4.1 Review

Long-lived charge-separated states of simple electron donor-acceptor dyads using porphyrins and phthalocyanines

期刊

JOURNAL OF PORPHYRINS AND PHTHALOCYANINES
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 993-1004

出版社

WORLD SCI PUBL CO INC
DOI: 10.1142/S1088424608000376

关键词

photoinduced electron transfer; photosynthesis; Lewis acid; charge separation; reorganization energy; donor-acceptor dyad; Marcus theory

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Control of electron-transfer processes is described for a number of electron donor-acceptor dyads containing porphyrins or phthalocyanines as models for the photosynthetic reaction center. The rates for intramolecular electron transfer in the dyads are controlled by the driving force and reorganization energy of electron transfer. The small reorganization energy of electron transfer reactions and large driving force of charge recombination are required to form long-lived charge-separated states. A directly linked zinc chlorin-fullerene dyad, especially, has the longest lifetime of charge-separated state at 120 s at -150 degrees C, which is a much longer lifetime and higher energy than those of natural photosynthetic reaction centers. On the other hand, the charge-separated states of the phthalocyanine-based donor-acceptor dyads (silicon phthalocyanine-fullerene, and zinc phthalocyanine-perylenebisimide) are short-lived since charge recombination forms the low-lying triplet excited state of the chromophore. The energy of the charge-separated state of a zinc phthalocyanine-perylenebisimide dyad is decreased by binding of metal ions to the radical anion moiety in order to be lower than the triplet excited state. This results in formation of a long-lived charge-sepearated state. The mechanistic viability of formation of long-lived charge-separated states is demonstrated by a variety of examples based on the Marcus theory of electron transfer. Copyright (C) 2008 Society of Porphyrins & Phthalocyanines.

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

4.1
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