4.2 Article

On the stability and lifetime of GaO2+ in the gas phase

期刊

THEORETICAL CHEMISTRY ACCOUNTS
卷 129, 期 3-5, 页码 401-407

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00214-010-0863-y

关键词

Doubly charged species; Lifetimes; Ab initio calculations; Coulomb explosion; GaO; Gas phase

资金

  1. DGI [CTQ2009-13129-C01]
  2. MADRISOLAR2
  3. Comunidad Autonoma de Madrid [S2009PPQ/1533]
  4. Consolider on Molecular Nanoscience [CSC2007-00010]
  5. COST Action [CM0702]
  6. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion of Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The electronic structure, stability, and lifetime of GaO2+ have been investigated using high-level ab initio calculations. The potential energy curves have been calculated at the CCSD(T)/aug-cc-pV5Z and at the MS-CASPT2/ANO-RCC levels of theory. Lifetimes were evaluated using the Exterior Complex Scaling (ECS) method and B-spline basis functions. Our calculations show that GaO2+ is a metastable species in the gas phase, since the diatomic dication, in its ground state, lies 97.1 kcal/mol above the Ga+ (S-1) + O+ (S-4) dissociation limit. However, the energy barrier that has to be overcome to reach this limit is 3 kcal/mol high so that five vibrational resonances can be accommodated between the bottom of the well and the top of the barrier. The evaluated lifetimes vary from hundreds of femtoseconds to approximately 1 s, so at least two of them have long enough lifetimes (1 s and 91 mu s) to be detected using mass spectrometry techniques, in agreement with the experimental evidence. In the experiment (Fiser et al. in Eur J Mass Spectrom 15:315-324, 2009), GaO2+ was observed for an ion flight time of about similar to 12 mu s through a magnetic-sector mass spectrometer and unambiguously identified by its isotopic abundance. Our results also show that isotopic effects on the resonances' energies and on their lifetimes, when Ga-70 is replaced by Ga-69 or Ga-71, are very small (similar to 0.1 and similar to 1%, respectively), reflecting the large mass of the system.

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

4.2
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