4.7 Article

Parallels between multiple population-period transient spectroscopy and multidimensional coherence spectroscopies

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 129, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.2960589

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have recently shown that homogeneous and heterogeneous kinetics can be distinguished by experiments that compare the evolution of the population of a state over two time intervals [E. van Veldhoven , ChemPhysChem 8, 1761 (2007)]. This paper elaborates on the analogy between these multiple population-period transient spectroscopy (MUPPETS) experiments and more familiar spectroscopies based on the evolution of coherences. Using a modified inverse-Laplace transform, a standard kinetics decay is re-expressed as a rate spectrum. A nonexponential decay creates a linewidth in this spectrum. Mechanisms for line broadening in rate spectra are compared to those for line broadening in frequency-domain spectra. Homogeneous and heterogeneous kinetics are defined precisely and are shown to be the counterparts of homogeneous and inhomogeneous line broadenings in frequency-domain spectra. Homogeneous line broadening mechanisms are further divided into equilibrium and nonequilibrium mechanisms, with equilibrium mechanisms more prevalent in frequency spectra and nonequilibrium mechanisms more prevalent in rate spectra. Spectral representations of two-dimensional MUPPETS experiments are developed that are equivalent to two-dimensional coherence spectroscopies. In particular, spectra equivalent to hole-burning and to correlation spectra are defined. Frequency-domain spectra are often modeled as an inhomogeneous distribution of identical homogeneous line shapes. A parallel homogeneous-heterogeneous model for kinetics is defined. Within this model, MUPPETS has sufficient information to completely separate the homogeneous and heterogeneous contributions to a nonexponential decay, even when the homogeneous contribution is nonexponential.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据