Reaction field effect with polar solutes

As implied above, the principal interaction mechanism for polar solutes seems to be the reaction field effect. Specific interactions, notably hydrogen bonding, are also common. For non-polar solutes dispersion interactions seem to predominate. None of the investigations reported to date have developed completely satisfactory solutions to the interaction question, but it appears from the most recent studies that all interaction mechanisms are present in all systems. Most authors have simply reported the dominant effect for the particular case with which they were concerned. Particularly intriguing is the indication that dispersion interactions and reaction field effects produce the opposite affect on coupling constants. 

Alternatively, reaction field calculations with the IPCM (isodensity surface polarized continuum model) [73,74] can be performed to model solvent effects. In this approach, an isodensity surface defined by a value of 0.0004 a.u. of the total electron density distribution is calculated at the level of theory employed. Such an isodensity surface has been found to define rather accurately the volume of a molecule [75] and, therefore, it should also define a reasonable cavity for the soluted molecule within the polarizable continuum where the cavity can iteratively be adjusted when improving wavefunction and electron density distribution during a self consistent field (SCF) calculation at the HF or DFT level. The IPCM method has also the advantage that geometry optimization of the solute molecule is easier than for the PISA model and, apart from this, electron correlation effects can be included into the IPCM calculation. For the investigation of Si compounds (either neutral or ionic) in solution both the PISA and IPCM methods have been used. [41-47]... 

Qualitatively, Eq. (4-32) predicts that the more dipolar isomer will be preferentially stabilized in more polar media. Quantitatively, the expression significantly overestimates the solvent effects obtained experimentally for conformational equilibria [182], Further modifications are necessary, e.g. adjustment for back-polarization of the solute by its own reaction field, inclusion of the effect of the solute s quadrupole moment on the reaction field [197], etc. Specific solute-solvent interactions, such as those with HBD solvents, cannot be treated with this reaction field theory. For a more detailed discussion, see references [83, 182]. 

A major area of theoretical interest has been on solvent effects, and several techniques have been applied to the calculation of NLO properties. " The most common (and simplest) method is the reaction field model, where the solute molecule is in a cavity of solvent, which is treated as a uniform dielectric medium. Cavity approaches are problematic. How do you pick the cavity size How do you pick the cavity shape How do you model stronger, specific interactions (such as hydrogen bonding) The work of Willetts and Rice " illustrated the inability of reaction field models to adequately treat solvent effects even though they tried both spherical and ellipsoidal cavities. Mikkelsen et al. attempted to provide specific interactions with their solvent model by explicitly including solvent molecules inside the cavity. These and related issues need to be addressed further if computational chemists are to develop truly useful procedures capable of including solvent effects in NLO calculations. Recent work by Cammi, Tomasi, and co-workers " has attempted to address these issues within the polarized continuum model (PCM) and have included studies of frequency-dependent hyperpolarizabilities. 

The continuum model, in which solvent is regarded as a dielectric continuum, has been used for a long time to study solvent effects [2]. Solvation energies can be primarily approximated by a reaction field owed to polarization of the dielectric continuum as solvent, and other contributions such as dispersion interactions, which must be explicitly considered for non-polar solvent systems, have usually been treated with an empirical quantity such as the macroscopic surface tension of the solvent. An obvious advantage of the method is its handiness, whilst its disadvantage is an artifact introduced at the boundary between the solute and solvent. Agreement between experiment and theory is considerably governed by the boundary conditions. 

An ab initio MO calculation by Jorgensen revealed enhanced hydrogen bonding of a water molecule to the transition states for the Diels-Alder reactions of cyclopentadiene with methyl vinyl ketone and acrylonitrile, which indicates that the observed rate accelerations for Diels-Alder reactions in aqueous solution arise from the hydrogenbonding effect in addition to a relatively constant hydrophobic term.7,76 Ab initio calculation using a self-consistent reaction field continuum model shows that electronic and nuclear polarization effects in solution are crucial to explain the stereoselectivity of nonsymmetrical... 

In spectroscopy we may distinguish two types of process, adiabatic and vertical. Adiabatic excitation energies are by definition thermodynamic ones, and they are usually further defined to refer to at 0° K. In practice, at least for electronic spectroscopy, one is more likely to observe vertical processes, because of the Franck-Condon principle. The simplest principle for understandings solvation effects on vertical electronic transitions is the two-response-time model in which the solvent is assumed to have a fast response time associated with electronic polarization and a slow response time associated with translational, librational, and vibrational motions of the nuclei.92 One assumes that electronic excitation is slow compared with electronic response but fast compared with nuclear response. The latter assumption is quite reasonable, but the former is questionable since the time scale of electronic excitation is quite comparable to solvent electronic polarization (consider, e.g., the excitation of a 4.5 eV n — n carbonyl transition in a solvent whose frequency response is centered at 10 eV the corresponding time scales are 10 15 s and 2 x 10 15 s respectively). A theory that takes account of the similarity of these time scales would be very difficult, involving explicit electron correlation between the solute and the macroscopic solvent. One can, however, treat the limit where the solvent electronic response is fast compared to solute electronic transitions this is called the direct reaction field (DRF). 49,93 The accurate answer must lie somewhere between the SCRF and DRF limits 94 nevertheless one can obtain very useful results with a two-time-scale version of the more manageable SCRF limit, as illustrated by a very successful recent treatment... 

In this contribution, we describe and illustrate the latest generalizations and developments[1]-[3] of a theory of recent formulation[4]-[6] for the study of chemical reactions in solution. This theory combines the powerful interpretive framework of Valence Bond (VB) theory [7] — so well known to chemists — with a dielectric continuum description of the solvent. The latter includes the quantization of the solvent electronic polarization[5, 6] and also accounts for nonequilibrium solvation effects. Compared to earlier, related efforts[4]-[6], [8]-[10], the theory [l]-[3] includes the boundary conditions on the solute cavity in a fashion related to that of Tomasi[ll] for equilibrium problems, and can be applied to reaction systems which require more than two VB states for their description, namely bimolecular Sjy2 reactions ],[8](b),[12],[13] X + RY XR + Y, acid ionizations[8](a),[14] HA +B —> A + HB+, and Menschutkin reactions[7](b), among other reactions. Compared to the various reaction field theories in use[ll],[15]-[21] (some of which are discussed in the present volume), the theory is distinguished by its quantization of the solvent electronic polarization (which in general leads to deviations from a Self-consistent limiting behavior), the inclusion of nonequilibrium solvation — so important for chemical reactions, and the VB perspective. Further historical perspective and discussion of connections to other work may be found in Ref.[l],... 

The solvent Stark term developed by Baur and Nicols 9) reflects the same qualitative interactions as the reaction field term, however, it concerns the situation when the solute is less polar (in the ideal case non-polar) than the surrounding solvent. Correlations with Stark effects are usually recognized as linear relations to the term... 

The Polarizable Continuum Model (PCM)[18] describes the solvent as a structureless continuum, characterized by its dielectric permittivity e, in which a molecular-shaped empty cavity hosts the solute fully described by its QM charge distribution. The dielectric medium polarized by the solute charge distribution acts as source of a reaction field which in turn polarizes back the solute. The effects of the mutual polarization is evaluated by solving, in a self-consistent way, an electrostatic Poisson equation, with the proper boundary conditions at the cavity surface, coupled to a QM Schrodinger equation for the solute. 

The effect of ultrasonic field on the polarization curves of Cu-Pb, and some brasses has been studied in chloride and sulfate solutions in the presence and absence of the respective metal ions [108]. The main effect of the ultrasound at low current densities is the acceleration of diffusion. The passivation current density in solutions free of the respective metal ions is considerably increased when ultrasound is applied. Stable passivity cannot be attained because of the periodic destruction of the salt film. The hydrogen evolution reaction is accelerated because of the destruction of the solvation shell. The oxygen depolarization reaction is also enhanced due to the increased diffusion. The rate of metal deposition is likewise increased by ultrasound. The steady-state potentials of reactions with anodic control are shifted in the negative direction when ultrasound is applied. 

---