Marcus reactions

Returning to equation (38), in the limit that ve vn, Ke = 1 and vet = vn. Electron transfer reactions that fall into this domain where the probability of electron transfer is unity in the intersection region have been called adiabatic by Marcus. Reactions for which Kei < 1, have been called non-adiabatic . In the limit that ve 2vn and e = vjvn, the pre-exponential term for electron transfer is given by vet = ve. This was the limit assumed in the quantum mechanical treatment using time dependent perturbation theory. 

Despite its utility at room temperature, simple Marcus theory cannot explain the DeVault and Chance experiment. All Marcus reactions have a conspicuous temperature dependence except in the region close to where AG = —A. Marcus theory does not predict that a temperature-dependent reaction will shift to a temperature-independent reaction as the temperature is lowered. Hopfield proposed a quantum enhancement of Marcus theory that would permit the behavior seen in the experiment [11]. He introduced a characteristic frequency of vibration hco) that is coupled to electron transfer, in other words, a vibration that distorts the nuclei of the reactant to resemble the product state. This quantum expression includes a hyperbolic cotangent (Coth) term that resembles the Marcus expression at higher temperatures, but becomes essentially temperature independent at lower temperatures. Other quantized expressions, such as a full quantum mechanical simple harmonic oscillator behavior [12] and that of Jortner [13], give analogous temperature behavior. 

Khundkar L R, Marcus R A and Zewail A H 1983 Unimolecular reactions at low energies and RRKM-behaviour isomerization and dissociation J. Phys. Chem. 87 2473-6... 

In the statistical description of ununolecular kinetics, known as Rice-Ramsperger-Kassel-Marcus (RRKM) theory [4,7,8], it is assumed that complete IVR occurs on a timescale much shorter than that for the unimolecular reaction [9]. Furdiemiore, to identify states of the system as those for the reactant, a dividing surface [10], called a transition state, is placed at the potential energy barrier region of the potential energy surface. The assumption implicit m RRKM theory is described in the next section. 

Marcus R A 1952 Unimolecular dissociations and free radical recombination reactions J. Chem. Rhys. 20 359-64... 

Wardlaw D M and Marcus R A 1984 RRKM reaction rate theory for transition states of any looseness Chem. Rhys. Lett. 110 230-4... 

Marcus R A 1977 Energy distributions in unimolecular reactions Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 81 190-7... 

Sekiguchi S, Kobori Y, Akiyama K and Tero-Kubota S 1998 Marcus free energy dependence of the sign of exchange interactions in radical ion pairs generated by photoinduced electron transfer reactions J. Am. Chem. Soc. 120 1325-6... 

Marcus R A 1966 On the analytical mechanics of chemical reactions. Quantum mechanics of linear collisions J. Chem. Phys. 45 4500... 

Early studies showed tliat tire rates of ET are limited by solvation rates for certain barrierless electron transfer reactions. However, more recent studies showed tliat electron-transfer rates can far exceed tire rates of diffusional solvation, which indicate critical roles for intramolecular (high frequency) vibrational mode couplings and inertial solvation. The interiDlay between inter- and intramolecular degrees of freedom is particularly significant in tire Marcus inverted regime [45] (figure C3.2.12)). 

Eig. 2. Electron-transfer reaction rate, vs exoergicity of reaction the dashed line is according to simple Marcus theory the soUd line and data poiats are... 

This section contains a brief review of the molecular version of Marcus theory, as developed by Warshel [81]. The free energy surface for an electron transfer reaction is shown schematically in Eigure 1, where R represents the reactants and A, P represents the products D and A , and the reaction coordinate X is the degree of polarization of the solvent. The subscript o for R and P denotes the equilibrium values of R and P, while P is the Eranck-Condon state on the P-surface. The activation free energy, AG, can be calculated from Marcus theory by Eq. (4). This relation is based on the assumption that the free energy is a parabolic function of the polarization coordinate. Eor self-exchange transfer reactions, we need only X to calculate AG, because AG° = 0. Moreover, we can write... 

This reasoning was set forth by Johnston and Rapp [1961] and developed by Ovchinnikova [1979], Miller [1975b], Truhlar and Kupperman [1971], Babamov and Marcus [1981], and Babamov et al. [1983] for reactions of hydrogen transfer in the gas phase. A similar model was put forth in order to explain the transfer of light impurities in metals [Flynn and Stoneham 1970 Kagan and Klinger 1974]. Simple analytical expressions were found for an illustrative model [Benderskii et al. 1980] in which the A-B and B-C bonds were assumed to be represented by parabolic terms. 

The situation presented in fig. 29 corresponds to the sudden limit, as we have already explained in the previous subsection. Having reached a bend point at the expense of the low-frequency vibration, the particle then cuts straight across the angle between the reactant and product valley, tunneling along the Q-direction. The sudden approximation holds when the vibration frequency (2 is less than the characteristic instanton frequency, which is of the order of In particular, the reactions of proton transfer (see fig. 2), characterised by high intramolecular vibration frequency, are being usually studied in this approximation [Ovchinnikova 1979 Babamov and Marcus 1981]. 

Equation (5-69) is an important result. It was first obtained by Marcus " in the context of electron-transfer reactions. Marcus derivation is completely different from the one given here. In electron transfer from one molecule (or ion) to another, no bonds are broken or formed, so the transition state theory does not seem to be applicable. Marcus assumed negligible orbital overlap in the electron-transfer transition state, but he later obtained the same equation for group transfer reactions requiring significant overlap. Many applications have been made to proton transfers and nucleophilic displacements. ... 

If the intrinsic barrier AGq could be independently estimated, the Marcus equation (5-69) provides a route to the calculation of rate constants. An additivity property has frequently been invoked for this purpose.For the cross-reaction... 

Let X be the normalized progress variable in a system subject to the Marcus equation (Eq. 5-69), so jc = -t- AG°/8AGo, where has the significance of a in Eq. (5-67). Then deduce this equation, which describes the energy change, relative to the reactant, over the reaction coordinate ... 

In Eq. (7-21), AGo is the intrinsic barrier, the free energy of activation of the (hypothetical) member of the reaction series having AG" = 0. It is evident that the Marcus equation predicts a nonlinear free energy relationship, although if a limited... 

This discussion of sources of curvature in Br insted-type plots should suggest caution in the interpretation of observed curvature. There is a related matter, concerning particularly item 5 in this list, namely, the effect of a change in transition state structure. Br nsted-type plots are sometimes linear over quite remarkable ranges, of the order 10 pK units, and this linearity has evoked interest because it seems to be incompatible with Marcus theory, which we reviewed in Section 5.3. The Marcus equation (Eq. 5-69) for the plot of log k against log K of the same reaction series requires curvature, the slope of the plot being the coefficient a. given by Eq. (5-67). A Brjinsted plot, however, is not a Marcus plot, because it correlates rates and equilibria of different reactions. The slope p of a Br nsted plot is defined p = d log kobs/d pK, which we can expand as... 

As a consequence, it appears to be valid to apply Marcus theory (Section 5.3) to Sn2 reactions. Note that we may expect structure-reactivity relationships in Sn2 reactions to be functions of both the bond formation and bond cleavage processes, just as in acyl transfers. 

This is the reverse of the first step in the SnI mechanism. As written here, this reaction is called cation-anion recombination, or an electrophile-nucleophile reaction. This type of reaction lacks the symmetry of a group transfer reaction, and we should therefore not expect Marcus theory to be applicable, as Ritchie et al. have emphasized. Nevertheless, the electrophile-nucleophile reaction possesses the simplifying feature that bond formation occurs in the absence of bond cleavage. 

Other measures of nucleophilicity have been proposed. Brauman et al. studied Sn2 reactions in the gas phase and applied Marcus theory to obtain the intrinsic barriers of identity reactions. These quantities were interpreted as intrinsic nucleo-philicities. Streitwieser has shown that the reactivity of anionic nucleophiles toward methyl iodide in dimethylformamide (DMF) is correlated with the overall heat of reaction in the gas phase he concludes that bond strength and electron affinity are the important factors controlling nucleophilicity. The dominant role of the solvent in controlling nucleophilicity was shown by Parker, who found solvent effects on nucleophilic reactivity of many orders of magnitude. For example, most anions are more nucleophilic in DMF than in methanol by factors as large as 10, because they are less effectively shielded by solvation in the aprotic solvent. Liotta et al. have measured rates of substitution by anionic nucleophiles in acetonitrile solution containing a crown ether, which forms an inclusion complex with the cation (K ) of the nucleophile. These rates correlate with gas phase rates of the same nucleophiles, which, in this crown ether-acetonitrile system, are considered to be naked anions. The solvation of anionic nucleophiles is treated in Section 8.3. 

The observed rate law for this type of reaction is usually first order in each reactant. Extensive theoretical treatments have been perfomred, most notably by R. A. Marcus and N. S. Hush, details of which can be found in more specialized sources ... 

R. A. Marcus (California Institute of Technology) contributions to the theory of electron transfer reactions in chemical systems. 

The latter is, except for a couple of terms related to solvent reorganization, the Marcus equation. The central idea is that the activation energy can be decomposed into a component characteristic of the reaction type, the intrinsic activation energy, and a correction due to the reaction energy being different from zero. Similar reactions should have similar intrinsic activation energies, and the Marcus equation obeys both the BEP... 

Actually the assumptions can be made even more general. The energy as a function of the reaction coordinate can always be decomposed into an intrinsic term, which is symmetric with respect to jc = 1 /2, and a thermodynamic contribution, which is antisymmetric. Denoting these two energy functions h2 and /zi, it can be shown that the Marcus equation can be derived from the square condition, /z2 = h. The intrinsic and thermodynamic parts do not have to be parabolas and linear functions, as in Figure 15.28 they can be any type of function. As long as the intrinsic part is the square of the thermodynamic part, the Marcus equation is recovered. The idea can be taken one step further. The /i2 function can always be expanded in a power series of even powers of hi, i.e. /z2 = C2h + C4/z. The exact values of the c-coefficients only influence the... 

---