4.8 Article

Controlling Electron Transfer in Donor-Bridge-Acceptor Molecules Using Cross-Conjugated Bridges

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 132, Issue 43, Pages 15427-15434

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja107420a

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences Division, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, DOE [DE-FG02-99ER14999]
  2. NSF Chemistry Division
  3. Link Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Photoinitiated charge separation (CS) and recombination (CR) in a series of donor-bridge-acceptor (D-B-A) molecules with cross-conjugated, linearly conjugated, and saturated bridges have been compared and contrasted using time-resolved spectroscopy. The photoexcited charge transfer state of 3,5-dimethyl-4-(9-anthracenyl)julolidine (DMJ-An) is the donor, and naphthalene-1,8:4,5-bis(dicarboximide) (NI) is the acceptor in all cases, along with 1,1-diphenylethene, trans-stilbene, diphenylmethane, and xanthone bridges. Photoinitiated CS through the cross-conjugated 1,1-diphenylethene bridge is about 30 times slower than through its linearly conjugated trans-stilbene counterpart and is comparable to that observed through the diphenylmethane bridge. This result implies that cross-conjugation strongly decreases the pi orbital contribution to the donor-acceptor electronic coupling so that electron transfer most likely uses the bridge a system as its primary CS pathway. In contrast, the CS rate through the cross-conjugated xanthone bridge is comparable to that observed through the linearly conjugated trans-stilbene bridge. Molecular conductance calculations on these bridges show that cross-conjugation results in quantum interference effects that greatly alter the through-bridge donor-acceptor electronic coupling as a function of charge injection energy. These calculations display trends that agree well with the observed trends in the electron transfer rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available