4.7 Article

Cold and ultracold dynamics of the barrierless D+ + H2 reaction: Quantum reactive calculations for ∼R-4 long range interaction potentials

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 143, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4936144

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [CSD2009-00038, CTQ2012-37404-C02]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [CSD2009-00038, CTQ2012-37404-C02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantum reactive and elastic cross sections and rate coefficients have been calculated for D+ + H-2 (v = 0, j = 0) collisions in the energy range from 10(-8) K (deep ultracold regime), where only one partial wave is open, to 150 K (Langevin regime) where many of them contribute. In systems involving ions, the similar to R-4 behavior extends the interaction up to extremely long distances, requiring a special treatment. To this purpose, we have used a modified version of the hyperspherical quantum reactive scattering method, which allows the propagations up to distances of 10(5) a(0) needed to converge the elastic cross sections. Interpolation procedures are also proposed which may reduce the cost of exact dynamical calculations at such low energies. Calculations have been carried out on the PES by Velilla et al. [J. Chem. Phys. 129, 084307 (2008)] which accurately reproduces the long range interactions. Results on its prequel, the PES by Aguado et al. [J. Chem. Phys. 112, 1240 (2000)], are also shown in order to emphasize the significance of the inclusion of the long range interactions. The calculated reaction rate coefficient changes less than one order of magnitude in a collision energy range of ten orders of magnitude, and it is found in very good agreement with the available experimental data in the region where they exist (10-100 K). State-to-state reaction probabilities are also provided which show that for each partial wave, the distribution of HD final states remains essentially constant below 1 K. (C) 2015 AIP Publishing LLC.

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