Ionization potential effects

The spherical shell model can only account for tire major shell closings. For open shell clusters, ellipsoidal distortions occur [47], leading to subshell closings which account for the fine stmctures in figure C1.1.2(a ). The electron shell model is one of tire most successful models emerging from cluster physics. The electron shell effects are observed in many physical properties of tire simple metal clusters, including tlieir ionization potentials, electron affinities, polarizabilities and collective excitations [34]. 

Photoelectron spectroscopic studies show that the first ionization potential (lone pair electrons) for cyclic amines falls in the order aziridine (9.85 eV) > azetidine (9.04) > pyrrolidine (8.77) >piperidine (8.64), reflecting a decrease in lone pair 5-character in the series. This correlates well with the relative vapour phase basicities determined by ion cyclotron resonance, but not with basicity in aqueous solution, where azetidine (p/iTa 11.29) appears more basic than pyrrolidine (11.27) or piperidine (11.22). Clearly, solvation effects influence basicity (74JA288). 

Detection limits in ICPMS depend on several factors. Dilution of the sample has a lai e effect. The amount of sample that may be in solution is governed by suppression effects and tolerable levels of dissolved solids. The response curve of the mass spectrometer has a large effect. A typical response curve for an ICPMS instrument shows much greater sensitivity for elements in the middle of the mass range (around 120 amu). Isotopic distribution is an important factor. Elements with more abundant isotopes at useful masses for analysis show lower detection limits. Other factors that affect detection limits include interference (i.e., ambiguity in identification that arises because an elemental isotope has the same mass as a compound molecules that may be present in the system) and ionization potentials. Elements that are not efficiently ionized, such as arsenic, suffer from poorer detection limits. 

Use PMO theory to describe the effect of the substituents on the ionization potential. Use an MO diagram to explain the interaction of the substituents with the n bonds. Explicitly take into account the fact that the two orbitals interact and therefore cannot be treated as separate entities (see Problem 10). 

The original paper defining the Gaussian-2 method by Curtiss, Raghavachari, Trucks and Pople tested the method s effectiveness by comparing its results to experimental thermochemical data for a set of 125 calculations 55 atomization energies, 38 ionization potentials, 25 electron affinities and 7 proton affinities. All compounds included only first and second-row heavy atoms. The specific calculations chosen were selected because of the availability of high accuracy experimental values for these thermochemical quantities. 

The semi-empirical methods have better MAD s than th Hartree-Fock-based methods, indicating that their parametrization ha accounted for some of the effects of electron correlation. However, thei maximum errors are very large. Semi-empirical methods are especiall poor at predicting ionization potentials and proton affinities. 

The total energy in ab initio theory is given relative to the separated particles, i.e. bare nuclei and electrons. The experimental value for an atom is the sum of all the ionization potentials for a molecule there are additional contributions from the molecular bonds and associated zero-point energies. The experimental value for the total energy of H2O is —76.480 a.u., and the estimated contribution from relativistic effects is —0.045 a.u. Including a mass correction of 0.0028 a.u. (a non-Bom-Oppenheimer effect which accounts for the difference between finite and infinite nuclear masses) allows the experimental non-relativistic energy to be estimated at —76.438 0.003 a.u. ... 

The metallic electrode materials are characterized by their Fermi levels. The position of the Fermi level relative to the eneigetic levels of the organic layer determines the potential barrier for charge carrier injection. The workfunction of most metal electrodes relative to vacuum are tabulated [103]. However, this nominal value will usually strongly differ from the effective workfunction in the device due to interactions of the metallic- with the organic material, which can be of physical or chemical nature [104-106]. Therefore, to calculate the potential barrier height at the interface, the effective work function of the metal and the effective ionization potential and electron affinity of the organic material at the interface have to be measured [55, 107],... 

The parameter ais the ionization energy of an electron from the p,th atomic orbital located on the Ath atom and ft is the so-called resonance integral (represented here by a simple exponential). The QB and P terms of represent corrections to the effective ionization potential due to the residual charges on the different atoms. The charges are determined by... 

The possibility of a barrier which inhibits a reaction in spite of the attractive ion-dipole potential suggests that one should make even crude attempts to guess the properties of the potential hypersurface for ion reactions. Even a simple model for the long range behavior of the potential between neutrals (the harpoon model ) appears promising as a means to understand alkali beam reactions (11). The possibility of resonance interaction either to aid or hinder reactions of ions with neutrals has been suggested (8). The effect of possible resonance interaction on cross-sections of ion-molecule reactions has been calculated (25). The resonance interaction would be relatively unimportant for Reaction 2 because the ionization potential for O (13.61 e.v.) is so different from that for N2 (15.56 e.v.). A case in which this resonance interaction should be strong and attractive is Reaction 3 ... 

The difference between the ionization potential of methanol (10.9 e.v.) and the appearance potential of CH2OH + (11.9 e.v.) (4) is sufficiently large that, by controlling the electron energy, Reaction I can be studied to the effective exclusion of Reaction N. 

Fig. 4. Experimental (T0 values. The circles are obtained from X-ray term values corrected for the spin-relativity effect and external screening, the squares from optical ionization potentials.

Although alkyl groups in general increase the rates of electrophilic addition, we have already mentioned (p. 974) that there is a different pattern depending on whether the intermediate is a bridged ion or an open carbocation. For brominations and other electrophilic additions in which the first step of the mechanism is rate determining, the rates for substituted alkenes correlate well with the ionization potentials of the alkenes, which means that steric effects are not important. Where the second step is rate determining [e.g., oxymercuration (15-3), hydroboration (15-17)], steric effects are important. ... 

A number of correlations of ionization potentials for substituted benzenes (40-42), benzyl (43), phenoxy (44), and alkyl (45) radicals and substituted pyridines (46) with the simple Hammett equation have been reported. Charton (47) has studied the application of the extended Hammett equation to substituted ethylenes and carbonyl compounds. The sets studied here are reported in Table II (sets 2-10 and 2-11). Results of the correlations are set forth in Table 111. The results obtained are much improved by the exclusion of the values for X = C2 H3, Ac, F, H and OAc from set 2-10 (set 2-lOA) and the value for X = H from set 2-11 (set 2-11 A). The composition of the electrical effect corresponds to that found for the Op constants as is shown by the pR values reported in Table IV. 

The ionization potential (7.9 eV) falls right outside the bracket of experimental IP s reported for carbon clusters with 40 to 100 atoms (6.42 eV IP 7.87 eV, Ref. 11). Inclusion of correlation effects will lower the calculated ASCF IP by 0.25 to 0.50 eV, so that the corrected IP will be at the upper end of the experimental IP>bracket. Due to the diffuseness of the n orbital from which an electron is removed, the correlation error in the ASCF value will be smaller than in cases where an electron is removed from a well localized bond. In these cases a correction of 1 eV is usually applied. 

Table 4.2 Nonrelativistic (NR) and relativistic (R) ionization potentials A p and electron affinities AEp (positive values and in eV), relativistic effects Ap and relativistic enhancement factors y for the Group 11 elements of the periodic table.

Besides these many cluster studies, it is currently not knovm at what approximate cluster size the metallic state is reached, or when the transition occurs to solid-statelike properties. As an example. Figure 4.17 shows the dependence of the ionization potential and electron affinity on the cluster size for the Group 11 metals. We see a typical odd-even oscillation for the open/closed shell cases. Note that the work-function for Au is still 2 eV below the ionization potential of AU24. Another interesting fact is that the Au ionization potentials are about 2 eV higher than the corresponding CUn and Ag values up to the bulk, which has been shown to be a relativistic effect [334]. A similar situation is found for the Group 11 cluster electron affinities [334]. 

Schwerdtfeger, P. (1991) Relativistic and Electron Correlation Contributions in Atomic and Molecular Properties. Benchmark Calculations on Au and Au2. Chemical Physics Letters, 183, 457 163. Neogrady, P., Kello, V., Urban, M. and Sadlej, A.J. (1997) Ionization Potentials and Electron Affinities of Cu, Ag, and Au Electron Correlation and Relativistic Effects. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 63, 557-565. 

---