4.7 Article

Quantum study of the bending relaxation of H2O by collision with H

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stac1643

关键词

astrochemistry; molecular data; molecular processes; scattering

资金

  1. French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-Waterstars) [ANR-20-CE31-0011]
  2. ECOS-SUD-CONICYT [C17E06, ECOS-CONICYT ECOS170039]
  3. ANID BECAS/DOCTORADO NACIONAL [21210379]
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-20-CE31-0011] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the bending relaxation of H2O molecule using the rigid-bender close-coupling method. A new potential energy surface is developed from ab initio energies, and the results are compared with other calculation methods. The findings suggest that collision with H is more efficient in causing vibrational quenching of H2O compared to collision with He.
Vibrationally excited levels of the H2O molecule are currently detected in various environments of the interstellar medium (ISM), and collisional data for H2O, including vibration with the main colliders of the ISM, are needed. The present study focuses on the bending relaxation of H2O by collision with H when taking bending-rotation coupling explicitly into account with the rigid-bender close-coupling (RB-CC) method. With this aim, a new four-dimensional potential energy surface including the H2O bending mode is developed from a large grid of ab initio energies computed using a high level of theory. For purely rotational transitions, our RB-CC rates show very good agreement with rigid-rotor calculations performed using our new potential energy surface (PES) and with those available in the literature. Calculations for pure rotational transitions inside the excited bending level nu(2) = 1 of H2O are performed and compared with their equivalents inside nu(2) = 0. Vibrational quenching of H2O is also calculated and found to be much more efficient through collision with H rather than with He.

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

4.7
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