. J. Chem. Phys. 102, 3172. 

Electron transfer (ET) is of course accompanied by rearrangement of the solvent as shown by the horizontal displacement in Figure 26. Tradiational theories for ET fall into two cases. In the nonadiabatic case it is assumed that the rate of ET is controlled by the process of crossing from one electronic state (e.g., LE) to the other (e.g., CT) [60,61]. Alternatively in the weakly adiabatic case, it is assumed that the solvent polarization is always in equilibrium with the changing charge distribution. For this latter case transition state theory is applicable [59]. 

Nuclear reorganization consists of changes in the internal or vibrational modes of the reactants as well as changes in the nuclear polarization of the surrounding solvent molecules. The distinction between these two classes of nuclear barriers is fundamental in understanding reactivity in photoelectron transfer. With this in mind, we shall now proceed to evaluate the barriers in electron transfer (Fig. 11). The classical theory, to be discussed in the next section, emphasizes the Coulombic and nuclear, whereas in the nonclassical, nonadiabatic theories, which are discussed in Sect. 3.3, emphasis is on electronic and nuclear barriers. 

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. 

Photoinduced electron transfer is a subject characterised, particularly at the present time, by papers with a strongly theoretical content. Solvent relaxation and electron back transfer following photoinduced electron transfer in an ensemble of randomly distributed donors and acceptors, germinate recombination and spatial diffusion a comparison of theoretical models for forward and back electron transfer, rate of translational modes on dynamic solvent effects, forward and reverse transfer in nonadiabatic systems, and a theory of photoinduced twisting dynamics in polar solvents has been applied to the archetypal dimethylaminobenzonitrile in propanol at low temperatures have all been subjects of very detailed study. The last system cited provides an extended model for dual fluorescence in which the effect of the time dependence of the solvent response is taken into account. The mechanism photochemical initiation of reactions involving electron transfer, with particular reference to biological systems, has been discussed by Cusanovich. ... 

The behavior of CTTS states is dependent on energy levels of the ion-solvent molecular couphngs. These levels can lead to internal relaxation and/or complete electron detachment via adiabatic or nonadiabatic electron transfer. The ultrafast spectroscopic investigations of electronic dynamics in ionic solutions would permit us to learn more about the primary steps of an electron-transfer reaction within a cationic atmosphere. The influence of counterions on early electron photodetachment trajectories from a hahde ion can be considered as prereactive steps of an electron transfer. 

---