It has generally been assumed [3] that a total intramolecular energy transfer (IVR) rate that is fast relative to the unimolecular reaction rate is a sufficient condition to ensure statistical behavior and an absence of mode-specific chemical effects. Reliable experimental tests of this assumption have been to some extent been limited by inadequate knowledge of the potential energy surface.
One approach which more directly tests the foundations of statistical unimolecular rate theories is by comparison with trajectory calculations. However, most previous comparisons of statistical predictions and dynamical calculations of unimolecular reaction rates have made simplifying assumptions which render the comparisons ambiguous. Frequently, the potential energy surface used for the dynamical calculations is approximated by a normal mode analysis for the statistical calculations. In addition, commonly used initial state selection procedures used for the dynamical calculations often cause artifacts such as short time transients which need to be deconvoluted from the true dynamical behaviour.
In order to clearly identify the presence or absence of
statistical behaviour in a chemical reaction it is necessary
to compare statistical predictions and dynamical calculations performed
for exactly the same model (potential energy surface)
under the same (initial) conditions. In the present paper
we describe a series of recent studies of polyatomic systems for which we
have made such comparisons [4-7].
The systems studied are disilane (Si2H6), 1,2-difluoroethane (1,2-C2H4F2),
the 2-chloroethyl radical (2-C2H4Cl) and methyl isocyanide (CH3NC).
In the next section
we briefly describe the computational
methods that were employed. Results of the calculations are given in
section 3
and conclusions are summarised in section 4.
Index
2. Computational Methods
We either employed existing global potential energy surfaces, as in the case of disilane [4] and 1,2-difluoroethane [5], or we constructed new global potential energy surfaces, as in the case of the 2-chloroethyl radical [6] and methyl isocyanide [7]. These potential energy surfaces employ many-body parametrized potential terms with functional forms based on physical and chemical considerations. The potential parameters were chosen so that the surface accurately reproduces many of the experimental or theoretical observables (e.g. equilibrium geometries, normal modes and dissociation energies) of the system. Details of the potential energy surfaces employed are available elsewhere [4-7].
For each ensemble of initial states, classical trajectories were performed by integrating the equations of motion until unimolecular reaction (e.g. bond fission, isomerization) was achieved (reactive trajectories) or an upper time limit was reached (unreactive trajectories). For each reactive trajectory, the lifetime to unimolecular decay was recorded. Each ensemble of trajectory lifetimes could be converted into a time-dependent decay probability P(t) of reactant molecules remaining at time t. The dynamical microcanonical rate constants k(E) were then estimated from the decay probability P(t) by making the usual assumption of exponential decay [4-7]:
The above procedure assumes that the recrossing of the transition state may be neglected on the timescale of reaction. This is likely to be true in the case of dissociation reactions if the criterion for dissociation (e.g. a critical bond length separation) is reasonable (e.g. large enough). In the case of isomerization, the products may recross back to reactants, so the above procedure would lead to an over-estimation of the trajectory-derived rate constant. However, in the present case of CH3NC isomerization, the trajectory-derived rate constant is much lower than the statistical TST prediction so that our conclusions will be unaffected.
and
The EMS-TST and EJZ-TST methods evaluate the required reactive flux by
performing a Markov walk (Fig. 2) with the
appropriate (EMS or EJZ) weight function W(q) through the
accessible configuration space q of the reactant molecule
[4-9]. Variational minimization of the reactive flux is
achieved by varying the location of the critical surface.
Index
3. Statistical and Dynamical Comparisons
Furthermore, the rates of reaction depend markedly on the nature of the initial excitation, with microcanonical or random excitation yielding slower rates of reaction that excitation into modes directly related to the reaction coordinate. Thus, considerable enhancement is seen for Si-H excitation in Fig. 3 and Si-Si excitation in Fig. 4. Further investigations [4] reveal that the IVR out of the Si-H and Si-Si vibrational modes is rapid on the timescale of reaction. However, the rates of bond fission are non-statistical because many of the mode-mode IVR rate coefficients are much slower than the rate of reaction, implying the presence of IVR bottlenecks.
Thus, the extent of coupling of the reaction coordinate with the remaining modes appears to be a major factor in determining the nature of the isomerisation dynamics. In further work in progress [7], we find that trajectory rates calculated on the basis of very short time trajectories agree markedly better with the statistical predictions. This implies that states near the transition state can react normally, but that states much further away (in phase space terms) are impeded by an IVR bottleneck of some kind. The root cause of the bottleneck would seem to be the insufficient coupling between the reaction coordinate (essentially the isomerization angle for the CN fragment) and the other modes in the molecule. This explanation is consistent with results of a recent calculation by Marks [16] using a much simpler potential energy surface without any coupling which showed a much greater deviation between the statistical and dynamical rate constants (Fig. 8) than our more sophisticated model.
Typical s-values are given in Table 1 for the above
unimolecular reactions. In the case of disilane and 1,2-difluoroethane, the
trajectory calculations yield
effective s-values much smaller than the statistical predictions, the actual
value being highly sensitive to the nature of the initial energization. This behaviour
reflects the smaller volume of phase space seen by the trajectories. In the case of
the 2-chloroethyl radical, the effective s-values for the trajectory calculations are
quite close to the corresponding statistical predictions, reflecting the statistical
nature of the fission channels. On the other hand, the trajectory calculations of the
isomerisation of methyl isocyanide yield effective s-values much larger than the
statistical predictions. This discrepancy is a result of the relative isolation of
the isomerisation channel on the timescale of reaction - the larger effective s-value
for the trajectory calculations merely indicating the slower rate of isomerisation
(not that the reactant molecule has more vibrational modes than actually exist).
Index
4. Conclusions
In studies [4,5] of the unimolecular dissociation
of Si2H6 and 1,2-C2H4F2 we have shown that, even in the
presence of fast IVR rates between some modes, the reaction
dynamics can be extremely nonstatistical, implying the presence of substantial
IVR bottlenecks.
In contrast, in the unimolecular dissociation of 2-C2H4Cl [6] there was good agreement between the statistical predictions and the dynamical calculations of the reaction rate for C-H or C-Cl fission. This is in large part due to enhanced potential coupling associated with the formation of a C=C double bond upon fission.
The existence of a considerable bottleneck to IVR for the isomerisation channel of CH3NC [7] is rather surprising considering the highly coupled nature of the current potential energy surface. Further calculations are necessary to reconcile the deviations seen in the present study [7] with the experimental results [8-10].
In summary, it is clear that one of the important conditions for statistical
behaviour is that IVR must be globally fast on the timescale of chemical
reaction [6]. A typical trajectory must explore all of the
energetically accessible reactant phase space.
Index
Acknowledgements
One of the authors (HWS) gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Australian
Research Council.
Index
References
[1] P. J. Robinson and K. A. Holbrook, Unimolecular reactions (John Wiley, New York, 1972).
[2] W. H. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. 61 (1974) 1823; D. G. Truhlar and B. C. Garrett, Acc. Chem. Res. 13 (1980) 440; P. Pechukas, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 32 (1981) 159.
[3] I. Oref and B. S. Rabinovitch, Acc. Chem. Res. 12 (1979) 166.
[4] H. W. Schranz, L. M. Raff, and D. L. Thompson, J. Chem. Phys. 94 (1991) 4219; 95 (1991) 106.
[5] H. W. Schranz, L. M. Raff, and D. L. Thompson, Chem. Phys. Lett. 182 (1991) 455.
[6] T. D. Sewell, H. W. Schranz, D. L. Thompson, and L. M. Raff, J. Chem. Phys. 95 (1991) 8089.
[7] H. W. Schranz, T. D. Sewell and S. Nordholm, in Proceedings of Femtochemistry: The Lausanne Conference, 1995; T. D. Sewell, H. W. Schranz and S. Nordholm, in preparation.
[8] H. W. Schranz, S. Nordholm, and G. Nyman, J. Chem. Phys. 94, 1487 (1991); H. W. Schranz, J. Phys. Chem. 95, 4581 (1991); G. Nyman, S. Nordholm, and H. W. Schranz, J. Chem. Phys. 93, 6767 (1990).
[9] H. W. Schranz, L. M. Raff, and D. L. Thompson, Chem. Phys. Lett. 171, 68 (1990).
[10] F. W. Schneider and B. S. Rabinovitch, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 84(1962) 4215; 85 (1963) 2365.
[11] K. V. Reddy and M. J. Berry, Faraday Discuss. Chem. Soc. 67 (1979) 188.
[12] S. Hassoon, N. Rajapakse and D. L. Snavely, J. Phys. Chem. 96 (1992) 2576.
[13] H. H. Harris and D. L. Bunker, Chem. Phys. Lett. 11 (1971) 433.
[14] D. L. Bunker and W. L. Hase, J. Chem. Phys. 59 (1973) 4621.
[15] B. G. Sumpter and D. L. Thompson, J. Chem. Phys. 87 (1987) 5809.
[16]
A. J. Marks,
J. Chem. Phys. 100 (1994) 8096; 102 (1995) 3248.
Index