4.8 Article

Origin of the odd behavior in the ultraviolet photochemistry of ozone

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2006070117

关键词

ozone; photochemistry; quantum dynamics; isotopic fractionation; lambda doublets

资金

  1. Robert A. Welch Foundation [A-1405]
  2. US Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0015997, DESC0019740]
  3. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The origin of the even-odd rotational state population alternation in the O-16(2)(a(1)Delta(g)) fragments resulting from the ultraviolet (UV) photodissociation of O-16(3), a phenomenon first observed over 30 years ago, has been elucidated using full quantum theory. The calculated O-16(2)(a(1)Delta(g)) rotational state distribution following the 266-nm photolysis of 60 K ozone shows a strong even-odd propensity, in excellent agreement with the new experimental rotational state distribution measured under the same conditions. Theory indicates that the even rotational states are significantly more populated than the adjacent odd rotational states because of a preference for the formation of the A' Lambda-doublet, which can only occupy even rotational states due to the exchange symmetry of the two bosonic O-16 nuclei, and thus not as a result of parity-selective curve crossing as previously proposed. For nonrotating ozone, its dissociation on the excited B(1)A' state dictates that only A' Lambda-doublets are populated, due to symmetry conservation. This selection rule is relaxed for rotating parent molecules, but a preference still persists for A' Lambda-doublets. The A ''/A' ratio increases with increasing ozone rotational quantum number, and thus with increasing temperature, explaining the previously observed temperature dependence of the even-odd population alternation. In light of these results, it is concluded that the previously proposed parity-selective curve-crossing mechanism cannot be a source of heavy isotopic enrichment in the atmosphere.

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

4.8
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