4.6 Article

Experimental and Computational Analysis of Para-Hydroxy Methylcinnamate following Photoexcitation

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 26, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26247621

关键词

ultrafast spectroscopy; DFT; gas-phase; VMI; photochemistry; photophysics; cinnamate

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grant [EP/S028986/1]
  2. EPSRC [EP/S028986/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the S-1(pi pi*) lifetime of the s-cis conformer of para-hydroxy methylcinnamate was accurately measured to be around 2.5 picoseconds, with the major non-radiative decay route following the [(1)pi pi*->(1)n pi*->(3)pi pi*-> S-0] pathway. These findings are consistent with previous photodynamical studies on structurally similar molecules such as para-coumaric acid and methylcinnamate.
Para-hydroxy methylcinnamate is part of the cinnamate family of molecules. Experimental and computational studies have suggested conflicting non-radiative decay routes after photoexcitation to its S-1(pi pi*) state. One non-radiative decay route involves intersystem crossing mediated by an optically dark singlet state, whilst the other involves direct intersystem crossing to a triplet state. Furthermore, irrespective of the decay mechanism, the lifetime of the initially populated S-1(pi pi*) state is yet to be accurately measured. In this study, we use time-resolved ion-yield and photoelectron spectroscopies to precisely determine the S-1(pi pi*) lifetime for the s-cis conformer of para-hydroxy methylcinnamate, combined with time-dependent density functional theory to determine the major non-radiative decay route. We find the S-1(pi pi*) state lifetime of s-cis para-hydroxy methylcinnamate to be similar to 2.5 picoseconds, and the major non-radiative decay route to follow the [(1)pi pi*->(1)n pi*->(3)pi pi*-> S-0] pathway. These results also concur with previous photodynamical studies on structurally similar molecules, such as para-coumaric acid and methylcinnamate.

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