AB-INITIO TESTS OF THE MARCUS EQUATION FOR THE PREDICTION OF THE POSITION OF THE TRANSITION-STATE FOR THE REACTION H-]CH4+CH2R WITH R = H, CH3, NH2, CN, CF3, AND C6H5(C2H5R)

Authors
Citation
Wt. Lee et Ri. Masel, AB-INITIO TESTS OF THE MARCUS EQUATION FOR THE PREDICTION OF THE POSITION OF THE TRANSITION-STATE FOR THE REACTION H-]CH4+CH2R WITH R = H, CH3, NH2, CN, CF3, AND C6H5(C2H5R), The journal of physical chemistry. A, Molecules, spectroscopy, kinetics, environment, & general theory, 102(13), 1998, pp. 2332-2341
Citations number
25
Categorie Soggetti
Chemistry Physical
ISSN journal
10895639
Volume
102
Issue
13
Year of publication
1998
Pages
2332 - 2341
Database
ISI
SICI code
1089-5639(1998)102:13<2332:ATOTME>2.0.ZU;2-V
Abstract
Marcus originally derived the Marcus equation to predict Bronsted coef ficients for electron-transfer reactions. However in the literature it is often assumed that Marcus' result can be extended to predict posit ions of the transition state for atom-transfer reactions. In this pape r we use ab initio methods to examine the potential energy surface and transition state of a series of hydrogenolysis reactions of the form H-. + CH3CH2R --> CH4 + (CH2R)-C-., with R = H, CH3, CF3, CN, NH2, and C5H6, in order to see if the Marcus equation can be extended to atom- transfer reactions. The calculations show that the molecular orbitals of the system look ''reactant-like'' moving up the potential energy su rface toward the transition state, and then switch to ''product-like'' moving down to products, in qualitative agreement with what one would expect from the Marcus equation. However, the curve crossing from ''r eactant-like'' to ''product-like'' molecular orbitals does not occur a t the saddle point in the potential energy surface. Rather the curve c rossing occurs at a point Dart way down to products. Also most of the barrier to reaction is associated with rearrangements of the electron clouds due to Pauli repulsions when the reactants come together and no t with the bond destruction and bond formation professes. These rearra ngements are not considered in the Marcus equation. We do not yet know if our results are special to the reactions here or are general. Howe ver, it does appear that some key physics is missing when one extends the Marcus model to atom-or ligand-transfer reactions. One can represe nt the key physics with a modified bond additivity potential, however.