4.6 Article

Renner-Teller Quantum Dynamics of NH(a1Δ) + H Reactions on the NH2 (A)over-cap2A1 and (X)over-tilde2B1 Coupled Surfaces

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 114, 期 36, 页码 9749-9754

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp102079n

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community [228398]
  2. IPCF-CNR of Pisa
  3. Spanish Ministry of Education and Science
  4. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [CTQ2005-09334-C02-01, CTQ2008-06805-C02-01]
  5. Generalitat of Catalonia [2009 SGR 17]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four reactions NH(a(1)Delta) + H'(S-2) are investigated by the quantum mechanical real wavepacket method, taking into account nonadiabatic Renner-Teller (RT) and rovibronic Coriolis couplings between the involved states. We consider depletion (d) to N(D-2) + H-2(X-1 Sigma(+)(g)), exchange (e) to NH'(a(1)Delta) H(S-2), quenching (q) to NH(X-3 Sigma(-)) + H'(S-2), and exchange-quenching (eq) to NH'(X-3 Sigma(-)) + H(S-2). We extend our RT theory to a general AB +C collision using a geometry-dependent but very simple and empirical RT matrix element. Reaction probabilities, cross sections, and rate constants are presented, and RT results are compared with Born-Oppenheimer (BO), experimental, and semiclassical data. The nonadiabatic couplings open two new channels, (q) and (eq), and increase the (d) and (e) reactivity with respect to the BO one, when NH(a(1)Delta) is rotationally excited. In this case, the quantum cross sections are larger than the semiclassical ones at low collision energies. The calculated rate constants at 300 K are k(d) = 3.06, k(e) = 3.32, k(q) = 1.44, and k(eq) = 1.70 in 10(-11) cm(3) s(-1) compared with the measured values k(d) = (3.2 +/- 1.7), k(q + eq) = (1.7 +/- 0.3), and k(total) = (4.8 +/- 1.7). The theoretical depletion rate is thus in good agreement with the experimental value, but the quenching and total rates are overestimated, because the present RT couplings are too large. This discrepancy is probably due to our simple and empirical RT matrix element.

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

4.6
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