Physical Chemistry 3: — Chemical Kinetics — - Christian-Albrechts ...
Physical Chemistry 3: — Chemical Kinetics — - Christian-Albrechts ... Physical Chemistry 3: — Chemical Kinetics — - Christian-Albrechts ...
7.1 Foundations of transition state theory 149 7.1.2 Formal kinetic model In order to derive the TST expression for ( ), wefirst look at a simple formal kinetic model. This formal kinetic model has its roots in the original idea that the TS can be considered as some sort of an “activated complex” with a local energy minimum on the PES. It is not a good derivation of the TST expression for ( ), but leads to the correct expression. I Activated complex model of TST: y A+BC 1 À 2 ABC ‡ 3 → P (7.3) £ ABC ‡ ¤ = 1 [A] [BC] 2 + 3 (7.4) I Assumption: 3 ¿ 2 y £ ¤ ABC ‡ = 1 [A] [BC] = 12 [A] [BC] (7.5) 2 y Equilibrium between the reactants (A+BC)andtheTS(ABC ‡ ): y [P] = 3 £ ABC ‡ ¤ (7.6) = 3 | {z 12 [A] [BC] (7.7) } = I ACT expression for rate constant: = 3 12 (7.8) Below, we will find that and 3 = ‡ = 12 ∝ exp µ− ∆‡ (7.9) (7.10) 7.1.3 The fundamental equation for k (T ) The above derivation of the TST rate constant was based on an oversimplified picture, since the TS is not at a local minimum but at a saddle point on the PES. In this section, we derive the TST fundamental equation more carefully by bringing in some dynamical aspects. In (1) - (4), we explore the implications of the quasi-equilibrium assumption, and in (5) - (9) we develop a dynamical semiclassical model: 42 42 Semiclassical because the translation is handled classically while all other degrees of freedom are described quantum mechanically.
7.1 Foundations of transition state theory 150 (1) We start by assuming equilibrium between the reactants and products: A+BC 1 À 2 ABC ‡ 3 À 4 P (7.11) (2) We consider two dividing surfaces at the TS separated by a distance of ≤ . is the “length” of a “phase space cell” in semiclassical theory which is determined by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: ∆ ‡ × ∆ ‡ = × ∆ ‡ = (7.12) (3) We now consider the number densities of molecules passing through these surfaces from left to right ( −→ ‡ )andfromrighttoleft( ←− ‡ ). The total number density ‡ at the TS in equilibrium is their sum, i.e., ‡ = −→ ‡ + ←− ‡ = ‡ A BC (7.13) In equilibrium, we must have Thus, −→ ‡ = ←− ‡ (7.14) −→ ‡ = ←− ‡ = 1 2 ‡ = ‡ 2 A BC (7.15) (4) We now suddenly remove all the products. Then ←− ‡ =0 However, there is no reason for −→ ‡ to change, because the molecules on the reactant side remain in internal equilibrium (this is the quasi-equilibrium assumption). 43 y −→ ‡ = ‡ 2 = ‡ 2 A BC (7.16) Thus, we can still express −→ ‡ using the equilibrium constant ‡ even if there is no equilibrium between reactants and products. (5) We now turn to the reaction rate, which is given by the number density of molecules −→ ‡ in the time interval that are crossing the DS in the forward direction. We can write this as −→ ‡ = −→ −→ ‡ ‡ ‡ = ‡ (7.17) where • −→ ‡ is the decay rate of the TS in the forward direction (or the frequency factor for the molecules crossing the DS in the forward direction), 43 The quasi-equilibrium assumption for −→ ‡ is made in canonical TST. In a microcanonical derivation · · −→ ←− of the TST expression for (), we consider the fluxes ‡ and ‡ through the dividing surface at the TS. Then, the individual molecules “dont’t know” that the products have been removed and · · ←− −→ ‡ =0. Since they don’t know about this, the flux ‡ has to remain unchanged.
- Page 113 and 114: 5.1 Hardspherecollisiontheory 98 I
- Page 115 and 116: 5.1 Hard sphere collision theory 10
- Page 117 and 118: 5.2 Kinetic gas theory 102 I The 1D
- Page 119 and 120: 5.2 Kinetic gas theory 104 I Figure
- Page 121 and 122: 5.2 Kinetic gas theory 106 5.2.2 Th
- Page 123 and 124: 5.2 Kinetic gas theory 108 • Resu
- Page 125 and 126: 5.3 Transport processes in gases 11
- Page 127 and 128: 5.3 Transport processes in gases 11
- Page 129 and 130: 5.3 Transport processes in gases 11
- Page 131 and 132: 5.4 Advanced collision theory 116 W
- Page 133 and 134: 5.4 Advanced collision theory 118 I
- Page 135 and 136: 5.4 Advanced collision theory 120 5
- Page 137 and 138: 5.4 Advanced collision theory 122 I
- Page 139 and 140: 5.4 Advanced collision theory 124 I
- Page 141 and 142: 5.4 Advanced collision theory 126 a
- Page 143 and 144: 5.4 Advanced collision theory 128 I
- Page 145 and 146: 5.4 Advanced collision theory 130 (
- Page 147 and 148: 5.4 Advanced collision theory 132 I
- Page 149 and 150: 5.4 Advanced collision theory 134 I
- Page 151 and 152: 5.4 Advanced collision theory 136
- Page 153 and 154: 5.4 Advanced collision theory 138 6
- Page 155 and 156: 6.2 Polyatomic molecules 140 I Figu
- Page 157 and 158: 6.2 Polyatomic molecules 142 I Mode
- Page 159 and 160: 6.3 Trajectory Calculations 144 •
- Page 161 and 162: 6.3 Trajectory Calculations 146 7.
- Page 163: 7.1 Foundations of transition state
- Page 167 and 168: 7.1 Foundations of transition state
- Page 169 and 170: 7.2 Applications of transition stat
- Page 171 and 172: 7.2 Applications of transition stat
- Page 173 and 174: 7.2 Applications of transition stat
- Page 175 and 176: 7.3 Thermodynamic interpretation of
- Page 177 and 178: 7.3 Thermodynamic interpretation of
- Page 179 and 180: 7.3 Thermodynamic interpretation of
- Page 181 and 182: 7.3 Thermodynamic interpretation of
- Page 183 and 184: 7.3 Thermodynamic interpretation of
- Page 185 and 186: 7.4 Transition state spectroscopy 1
- Page 187 and 188: 7.4 Transition state spectroscopy 1
- Page 189 and 190: 7.4 Transition state spectroscopy 1
- Page 191 and 192: 8.1 Experimental observations 176 (
- Page 193 and 194: 8.2 Lindemann mechanism 178 8.2 Lin
- Page 195 and 196: 8.2 Lindemann mechanism 180 I Half-
- Page 197 and 198: 8.3 Generalized Lindemann-Hinshelwo
- Page 199 and 200: 8.3 Generalized Lindemann-Hinshelwo
- Page 201 and 202: 8.3 Generalized Lindemann-Hinshelwo
- Page 203 and 204: 8.3 Generalized Lindemann-Hinshelwo
- Page 205 and 206: 8.3 Generalized Lindemann-Hinshelwo
- Page 207 and 208: 8.4 The specific unimolecular react
- Page 209 and 210: 8.4 The specific unimolecular react
- Page 211 and 212: 8.4 The specific unimolecular react
- Page 213 and 214: 8.4 The specific unimolecular react
7.1 Foundations of transition state theory 149<br />
7.1.2 Formal kinetic model<br />
In order to derive the TST expression for ( ), wefirst look at a simple formal kinetic<br />
model. This formal kinetic model has its roots in the original idea that the TS can be<br />
considered as some sort of an “activated complex” with a local energy minimum on<br />
the PES. It is not a good derivation of the TST expression for ( ), but leads to the<br />
correct expression.<br />
I<br />
Activated complex model of TST:<br />
y<br />
A+BC 1 À<br />
2<br />
ABC ‡ 3 → P (7.3)<br />
£<br />
ABC<br />
‡ ¤ = 1 [A] [BC]<br />
2 + 3<br />
(7.4)<br />
I Assumption: 3 ¿ 2 y<br />
£ ¤ ABC<br />
‡ = 1<br />
[A] [BC] = <br />
12 [A] [BC] (7.5)<br />
2<br />
y Equilibrium between the reactants (A+BC)andtheTS(ABC ‡ ):<br />
y<br />
[P]<br />
<br />
= 3<br />
£<br />
ABC<br />
‡ ¤ <br />
(7.6)<br />
= 3 | {z 12 [A] [BC] (7.7)<br />
}<br />
=<br />
I<br />
ACT expression for rate constant:<br />
= 3 12 (7.8)<br />
Below, we will find that<br />
and<br />
3 = ‡ = <br />
<br />
<br />
12 ∝ exp<br />
µ− ∆‡<br />
<br />
(7.9)<br />
(7.10)<br />
7.1.3 The fundamental equation for k (T )<br />
The above derivation of the TST rate constant was based on an oversimplified picture,<br />
since the TS is not at a local minimum but at a saddle point on the PES. In this section,<br />
we derive the TST fundamental equation more carefully by bringing in some dynamical<br />
aspects. In (1) - (4), we explore the implications of the quasi-equilibrium assumption,<br />
and in (5) - (9) we develop a dynamical semiclassical model: 42<br />
42 Semiclassical because the translation is handled classically while all other degrees of freedom are<br />
described quantum mechanically.