The article information
- Wei Zhang, Xiao-song Liu, Lin Yan, Gang-bei Zhu, Zan-hao Wang, Yan-qiang Yang
- 张伟, 刘小嵩, 颜林, 朱刚贝, 王赞浩, 杨延强
- Photo-Induced Intermolecular Electron Transfer-Effect of Acceptor Molecular Structures
- 光致分子间电子转移-受体分子结构对转移速率的影响
- Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics, 2018, 31(6): 772-778
- 化学物理学报, 2018, 31(6): 772-778
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1674-0068/31/cjcp1807171
-
Article history
- Received on: July 18, 2018
- Accepted on: September 3, 2018
b. National Key Laboratory of Shock Wave and Detonation Physics, Institute of Fluid Physics, Chinese Academy of Engineering Physics, Mianyang 621900, China
Photo induced electron transfer (PIET) occurs in a wide range of fields, such as biological, photophysical and photochemical reactions [1, 2], and the process is ultrafast and occurs in femtosecond or picosecond time scale [3]. Relevant research is helpful to comprehend the essence of photosynthesis as well as to improve conversion efficiencies of solar cells. Owing to its scientific significance and tremendous application values, plenty of substantial investigations were conducted in both experimental and theoretical points of view [1-5]. After Marcus developed the electron transfer (ET) theory, many factors which may affect electron transfer (ET) rates are considered and discussed. The vibration of reactants [6, 7], the solvent relaxation [8, 9], the distance between donor and acceptor [10-12], the proto-coupling [13, 14] and other factors are examined.
Molecular structure is a fundamental aspect that determines the nature of matter. Different structures would give rise to different potential energy surfaces of reactants and different inter-molecular electron coupling which are crucial factors in the ET reactions [15-17]. PIET has not been researched sufficiently in the past decades, Vauthey has researched the relationship between donor structure and the ET rates and found that with increasing substitution on the nitrogen atom the ET rate decreased [4]. However, the structure effect of acceptor on the ET rates has not been concerned. Revealing the structure effects on the PIET process is helpful to promote comprehension of ET reactions and to improve photoelectric conversion efficiencies.
Rhodamine 101 (Rh101) and Rhodamine 6G (Rh6G) in electron donating solvent aniline (AN) are used as the samples in this research. Geometries of the two dyes are similar, both include a xanthene ring and a phenyl ring, a number of nitrogen and oxygen atoms within the molecules are also equal. However, Rh6G owns more suspended groups like ethylamino groups and methyl substituents that link to the xanthene. So, unlike rigid Rh101, molecular structure of Rh6G is more flexible. Therefore, the two typical dye molecules provide suitable objects for studying the effect of acceptor structure in PIET reactions.
PIET process can be illustrated in FIG. 1. The laser dye and the electron donor (AN) molecule are both in electronic ground state at the beginning. After pump light stimulates the acceptor into electronic excited state, an electron jumps from the HOMO (highest occupied molecular orbital) to the LUMO (lowest unoccupied molecular orbital), a hole is generated in the HOMO. Then the excited dye would go through radiative transition and fluorescence is produced, the process lasts about 4 ns and the fluorescence quantum yields of two dyes are close to 1 [18-20]. While being dissolved in AN, an electron in the HOMO of AN would transfer into the hole in the HOMO of the stimulated dye and the fluorescence is quenched [21-23], which is FET process. Afterward, the electron in the LUMO of dye would go back to the HOMO of AN, which is the BET process.
![]() |
FIG. 1 Schematic diagram of PIET process. A pump pulse stimulates the Rhodamine molecule into the excited state. A hole emerges in the HOMO. Then, an electron from HOMO of AN transfers to the hole and fluorescence of excited dye is quenched. |
Transient grating (TG) spectroscopy [5, 24, 25] is a four wave mixing technique. As illustrated schematically in FIG. 2, two spatially crossed and time-coincident pump pulses, with the same central wavelength but different wave vector directions are employed. Interference pattern would be generated in the overlapping region in the sample. While a third, time-delayed probe light shots on the grating, TG signal that contains dynamical information of the sample would appear in the phase-matching direction. As the TG signal is background free, so its signal-to-noise ratio is extremely high. Previous researches have been proven that TG spectroscopy is an appropriate technique to research the inter-molecular ET between Rhodamines and electron donor solvents [21, 25, 26]. TG signal's square root is proportional to the specific populations [4, 27].
![]() |
FIG. 2 Beam geometry for broadband TG experiment. |
In this work, two typical electron acceptors (Rh101 and Rh6G) are adopted, each molecule has its own structural characteristics. So, by using the same electron donor, through contrastive experiments, the effect of flexible molecular structure of electron acceptor on the PIET reactions can be revealed by time-resolved TG spectroscopy.
Ⅱ. SAMPLE PREPARATION AND EXPERIMENTSRh101 and Rh6G are typical xanthene derivatives, they are usually used as active medium in dye lasers and as standard samples due to their high fluorescence quantum yields. Rh101 and Rh6G were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. They were dissolved in AN with the same concentrations of 0.2 mmol/L, and the two samples would exist in the forms of cation (Rh101
Steady-state absorption spectra were measured with an UV-VIS spectrophotometer (720PC, Shanghai). Steady-state fluorescence spectra of two molecules were measured in the nonreactive solvent methanol (MeOH) with a spectrometer (Chromex 500IS/SM, BRUKER), the central wavelength of excitation laser was 532 nm. AN and MeOH were of analytical reagent grade and used without further purification. Neither MeOH nor AN is electronic resonant with the excitation pulse in TG measurement.
Broadband TG technique has been reported previously [4, 23, 28]. In brief, the 800 nm, 110 fs pulse duration, 1 kHz repetition output pulse from spitfire (Spectra Physics) was used as the primary beam, it was split into two beams by a 9:1 beam splitter. The 90% beam pumped an optical parametric amplifier (OPA, OPA-800FC, Spectra Physics) to produce a pulse with a central wavelength of 532 nm and a full-width at 1/e maximum about 10 nm, which was branched by a 1:1 beam splitter to produce two equal pump pulses in the experiments. The other 10% beam was focused onto water to produce a white light continuum (WLC) which was utilized as the probe in TG measurement. The Kerr effect was measured to calibrate the effect of the group velocity dispersion of the WLC [25]. All three beams were aligned parallelly to one another and spatially overlapped at the common focus in the sample by the achromatic lens with the focal length of 300 mm. The intersection angle of two pump pulses was about 2.86°.
Beam geometry and photograph of TG signal is shown in FIG. 2.
In experiments, polarization direction of the pump and probe pulses were scheduled horizontally. Zero time point is defined as the point when the pump and probe pump crossed in the sample. Positive delay time represents pump pulses preceding the probe, and inverse negative. All experiments were carried out at room temperature (23 ℃) in dark room.
Ⅲ. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Steady-state UV-Vis absorption and fluorescence spectraSteady-state UV-Vis absorption spectra of Rh101
![]() |
FIG. 3 (a) Normalized steady-state absorption and fluorescence spectra of Rh101 |
Normalized steady-state absorption of Rh101
Time-resolved broad band TG experiments were carried out to track the ultrafast FET processes and subsequent BET processes. The measured TG spectra of the two samples are shown in FIG. 4, the horizontal axis presents wavelength and the vertical axis denotes relative delay time between probe pulse and pump pulses. To eliminate the intense scattered pump light, a notch filter with central wavelength at 532 nm was used in the signal collection light path so the signal between 525-542 nm band was blank in the figure.
![]() |
FIG. 4 Time and frequency resolved TG spectra of (a) Rh101/AN and (b) Rh6G/AN. |
As the fluorescence is quenched by intermolecular electron transfer from AN to Rh101
According to the steady-state fluorescence spectra of the two samples, the peaks of SE of Rh101
To ensure the reliability of the comparison, the FET dynamics is evaluated versus laser power in two cases. Comparison of FET dynamics with different pump photon flux of the two samples is shown in FIG. 5 (a) and (b). Laser powers of pump pulse are chosen to be 0.05, 0.10, and 0.15 mW respectively. Vertical axis shows the square root of TG intensities in semi-log scale, and horizontal axis expresses the delay time.
![]() |
FIG. 5 Normalized PIET dynamics comparison of (a) Rh101/AN and (b) Rh6G/AN versus different pump powers. The PIET dynamics of the two samples shows almost invisible dependence on the power of pump laser. |
To achieve a more reasonable comparison, the TG dynamics is normalized, as shown clearly in FIG. 5. No matter Rh101
The PIET processes are not strictly exponential and are consistent with previous reports [22, 26]. In order to interpret the differences detected in two cases, it's necessary to fit the experimental data to extract more information. The intermolecular ET can be regarded as two compositions roughly, a faster one at the beginning and a slower one subsequently. The fast ET components are originated from donor and acceptors with optimal orientations, the slower ones are those with non-optimal orientations [32].
A bi-exponential equation is employed to fit the experimental data at different wavelengths during fluorescence decay periods. The fitting equation is written as follows:
$ \begin{eqnarray} y = y_0 + A_1 \textrm{exp}\left(\frac{-x}{t_1}\right) + A_2 \textrm{exp}\left(\frac{-x}{t_2}\right) \end{eqnarray} $ | (1) |
here
It has also been reported that ET time from
The Adj.
The BET of two samples are also evaluated by the TG spectroscopy, as shown in FIG. 6. After FET, the reaction intermediate Rh101
![]() |
FIG. 6 BET dynamics of (a) Rh101/AN and (b) Rh6G/AN at different photo fluxes of pump light. |
Spikes, which are caused by the optical Kerr effect, emerge, but the effect is only affected at first few hundreds of femtosecond. So the normalization of the dynamical curves avoid the spikes. On the whole, the TG dynamics of each sample is almost overlapped with different photo flux of pump pulse. That denotes BET process is also independent of the laser power. BET presents single-exponential decay tendency, a single exponential equation is adopted to fit the curves. The coefficients of determination in two cases are very close to 1. As summarized in Table Ⅱ, the fitting results indicates that BET between Rh101
The FET and BET ratio difference between Rh101/AN and Rh6G/AN system can be well interpreted by classic Marcus theory which is given by:
$ \begin{eqnarray} k_{\textrm{ET}} = \frac{{2\pi }}{\hbar }\left| {H_{\textrm{DA}} } \right|^2 \frac{1}{{\sqrt {4\pi \lambda k_\textrm{B} T} }}\textrm{e}^{ - \left( {\Delta G_0+\lambda} \right)^2/4\pi \lambda k_\textrm{B} T} \end{eqnarray} $ | (2) |
As Rh101 and Rh6G have their own molecular characteristics, the key factors in the ET reactions are quite different. To begin with, the driving force is different. The HOMO and LUMO energy of AN and the two dyes are calculated by Gaussian 03 [35] program with B3LYP method and 6-311+G(d, p) basis set. Aniline is selected as the solvent in all the three cases. The calculated energy levels of the reactants are illustrated in FIG. 7. The ionization energy of electron donor is identical in two cases, however, the HOMO energy of Rh6G
![]() |
FIG. 7 Calculated HOMO and LUMO energy levels of Rh101 |
In addition, the molecular structure of Rh6G differs from Rh101 in several aspects. As illustrated in the insets of FIG. 3, Rh6G holds more pendent groups. For instance, there are two symmetrical ethylamino groups and methyl substituents on the xanthene ring. Besides, the carboxyl group on the phenyl ring is esterified. Among these key factors in the Marcus ET equation,
$ \begin{eqnarray} H_{\textrm{DA}} \propto \int {\Phi _\textrm{i} \left( r \right)\Phi _\textrm{f} \left( r \right)\textrm{d}r} \end{eqnarray} $ | (3) |
Compared with Rh101
In view of the formula of
Ultrafast PIET reactions of two typical Rhodamine dyes in pure donor solvent (AN) are investigated by TG spectroscopy. The ultrafast FET and subsequent BET reactions between two dyes and AN are evaluated versus pump laser power. The results show that the normalized FET and BET dynamics are almost overlapped with different photo flux, which denotes the ET rates are immune to the laser power within the selected power range. FET and BET time constants are also obtained through the TG dynamics at different wavelengths. It is found that the Rh6G presents faster ET rates with AN in both FET and BET processes. Through quantum chemical calculation and qualitative analysis, it can be inferred that molecular structure difference leads to different driving force and electron coupling between the reactants. Specifically, flexible molecular structure of acceptors gives rise to greater electron coupling with donors and further larger ET rates in both FET and BET reactions.
The measured FET and BET time constants provide referential significance in the relevant research. Furthermore, the revealed ET rates difference caused by specific molecular skeleton is helpful in improving photoelectric conversion efficiency and in designing and manufacturing photovoltaic devices.
Ⅴ. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis work was supported by the Science Challenge Project (No.TZ2016001), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.21673211).
[1] | R. A. Marcus, and N. Sutin, BBA-Rev Bioenergetics 811 , 265 (1985). |
[2] | M. D. Newton, and N. Sutin, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 35 , 437 (1984). DOI:10.1146/annurev.pc.35.100184.002253 |
[3] | A. Rosspeintner, B. Lang, and E. Vauthey, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 64 , 247 (2013). DOI:10.1146/annurev-physchem-040412-110146 |
[4] | E. Vauthey, J. Phys. Chem. A 105 , 340 (2001). DOI:10.1021/jp0023260 |
[5] | T. Kumpulainen, B. Lang, A. Rosspeintner, and E. Vauthey, Chem. Rev. 117 , 10826 (2017). DOI:10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00491 |
[6] | Y. Shim, D. Jeong, S. Manjari, M. Y. Choi, and H. J. Kim, Acc. Chem. Res. 40 , 1130 (2007). DOI:10.1021/ar700061r |
[7] | J. Sukegawa, C. Schubert, X. Z. Zhu, H. Tsuji, D. M. Guldi, and E. Nakamura, Nat. Chem. 6 , 899 (2014). DOI:10.1038/nchem.2026 |
[8] | I. Rips, and J. Jortner, Chem. Phys. Lett. 133 , 411 (1987). DOI:10.1016/0009-2614(87)87092-6 |
[9] | M. Bixon, and J. Jortner, Chem. Phys. 176 , 467 (1993). DOI:10.1016/0301-0104(93)80255-8 |
[10] | N. S. Hush, Coord. Chem. Rev. 64 , 135 (1985). DOI:10.1016/0010-8545(85)80047-3 |
[11] | G. L. Closs, and J. R. Miller, Science 240 , 440 (1988). DOI:10.1126/science.240.4851.440 |
[12] | G. B. Schuster, Acc. Chem. Res. 33 , 253 (2000). DOI:10.1021/ar980059z |
[13] | A. E. F. Nassar, Z. Zhang, N. F. Hu, J. F. Rusling, and T. F. Kumosinski, J. Phys. Chem. B 101 , 2224 (1997). DOI:10.1021/jp962896t |
[14] | R. I. Cukier, and D. G. Nocera, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 5 , 7695 (2012). |
[15] | L. Chen, R. Durley, B. J. Poliks, K. Hamada, Z. Chen, F. S. Mathews, V. L. Davidson, Y. Satow, E. Huizinga, and F. M. Vellieux, Biochem. 31 , 4959 (1992). DOI:10.1021/bi00136a006 |
[16] | G. Kurisu, M. Kusunoki, E. Katoh, T. Yamazaki, K. Teshima, Y. Onda, Y. Kimataariga, and T. Hase, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 8 , 117 (2001). DOI:10.1038/84097 |
[17] | M. G. Bertero, R. A. Rothery, M. Palak, C. Hou, D. Lim, F. Blasco, J. H. Weiner, and N. C. Strynadka, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 10 , 681 (2003). DOI:10.1038/nsb969 |
[18] | T. Karstens, and K. Kobs, J. Phys. Chem. 84 , 1871 (1980). |
[19] | R. F. Kubin, and A. N. Fletcher, J. Lumin. 27 , 455 (1982). DOI:10.1016/0022-2313(82)90045-X |
[20] | D. Magde, R. Wong, and P. G. Seybold, Photochem. Photobiol. 75 , 327 (2010). |
[21] | L. L. Jiang, W. L. Liu, Y. F. Song, X. He, Y. Wang, C. Wang, H. L. Wu, F. Yang, and Y. Q. Yang, Chem. Phys. 429 , 12 (2014). DOI:10.1016/j.chemphys.2013.11.011 |
[22] | V. O. Saik, A. A. Goun, and M. D. Fayer, J. Chem. Phys. 120 , 9601 (2004). DOI:10.1063/1.1712826 |
[23] | A. Morandeira, A. Furstenberg, and E. Vauthey, J. Phys. Chem. A 108 , 8190 (2004). |
[24] | H. Kandori, K. Kemnitz, and K. Yoshihara, J. Phys. Chem. 96 , 8042 (1992). DOI:10.1021/j100199a039 |
[25] | L. L. Jiang, W. L. Liu, Y. F. Song, X. He, Y. Wang, and Y. Q. Yang, Appl. Phys. B 116 , 271 (2014). DOI:10.1007/s00340-013-5683-z |
[26] | Q. H. Xu, G. D. Scholes, M. Yang, and G. R. Fleming, J. Phys. Chem. A 103 , 10348 (1999). |
[27] | J. Etchepare, G. Grillon, J. P. Chambaret, G. Hamoniaux, and A. Orszag, Opt. Commun. 63 , 329 (1987). DOI:10.1016/0030-4018(87)90186-6 |
[28] | G. Y. Yu, Y. F. Song, Y. Wang, X. He, Y. Q. Liu, W. L. Liu, and Y. Q. Yang, Chem. Phys. Lett. 517 , 242 (2011). DOI:10.1016/j.cplett.2011.10.049 |
[29] | J. A. Shirley, R. J. Hall, and A. C. Eckbreth, Opt. Lett. 5 , 380 (1980). DOI:10.1364/OL.5.000380 |
[30] | S. Shim, C. M. Stuart, and R. A. Mathies, ChemPhysChem 9 , 697 (2008). DOI:10.1002/cphc.v9:5 |
[31] | H. Watanabe, N. Hayazawa, Y. Inouye, and S. Kawata, J. Phys. Chem. B 109 , 5012 (2005). DOI:10.1021/jp045771u |
[32] | I. V. Rubtsov, H. Shirota, and K. Yoshihara, J. Phys. Chem. A 103 , 1801 (1999). DOI:10.1021/jp9839145 |
[33] | S. Engleitner, M. Seel, and W. Zinth, J. Phys. Chem. A 103 , 3013 (1999). DOI:10.1021/jp9843712 |
[34] | H. L. Tavernier, M. M. Kalashnikov, and M. D. Fayer, J. Chem. Phys. 113 , 10191 (2000). DOI:10.1063/1.1323505 |
[35] | M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, J. A. Montgomery Jr., T. Vreven, K. N. Kudin, J. C. Burant, J. M. Millam, S. S. Iyengar, J. Tomasi, V. Barone, B. Mennucci, M. Cossi, G. Scalmani, N. Rega, G. A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, M. Hada, M. Ehara, K. Toyota, R. Fukuda, J. Hasegawa, M. Ishida, T. Nakajima, Y. Honda, O. Kitao, H. Nakai, M. Klene, X. Li, J. E. Knox, H. P. Hratchian, J. B. Cross, C. Adamo, J. Jaramillo, R. Gomperts, R. E. Stratmann, O. Yazyev, A. J. Austin, R. Cammi, C. Pomelli, J. W. Ochterski, P. Y. Ayala, K. Morokuma, G. A. Voth, P. Salvador, J. J. Dannenberg, V. G. Zakrzewski, S. Dapprich, A. D. Daniels, M. C. Strain, Ö. Farkas, D. K. Malick, A. D. Rabuck, K. Raghavachari, J. B. Foresman, J. V. Ortiz, Q. Cui, A. G. Baboul, S. Clifford, J. Cioslowski, B. B. Stefanov, G. Liu, A. Liashenko, P. Piskorz, I. Komaromi, R. L. Martin, D. J. Fox, T. Keith, M. A. Al-Laham, C. Y. Peng, A. Nanayakkara, M. Challacombe, P. M. W. Gill, B. Johnson, W. Chen, M. W. Wong, C. Gonzalez, and J. A. Pople, Gaussian 03 (Revision B.01), Pittsburgh, PA: Gaussian, Inc., (2003). |
[36] | M. J. Ondrechen, and M. A. Ratner, Chem. Phys. Lett. 51 , 573 (1977). DOI:10.1016/0009-2614(77)85427-4 |
[37] | P. M. M. Gabas, L. F. Errea, L. Mendez, and I. Rabadan, Phys. Rev. A 85 , 799 (2012). |
[38] | I. V. Kurnikov, and O. V. Gritsenko, Chem. Phys. Lett. 185 , 365 (1991). DOI:10.1016/S0009-2614(91)85076-9 |
b. 中国工程物理研究院流体物理研究所,绵阳 621900