2016
DOI: 10.1039/c6fd00107f
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Confronting surface hopping molecular dynamics with Marcus theory for a molecular donor–acceptor system

Abstract: We investigate the performance of fewest switches surface hopping (SH) in describing electron transfer (ET) for a molecular donor-acceptor system. Computer simulations are carried out for a wide range of reorganisation energy (λ), electronic coupling strength (H) and driving force using our recently developed fragment orbital-based SH approach augmented with a simple decoherence correction. This methodology allows us to compute SH ET rates over more than four orders of magnitude, from the sub-picosecond to the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
56
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

3
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
1
56
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(15c), the electronic coupling is much smaller than the reorganization free energy (λ H ab ). 86 This finally means that (λ + ∆G 0 ) |H ab | 2 1/2 TS and thus the full semiclassical LZ rate equation reduces to 35…”
Section: Adiabatic and Non-adiabatic Limitmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…(15c), the electronic coupling is much smaller than the reorganization free energy (λ H ab ). 86 This finally means that (λ + ∆G 0 ) |H ab | 2 1/2 TS and thus the full semiclassical LZ rate equation reduces to 35…”
Section: Adiabatic and Non-adiabatic Limitmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Consequently, in this limit the electronic transmission coefficient κ el approaches unity, which reduces the semi-classical TST expression, eq. (13), to a standard Arrhenius form 35,86…”
Section: Adiabatic and Non-adiabatic Limitmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…T 3 (15) and the data fitted appropriately. In all these cases, the decay times for the forward reaction were compared although for Eq.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 91%