From Femtoseconds to Nanoseconds: Simulation ofIBr− Photodissociation Dynamics in CO2 Clusters
by
Matthew Alan Thompson
B.A., The Colorado College, 1999

A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulﬁllmentof the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry2007

This thesis entitled:
From Femtoseconds to Nanoseconds: Simulation of IBr− Photodissociation Dynamics in CO2
Clusters
written by Matthew Alan Thompson
has been approved for the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry

Robert Parson

W. Carl Lineberger

Date

The ﬁnal copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we ﬁnd that both thecontent and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above
mentioned discipline.

iii
Thompson, Matthew Alan (Ph.D., Chemistry)
From Femtoseconds to Nanoseconds: Simulation of IBr− Photodissociation Dynamics in CO2
Clusters
Thesis directed by Professor Robert Parson

Potential energy curves for the ground and ﬁve valence excited states of IBr− were calcu­
lated at the MRCI level using the MOLPRO ab initio package. The Stuttgart large-core MDF
ECP was used with an augmented basis set and spin-orbit coupling was calculated via the ac­companying spin-orbit ECP. Charge densities, transition moments, and nonadiabatic coupling
matrix elements constructed from a distributed multipole analysis of the ab initio wavefunc­
tions were then used to carry out molecular dynamics simulations of the photodissociation ofIBr− in CO2 clusters with nonadiabatic transitions treated by Tully’s fewest-switches surface
hopping. Simulations of near-infrared (790-nm) photodissociation show good agreement withexperimental product branching ratios. Experimental pump-probe studies have demonstrated
a large variation in ground-state recombination times with cluster size—orders of magnitude—
which is supported by our simulations. We propose a mechanism of excited-state trapping anda solvent-mediated conﬁgurational transition state which leads to similar simulated recombina­
tion times on the order of 10-20 ps for a cluster size of 5 solvent molecules, and up to 1-3 ns
for sizes of 8 to 10. Simulations have predicted a turnaround in recombination times at larger
clusters, a ﬁnding which is supported by recent experimental investigations. We also predictthat a cluster size of 14 solvent molecules leads to double timescale recombination—picoseconds
and nanoseconds—involving a diﬀerent, excited-state well. Simulations of ultraviolet (355-nm)
photodissociation were also carried out. These gave worse agreement, probably due to thelarger amounts of kinetic energy release associated with this excitation, and to the absence of aspin-orbit quenching process, thought to be relevant in experiment, from the model.

Dedication

To my grandmother, Ina Thompson, who died before she could see me complete thisjourney.

Acknowledgements

There have been many people who have helped me on the journey to complete my studies.
First and foremost among these is my adviser, Professor Robert Parson. Under histutelage I have learned more than I ever thought I would about molecular dynamics, chemistry,and research in general. While I’ll never equal his vast knowledge, or his ability to construct
Marcus diagrams and picture the movement of excited states, he has helped me be able to atleast understand why such a thing is useful. He has given me the ability to research and in theend that is the point of this. Plus, he paid for a lot of this and that’s not unimportant either.
Beyond him, I’d like to thank the former members of the Parson group I had the pleasure
to interact with either in person or via email. Dr Nikki Delaney was there in the beginningto help shepherd me from grad student who was taking classes to grad student who was doing
research. I thank Joseph Fowler for his introduction into the world of quantum chemistry,electronic structure, the programs that do it all, and Linux. Dr James Faeder I thank for his
amazing and immense molecular dynamics program that became the boon and bane of myexistence these many years. Likewise, in the beginning he was there to answer my many nags
about “what does this output mean”, or “why does this program hate me”. Finally, Prof.
Paul Maslen who, besides his knowledge and hard work that went into our molecular dynamics
program, provided me with discussions on the nature of his hacks and edits of the MOLPRO
quantum chemistry program.
Any theory in chemistry is only as good as the experiments it models and any theoretician
is only as good as the experimentalists he interacts with. To that end, I’d like to thank the many

viexperimentalists in the Lineberger group that have helped explain to me—slowly and patiently—
how their experiments worked and why it was my fault my simulations weren’t matching withreality. Among these people are Dr Todd Sanford, Dr Jack Barbera, and Joshua Martin, all ofwhom have variously headed the IBr− (CO2 )n fun machine as grad students. Also, I thank the
postdocs Drs Vladimir Dribinski, Han Sang Yun, Jeﬀ Rathbone, and Joshua Darr. Also, thanks
to Elisa Miller and Dr Lenny Sheps for discussions about IBr− and photoelectron imaging.
Of course, no mention of the Lineberger group is complete without mention of Professor
Lineberger himself. For a man with his many responsibilities, he always seemed ready to discussvarious things I saw in my research as well as suggest various simulations I could attempt toreconcile the inevitable theory-experiment discrepancies.
All of this research would not have been possible with out the amazing support staﬀ here
at JILA. Foremost among them is Peter Ruprecht who helped me from barely an end-user ofLinux to someone who can roll a Linux or Unix box in an afternoon and have it work. In addition,
there are the others in the computing department who helped solve the varied questions andproblems I had over the years: James McKown, Mark Tamisiea, Alan Dunwell, Nick Metrowsky,
Joel Frahm and many more. I also take this time to thank Professor John Bohn and the W.
M. Keck Foundation for the use of the Keck cluster here at JILA. I don’t think I can ﬁgure out
how much longer it would have taken me to do the research in this dissertation without it.
I also have to thank Professor Hermann Stoll for his discussions concerning his MDF
ECP and basis set which were the cornerstone of a chapter’s worth of work. I’d also like tothank the masses of the MOLPRO and GAMESS mailing lists who suﬀered through my many
obvious questions about the programs and their use and interpretation as I was learning.
The fact that I am in grad school right now is due to the many great teachers I have had in
my life. As an undergrad, Professors Sally Meyer and Ted Lindeman gave me my ﬁrst exposures
to the world of research, and taught me my foundations of whatever physical chemistry I now
know. I also thank Professor Lindeman for showing me all the cool things you can see an doin physical chemistry. I’d also like to thank the Barnes Foundation. Their scholarship was thevii
only reason I could ever aﬀord to go to a great school like Colorado College.
Before CC and CU, though, there was my ﬁrst exposure to chemistry. This was due to
Dr Bindel and Mr Smiley of Pomona High School. Their infectious enthusiasm for chemistry
and science in general was the ﬁrst step on the path that has led to this moment.
Finally, I’d like to thank my family. Without the support of my mother, father, grand­
mother, and sister, I probably would never have been able to complete this. Many was the daythat I complained to them of some various problem that research, life, the weather, whatever,was causing me, and they took it all in stride and helped keep me sane.

Contents

Chapter

1 Introduction

1

1.1

Studies of Solvent Eﬀects in I2 Photodissociation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1.2

Studies of Solvent Eﬀects in Dihalide Anion Photodissociation. . . . . . . . . .

2

1.3

Dissertation Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82 Theoretical Methods
2.1

2.2

2.3

11

Molecular Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

2.1.1

Eﬀective Hamiltonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

2.1.2

Overview of Molecular Dynamics Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Quantum Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

2.2.1

Potential Energy Surface for IBr− . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

2.2.2

Lennard-Jones Parameters for IBr− (CO2 )n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

2.2.3

Calculated Absorption Spectrum for IBr− . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

2.2.4

Minimum Energy IBr− (CO2 )n Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

2.2.5

Properties of Br− (CO2 )n Solvation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50

3 Dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n Near-Infrared Photodissociation

52

3.1

Near-Infrared Trajectory Simulation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52

3.2

Simulated Near-Infrared Photodissociation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

ix
3.2.1

A Closer Look at the Three Product Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

3.3

Average CO2 Loss in Near-Infrared Photodissociation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

3.4

Sensitivity of Near-Infrared Photoproduct Ratios to Excitation Wavelength . . .

64

3.5

Sensitivity of Near-Infrared Photoproduct Ratios to Lennard-Jones Parameters .

67

3.6

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

4 Ground-State Recombination Dynamics in IBr− (CO2 )n Near-Infrared Photodissociation 72
4.1

Theoretical Methods of Ground-State Recombination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

4.2

IBr− (CO2 )8 : The Troublemaker That Started It All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

4.3

Ground-State Recombination Dynamics in Smaller Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

4.4

Ground-State Recombination Dynamics of Intermediate-Sized Clusters . . . . . .

95

4.5

Ground-State Recombination Dynamics of Larger Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

4.5.1

Focus on IBr− (CO2 )12 : A Transitional Cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

4.5.2

The Large Clusters: IBr− (CO2 )13,15,16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

4.5.3

The Curious Case of IBr− (CO2 )14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

4.5.4

Experimental Diﬃculty with Large IBr− (CO2 )n Clusters . . . . . . . . . 117

4.6

Ground-State Recombination Sensitivity to Excitation Wavelength . . . . . . . . 119

4.7

Ground-State Recombination Sensitivity to Alteration of the Model Potential
Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

4.8

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

5 Dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n Ultraviolet Photodissociation

129

5.1

Ultraviolet Trajectory Simulation Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

5.2

Simulated Ultraviolet Photodissociation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.2.1

Ultraviolet Photodissociation in Small Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

5.2.2

Divergence of Simulation and Experiment with Large Clusters . . . . . . 134

5.3

Sensitivity of Ultraviolet Photoproduct Ratios to Lennard-Jones Parameters . . . 146

5.4

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

x
6 Future Directions

151

6.1

Photoelectron Imaging of IBr− . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

6.2

Incorporation of Intramolecular CO2 Vibrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

6.3

Excitation of Trapped Metastable Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

6.4

Revisiting ICl− (CO2 )n Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Bibliography

162

Appendix

A List of Acronyms

169

B Table of Ground-State Recombination Dynamics

171

Tables

Table

2.1

Summary of the energetics and properties from ab initio calculations of IBr− . . .

2.2

Case (a) composition of the spin-orbit coupled states of IBr− as a function of the21bond length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

2.3

Short-range potential parameters for IBr− (CO2 )n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

2.4

Properties of minimal energy clusters of IBr− (CO2 )n generated at 80 K. . . . . .

43

2.5

Sequential binding energies, Δn , for IBr− (CO2 )n , ICl− (CO2 )n and I−
2 (CO2 )n in
meV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

2.6

Properties of minimal energy Br− (CO2 )n clusters. All energies in meV. . . . . .

48

2.7

Comparison of sequential binding energies of minimal energy Br− (CO2 )n clusters
using standard Br− · · · CO2 ﬁt tabulated in Table 2.3 and a tight ﬁt (“CCFit”)
to CCSD(T) calculations, see Figure 2.7. All energies in meV. . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1

49

Summary of ground-state recombination (GSR) recovery dynamics of near-IR(790 nm) photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )5−7 . All simulations performed with
1.0 fs time step. A trajectory was considered dissociated once I-Br bond length
reached 40 a0 or recombined after 20 crossings of the ground state well. . . . . .

4.2

89

Summary of ground-state recombination (GSR) recovery dynamics of near-IR(790 nm) photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )8−11 . All simulations performed with
1.0 fs time step. A trajectory was considered dissociated once I-Br bond length
reached 40 a0 or recombined after 20 crossings of the ground state well. . . . . .

95

xii
4.3

Summary of ground-state recombination (GSR) recovery dynamics of near-IR(790 nm) photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )12−16 . All simulations performed with
1.0 fs time step. A trajectory was considered dissociated once I-Br bond length
reached 40 a0 or recombined after 20 crossings of the ground state well. . . . . .

99

B.1 Ground-state recombination (GSR) recovery dynamics of near-IR (790 nm) pho­todissociation of IBr− (CO2 )n . All simulations performed with 1.0 fs time step.
A trajectory was considered dissociated once I-Br bond length reached 40 a0 or
recombined after 20 crossings of the ground state well. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Figures

Figure1.1−
Potential energy curves for the six lowest spin-orbit states of (a) I−
2 and (b) ICl

including spin-orbit coupling [35–37]. The Hund’s case (a) labels used here areapproximately valid near Re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1

4

Potential energy curves for the six lowest spin-orbit states of IBr− . The Hund’scase (a) labels used here are approximately valid near Re . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

2.2

Hund’s case (a) ab initio potential energy curves for IBr− . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

2.3

Comparison of the theoretical IBr− A� state potential energy curve (white line)with experimental data from Mabbs, et al [113]. Reproduced with permission
from Dr Sanov. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4

Comparison of the standard Lennard-Jones ﬁt tabulated in Table 2.3 (solid) toI− · · · CO2 potential energy surfaces from experiment [117] (dashed). . . . . . . .

2.5

27

31

Calculated CCSD(T) T-shaped (solid) and linear (dashed) Br− · · · CO2 potential
energy surfaces using the Stuttgart-Bonn MDF eﬀective core potential [100] for
Br and aug-cc-pVTZ basis [118, 119] for C and O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.6

32

Curves for the Br− · · · CO2 Lennard-Jones T-shaped (solid) and linear (dashed)short-range interactions using the Lennard-Jones parameters from Table 2.3. . .

34

xiv
2.7

T-shaped Br− · · · CO2 potential energy surface using the standard Lennard-Jonesﬁt tabulated in Table 2.3 (solid) compared to MRCI (dotted) and CCSD(T)(dashed) curves calculated using the MDF eﬀective core potential [100] for Br
and aug-cc-pVTZ basis [118, 119] for C and O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.8

35

Linear Br− · · · CO2 potential energy surface using the standard Lennard-Jones ﬁttabulated in Table 2.3 (solid) compared to CCSD(T) (dashed) curves calculatedusing the MDF eﬀective core potential [100] for Br and aug-cc-pVTZ basis [118,119] for C and O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.9

36

Calculated absorption spectrum for IBr− . Coloring corresponds to the coloringof the bare ion curves in Figure 2.1. 10−16 cm2 = 1 Å2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38−16
2.10 Calculated absorption spectrum for I−
cm2 = 1 ˚
A2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 . 1040

2.11 Calculated absorption spectrum for ICl− . 10−16 cm2 = 1 ˚A2 . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

2.12 Minimum energy structures for IBr− (CO2 )n . The pattern for CO2 ﬁlling is ﬁrst
around the I-Br bond, then the Br end, and ﬁnally the I end. . . . . . . . . . . .

41

2.13 Sequential binding energies for IBr− (CO2 )n , ICl− (CO2 )n , and I−
2 (CO2 )n in meV.

43

2.14 Average ΔΦ in eV for 100, 60-K conﬁgurations of IBr− (CO2 )0−16 in the groundstate. Error bars represent one standard deviation of the mean. . . . . . . . . . .

46

2.15 Br− · · · CO2 potential energy surface calculated using the standard Lennard-Jonesﬁt (solid) tabulated in Table 2.3 and the best Lennard-Jones ﬁt (dotted) comparedto CCSD(T) Br− · · · CO2 interaction calculated using the MDF ECPs [100] for
Br and aug-cc-pVTZ basis [118, 119] for C and O (dashed). . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1

48

Near-infrared (790 nm) 50-ps simulated (dashed with squares) photodissociation
product branching ratios for IBr− (CO2 )n . Experimental results (solid) from San­
ford, et al [79]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2

54

Fraction of IBr− product trapped in the A� state at 50 ps as a function of cluster
size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

xv
3.3

Near-IR (790 nm) photodissociation product branching ratios for IBr− (CO2 )n .
Simulated results (dashed with squares) based on an “inﬁnite” time scale extrap­
olation. Experimental results (solid) from Sanford, et al [79]. Error bars are 1σ
sampling error for n = 6 and is representative of that at other cluster sizes. . . .

3.4

58

Near-infrared (790-nm) photodissociation of two exemplar IBr− (CO2 )1 trajecto­ries. The adiabatic energies are plotted in the ﬁrst row as a function of time withthe bold line being the occupied state. The second row plots the charge characterof the trajectory over time. The third row plots the I-Br bond length over time.
(a) shows a trajectory that dissociates to Br− and (b) shows a trajectory that
dissociates to I− . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.5

59

Near-infrared (790-nm) photodissociation of three exemplar IBr− (CO2 )6 trajec­
tories. The adiabatic energies are plotted in the ﬁrst row as a function of timewith the bold line being the occupied state. The second row plots the charge
character of the trajectory over time as a 10-point moving average to smooth out
some ﬂuctuations. The third row plots the I-Br bond length over time. (a) showsa trajectory that dissociates to Br− . (b) shows a trajectory that dissociates toI− . (c) shows a trajectory that recombines in the ground state, with the energies
being plotted as a 50-point moving average to eliminate vibrational grassiness. .

61

3.6

Example dissociating IBr− (CO2 )6 cluster showing solvated I− , qv. Figure 3.5(b).

62

3.7

Experimental (solid line with circles) and simulated (dotted line) results for the
average CO2 loss for IBr− (CO2 )n , n = 0 − 16. Experimental results from San­
ford [77]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.8

63

Near-infrared simulated 790-nm (dash with square), 840-nm (red circle), and
770-nm (blue circle) photodissociation product branching ratios for IBr− (CO2 )n .
Simulated results based on an “inﬁnite” time scale extrapolation. Experimental
results (solid line) from Sanford, et al [79]. Error bars are 1σ sampling error forn = 6 and is representative of that at other cluster sizes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

xvi
3.9

Branching ratios for near-infrared (790-nm) photodissociation including results
for tight Lennard-Jones ﬁts to MRCI (dot-dash) and CCSD(T) (dot) Br− · · · CO2
data as seen in Figure 2.7, as well as the normal Lennard-Jones ﬁt from Table 2.3(dash with squares) and experimental data from Sanford, et al [79]. . . . . . . . .

4.1

68

Experimental [80] (dotted with X) and simulated (dashed with circles) groundstate recombination recovery times for near-infrared (790 nm) photoexcitation ofIBr− (CO2 )n . Error bars for simulations are within the size of the circle, save forthe long-time IBr− (CO2 )14 point. Experimental n = 12 point is unreported andprovisional. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2

74

Ground-state recombination probability of IBr− (CO2 )8 as a function of time. The
time scale is broken in order to indicate the large diﬀerence. Dotted line provided
as a guide for the eyes. Figure reproduced with permission from Sanford [77]. . .

4.3

77

Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )8 . The red line represents
theoretical results and the green dots represent experimental data. Dotted lines
represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1. Experimental
results from Dribinski, et al [80]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.4

78

Potential energy surface for IBr− (CO2 )8 generated by “pulling” the iodine fromthe IBr− (CO2 )8 minimal energy structure seen in Figure 2.12 and plotting theenergy as a function of separation. Arrow roughly shows a 790-nm excitation as
a guide for the eyes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.5

80

Visual representation of the solvent coordinate, ΔΦ, using IBr− (CO2 )8 clusters(bromine on left, iodine on right of solute). Symmetric solvent conﬁguration, top,small ΔΦ. Asymmetric solvent conﬁguration, bottom, large ΔΦ. . . . . . . . . .

4.6

81

Plot of solvent coordinate, ΔΦ, versus solute bond length for a trapped trajectoryfor IBr− (CO2 )8 . Green represents trajectory dynamics on the second-excitedstate. dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in Angstroms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

xvii
4.7

Plot of solvent coordinate, ΔΦ, versus solute bond length for a trapped trajectoryfor IBr− (CO2 )8 . Black, red, and green represent trajectory dynamics on the
ground, ﬁrst-, and second-excited states, respectively dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and
R is in Angstroms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.8

84

Plot of solvent coordinate, ΔΦ, versus solute bond length for 2-ns trajectories forIBr− (CO2 )8 that end as IBr− product in the ground state. Black, red, and green
represent trajectory dynamics on the ground, ﬁrst-, and second-excited states,
respectively dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in Angstroms. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.9

85

Plot of solvent coordinate, ΔΦ, versus solute bond length for 2-ns trajectories forIBr− (CO2 )8 that end as Br− product. Black, red, and green represent trajec­
tory dynamics on the ground, ﬁrst-, and second-excited states, respectively dPhi(=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in Angstroms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

4.10 Plot of solvent coordinate, ΔΦ, versus solute bond length for 2-ns trajectories
for IBr− (CO2 )8 that end as I− product. Black, red, and green represent trajec­
tory dynamics on the ground, ﬁrst-, and second-excited states, respectively dPhi(=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in Angstroms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

88

4.11 Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )5 . The red line represents
theoretical results and the green dots represent experimental data. Dotted lines
represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1. Experimental
results from Dribinski, et al [80]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

4.12 Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )6 . The red line represents
theoretical results and the green dots represent experimental data. Dotted lines
represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1. Experimental
results from Dribinski, et al [80]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

xviii4.13 Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )7 . The red line represents
theoretical results and the green dots represent experimental data. Dotted lines
represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1. Experimental
results from Dribinski, et al [80]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

94

4.14 Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )9 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see
Equation 4.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97

4.15 Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )10 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see
Equation 4.1. Experimental results from Dribinski, et al [80]. . . . . . . . . . . .

98

4.16 Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )11 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see
Equation 4.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.17 Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )12 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see
Equation 4.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.18 Average solvent coordinate (ΔΦ) of the excited-state well in IBr− (CO2 )6−15 sim­
ulations. Error bars represent one standard deviation of the mean. . . . . . . . . 103
4.19 Average solute bond length of the excited-state well in IBr− (CO2 )6−15 simula­tions. Error bars represent one standard deviation of the mean. . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.20 Plot of solvent coordinate versus solute bond length for IBr− (CO2 )12 short-length
trajectories that were trapped on the excited state. Green represents trajectory
dynamics on the second-excited state. dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in Angstroms.105
4.21 Plot of solvent coordinate versus solute bond length for IBr− (CO2 )12 trajectories
that relax to the ground state. Black, red, and green represent trajectory dynam­
ics on the ground, ﬁrst-, and second-excited state. dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R isin Angstroms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

xix
4.22 Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )13 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see
Equation 4.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.23 Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )15 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see
Equation 4.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.24 Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )16 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see
Equation 4.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.25 Comparison of single- and double-exponential ﬁts to the ground-state recombi­
nation time of IBr− (CO2 )14 . The red line represents the theoretical results. The
green-dashed and black-dashed lines are single- and double-exponential ﬁts, re­spectively. Ensemble composed of 100 3-ns trajectories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.26 Plot of solvent coordinate versus solute bond length for a long IBr− (CO2 )14 tra­jectory that ends as IBr− on the ground state. Black, red, and green represent
trajectory dynamics on the ground, ﬁrst-, and second-excited states, respectively
dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in Angstroms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.27 Plot of solvent coordinate versus solute bond length for a short IBr− (CO2 )14
trajectory that ends as IBr− on the ground state. Black, red, and green represent
trajectory dynamics on the ground, ﬁrst-, and second-excited states, respectively
dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in Angstroms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.28 Ground-state recombination dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )14 excited with a 730-nm
photon. The red line represents the theoretical results. The dotted line represents
single-exponential ﬁt to the data, see Equation 4.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.29 Calculated absorption spectrum for IBr− (CO2 )12 . Inset shows peaks on A� statefor IBr− (CO2 )11,16 , dotted. Spectrum is average of 100 conﬁgurations sampled
at 60 K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

xx
4.30 Simulated 790-nm (black solid with circles), 840-nm (red circles), 770-nm (bluecircles) and experimental (dotted with X’s) ground-state recombination times forIBr− (CO2 )n photodissociation. Experimental results from Dribinski, et al [80]. . 121
4.31 Simulated ground-state recombination times for near-infrared (790-nm) photoex­
citation for the Lennard-Jones ﬁts from CCSD(T) (top, green) and MRCI (bot­tom, red) Br− · · · CO2 calculations as seen in Figure 2.7, as well as the normal
Lennard-Jones ﬁt from Table 2.3 (dashed with circles) and experimental results(dot with X’s) from Dribinski, et al [80]. Experimental IBr− (CO2 )12 point is
unpublished and preliminary [123]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

5.1

Ultraviolet (355 nm) simulated (dashed with square) photodissociation productbranching ratios for IBr− (CO2 )n . Experimental results (solid) from Sanford, etal [79]. Error bars are 1σ for n = 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

5.2

Ultraviolet (355-nm) photodissociation of two exemplar IBr− (CO2 )6 trajectories.
The adiabatic energies are plotted in the ﬁrst row as a function of time with thebold line being the occupied state. The second row plots the charge character of
the trajectory over time. The third row plots the I-Br bond length over time. (a)shows a trajectory that dissociates to Br− . (b) shows a trajectory that dissociates
to I− . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

5.3

Plot of solvent coordinate versus solute bond length for ultraviolet (355-nm) tra­jectories for IBr− (CO2 )6 that end as (a) Br− product and (b) I− product. Brown,
yellow, and blue represent trajectory dynamics on the ﬁfth-, fourth-, and thirdexcited state, respectively. dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in Angstroms. . . . . . 135

xxi
5.4

Ultraviolet (355-nm) photodissociation of three exemplar IBr− (CO2 )13 trajecto­ries. The adiabatic energies are plotted in the ﬁrst row as a function of time withthe bold line being the current state. The second row plots the charge charac­
ter of the trajectory over time. The third row plots the I-Br bond length overtime. (a) shows a trajectory that dissociates to Br− , with the energies plotted
as a 50-point moving average to eliminate grassiness. (b) shows a trajectory that
dissociates to I− . (c) shows a trajectory that recombines in the ground state. . . 137

5.5

A summary of the dynamics of I−
2 (CO2 )n following ultraviolet photoexcitation
with energy as the ordinate and solvent coordinate(=ΔΦ) as the abscissa. Dashedstates exhibit “anomalous charge ﬂow” where the charge and solvent move in
opposition to each other. The asterisk denotes spin-orbit excited neutral. Green
arrow represents path detailed in Section 5.2.2.2. Reproduced with permission
from Delaney, Faeder, and Parson [40]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

5.6

Illustration of anomalous charge ﬂow in a diatomic anion. In the bare ion (left),the charge is equally shared between atoms in both the bonding and antibonding
states. In the presence of solvent (right), the increased charge density due tosolvation in the solvated atom in the bonding state leads to higher charge den­sity for the unsolvated atom in the antibonding state to preserve orthogonality.
Reproduced with permission from Parson, Faeder, and Delaney [29]. . . . . . . . 139

5.7

Details of the ﬁrst 1000 fs of an IBr− (CO2 )13 trajectory that ends as ground-state
recombined IBr− product, seen previously in Figure 5.4(c). The plots detail asa function of time, from top to bottom, the adiabatic energies and the currently
occupied state in bold, the charge localization on the solute, the solvent coordi­
nate, ΔΦ(=dPhi), and the I-Br bond length. The three vertical dashed lines areused as guides for the eye for important point in the trajectory which are detailedin Section 5.2.2.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

xxii
5.8

Plot of solvent coordinate versus solute bond length for all ultraviolet (355-nm)
simulated IBr− (CO2 )11 trajectories that end as IBr− on the ground state. Only
the motion on two highest excited states are plotted for clarity. Yellow and brownrepresent trajectory dynamics on the fourth- and ﬁfth-excited states, respectively,
in analogy to Figure 2.1. The blue-and-yellow circles represent hops from theyellow to blue (next-lowest) states. dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in Angstroms. 144

5.9

Branching ratios for UV (355-nm) photodissociation including results for tight
Lennard-Jones ﬁts to MRCI (red) and CCSD(T) (green) Br− · · · CO2 data as
seen in Figure 2.7, as well as the normal Lennard-Jones ﬁt from Table 2.3 (dashwith squares) and experimental data (line) from Sanford, et al [79]. . . . . . . . . 147

6.1

Potential energy curves for the six lowest spin-orbit states of IBr− and the 23
states of IBr calculated by Patchkovskii [164]. The bold curve for IBr− corre­
sponds to the A� state. The bold and dotted curves in IBr correspond to statesaccessible and forbidden, respectively, by the one-electron rule from the A� statein IBr− . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

6.2(a) Simulated absorption spectrum for IBr− (CO2 )8 trajectories trapped in the A�state well. (b) Potential energy surface for an IBr− (CO2 )8 conﬁguration that istrapped in the A� well. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

6.3(a) Simulated absorption spectrum for an IBr− (CO2 )14 trajectory trapped in
the A� well on the +ΔΦ side. (b) Potential energy surface for IBr− (CO2 )14
conﬁguration that is trapped in the A� well. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Chapter 1

Introduction

One of the major challenges of physical chemistry—indeed, chemistry as a whole—is to
study the eﬀects of solvation on chemical reactions. From the use of a single water molecule
to catalyze a reaction to biochemistry, solvation is a basic process whose eﬀects can alter the
progress of a reaction. By altering the local environment around a reacting species, solvent can
profoundly inﬂuence the the course of a reaction. The solvent’s eﬀect can be straightforward,
such as providing a mechanical block that prevents dissociation, or absorbing the energy released
in a reaction into its internal vibrations. At a deeper level, a solvent can perturb the energetics ofthe reactants, opening up new and interesting dynamics. In this work, we will explore one cornerof this vast universe of study: the eﬀects of a solvent on photodissociation of gas-phase clusters.
The use of clusters as a way to study condensed-phase solvation dynamics in a microscopic
manner is a ﬁeld with a long and successful history [1, 2]. By avoiding the “averaging” eﬀects
which are inherent in the simulation of a reaction in, say, liquid solvent, we are able to explore
the solvent’s eﬀect in a more detailed manner. We can build a cluster, solvent molecule bymolecule, and see how each aﬀects a chemical process.

1.1

Studies of Solvent Eﬀects in I2 Photodissociation
The study of solvent eﬀects in photodissociation reactions began with the work of Franck

and Rabinowitch [3]. In their seminal work, they studied the photodissociation of I2 in liquid andfound that recombination could occur. They attributed this phenomenon to the so-called “cage2
eﬀect” due to the collisions of the chromophore with the solvent molecules. Work by Noyes andcoworkers [4–7] further explored this phenomenon by determining how altering the photon energy
or solvent characteristics aﬀected the caging of the solute. The ﬁrst time-resolved experiments by
Eisenthal [8] of I2 in carbon tetrachloride and hexadecane determined that the recombination of
I2 was a solvent-dependant process which occurred on the time scale of hundreds of picoseconds.
Modeling of the recombination dynamics by Nesbitt and Hynes [9] in 1982, however,showed that this time scale more accurately accounted for the vibrational relaxation of I2 . In­
stead, the accepted view [10] from later experiments and theory is that caging and electronic
relaxation occurs on time scales of a single picosecond with vibrational relaxation of the chro­mophore and its interaction with the solvent being responsible for the slower recovery. This
demonstrated the need for experiment to be complemented by theory in order to correctlyinterpret results.

1.2

Studies of Solvent Eﬀects in Dihalide Anion Photodissociation
In the late 1980s, the Lineberger group began a series of studies of dihalide anion pho­todissociation in solvated clusters [11–13]. While the use of a charged solute is useful in thatsolute-solvent interactions are enhanced, the primary beneﬁt was more practical. By using
charged species, the Lineberger group was able to use mass spectrometry to select clusters forstudy by their size. Thus, the eﬀect of one or two solvent molecules on the photodissociation
could be compared to that of tens of solvent molecules. By using size-selected clusters, theexperiments could build a more detailed, microscopic picture of the eﬀect of solvent on thesolute.
The Lineberger group ﬁrst began their studies of size-selected clusters with the near−infrared photodissociation of Br−
2 (CO2 )n and I2 (CO2 )n [12, 14]. In these experiments, a near-infrared photon (720-790 nm) excited the cluster to the repulsive A� state (seen in Figure 1.1(a)for I−
2 ) and the resulting dissociated and recombined product ratios were determined. It was
found that the caging fraction, the number of products which recombined instead of dissociating,3
was a strong function of the number of solvent molecules. By the completion of a full shell ofsolvent, the caging eﬃciency was 100% [11–14]. This is in contrast to I2 in liquid where up to 90%of the solute dissociates in some solvents [10]. Thus, the long-range solute-solvent electrostaticforces in this charged system was able to greatly enhance caging, eﬀects also seen in studiesof I−
2 in Ar [15, 16], N2 O [17], and OCS [18–20] as the solvent. In this overview, we will focus−
mainly on I−
2 (CO2 )n , with brief mentions of I2 in argon, as these were the systems modeled by

the Parson group.
The ﬁrst simulations of dihalide anion clusters to include the excited state dynamics inany form were undertaken by Perera and Amar [21, 22] who studied Br−
2 in argon and CO2 .
In their model they included only two states where nonadiabatic transitions were included, ad
hoc, at long bond lengths and they modeled charge ﬂow by allowing the charge of the resulting
dissociating molecule to randomly build to -1 on either the solvated or unsolvated bromine. In
the end, they found they needed to include both dissociation possibilities (charge-solvated and-unsolvated) in order to compare to the experimental results.
In the late 1990s, simulation of I−
2 (CO2 )n bloomed with the independent development by
Parson and coworkers [23–29] and Coker and coworkers [30–33] of a model that treated solvationeﬀects in the ground and excited states in a consistent fashion. The diﬀerence in the two models
are based on the eﬀective Hamiltonian used to evaluate the interactions. Coker and coworkers
used a Hamiltonian based on Last and George’s Diatomics-in-Ionic-Systems model [34], anaugmented form of Bader’s Diatomics-in-Molecules method that allowed for polarization bycharged atoms. The Parson group’s Hamiltonian is based on the ab initio curves for the bareanion being studied [35–37]. The curves calculated by Maslen, Faeder, and Parson for I−
2 andICl− , shown in Figure 1.1, include all six spin-orbit states that describe the complete valenceenergetics. The one-electron density matrix is extracted from these calculations by way oftransition distributed multipole analysis [38] which allows us to model the solute response tosolvent eﬀects with nonadiabatic transitions handled by Tully’s surface-hopping method [39]. A
brief description of this model is provided in Chapter 2 and can be found in greater detail in the

-1
2

0

1

3

2

2 +

A' Πg,1/2

4(a)

5
R (Ang)X Σ u,1/2

A Πg,3/222

a Πu,3/2

2

a' Πu,1/2

2 +B Σ g,1/2

6

7

−

−

I+I

I* + I

8

Energy (eV)
-1
2

0

1

2

2

3

2 +

4

X Σ 1/2

A Π3/22(b)

5
R (Ang)a Π3/22

a' Π1/2

A' Π1/2

2

2 +B Σ 1/2

6−

7

I + Cl−−I + ClI + Cl*−I* + Cl

8−
Figure 1.1: Potential energy curves for the six lowest spin-orbit states of (a) I−
2 and (b) ICl including spin-orbit coupling [35–37]. The Hund’s case(a) labels used here are approximately valid near Re .

Energy (eV)

2

4

5
appropriate publications [27, 37]. Section 2.2 will detail the construction of ab initio curves forIBr− that are integrated into Maslen, Faeder, and Parson model for the simulations presented
in this work.
Simulations of I−
2 near-infrared photodissociation in CO2 and argon by Parson andcoworkers have been quite successful in duplicating the photoproduct branching ratios. The
simulations showed that the high caging eﬃciency seen in the experiments of I−
2 (CO2 )n is due
to concerted charge and solvent ﬂow in the clusters, all due to the perturbation of the solvent.
For example, although the A� state in I−
2 is repulsive, see Figure 1.1(a), the inclusion of a single
CO2 solvent molecule makes the state no longer dissociative. Rather, nonadiabatic transitions
to lower states are needed for both dissociation and recombination. In systems using argon asa solvent, the dissociated products often had a bimodal mass spectrum which the simulations
reproduced. The simulations showed that this structure is due to argon’s much weaker inter­action with iodine compared to CO2 , that dissociation could occur on A� or after nonadiabatic
transition to a lower state. The energy transferred to the solvent upon hopping to a lower state
allowed more solvent to boil oﬀ of the cluster and led to two diﬀerent fragment mass patterns.
The Lineberger group also carried out experiments of I−
2 (CO2 )n using ultraviolet exci­
tation to the B state [18, 19]. It was found that ultraviolet photoexcitation of I−
2 (CO2 )n led
to three product channels, a recombined product and two dissociation channels leading to I−
accompanied by both spin-orbit excited iodine neutrals and ground-state (quenched) neutrals.
The experiments saw these two dissociation channels as a bimodal distribution in the mass
distribution of the product anions after 7-8 solvent molecules were present. The higher massfragments were accompanied by spin-orbit excited iodine neutral (2 P1/2 ), while the lower mass
products were accompanied by quenched (2 P3/2 ) neutral. The recombined products were foundto be strongly dependent on the number of solvent molecules, with 7-8 CO2 needed before
spin-orbit quenching could occur.
Parson and coworkers’ simulations of the ultraviolet photodissociation of I−
2 (CO2 )n [40,41] quite nicely reproduced the ﬁndings of experiment and conﬁrmed that the bimodal distri­6bution was indeed a signature of the two I− channels. Likewise, the recombination channel
was found to be quite eﬃcient at higher masses. In fact, the simulations preceded experimentand predicted the onset of the extensive spin-orbit quenching. Beyond just good agreement inphotoproduct branching ratios, the simulations were able to provide a mechanism for the onsetof the spin-orbit quenching in I−
2 (CO2 )n : solvent-mediated charge transfer. It was found thatwhen the clusters had 8-9 CO2 molecules, the solvent asymmetry in the cluster was large enoughto overcome the 0.94 eV spin-orbit splitting before the I-I bond grew too large for the accompa­
nying charge transfer to not occur. An extension of a Marcus parabola model derived from thetheory of electron transfer in solution [42], ﬁrst used to help explain the near-infrared simula­tions, provided an additional visual explanation why large solvent asymmetries were necessary
for spin-orbit quenching to begin in I−
2 (CO2 )n .
Dihalide anion systems have also been studied by the Lineberger group in the timedomain using an near-infrared photon to begin dissociation and then a second pulse to probe
the recombination dynamics as the cluster begins to reform [16, 43–48]. It was found that theabsorption recovery occurred on a 10-20 ps time scale, a ﬁnding also supported by experimentof I−
2 in various liquids by Barbara and coworkers [49–52]. One odd feature of the recovery
experiments was the appearance of a peak at 2 ps, much faster than the overall recovery signal.
While this was ﬁrst attributed to recombination on the A state, the simulations on the ultraviolet
photodissociation of I−
2 (CO2 )n , vide infra, were able to provide the correct mechanism.
Similarly, the Neumark group has carried out many photoelectron spectroscopy experi­−ments of I−
2 [53–74] where after the pump pulse to begin dissociation of I2 , an ultraviolet photon

detaches the electron. The excess electron kinetic energy is monitored against the pump-probe
delay which allows for complementary dynamical information to the absorption recovery exper­
iments. Their experiments on I−
2 (CO2 )n [58, 65, 67, 69, 71] also conﬁrm the 10-20 ps recovery
times.
Parson and coworkers have also modeled the absorption recovery for near-infrared pho­
toexcitation of I−
2 [23, 75] as well as the time-resolved photoelectron spectrum [25] with success.

7
The experimental and simulated ﬁndings that spin-orbit quenching in I−
2 (CO2 )n is very eﬃcienthelped to explain a minor mystery in the Lineberger group’s study of the 720-nm pump/720-nm
probe absorption recovery dynamics [44,45,47]. This mystery involved the assignment of a peakat 2 picoseconds in the otherwise much longer recombination of I−
2 (CO2 )n . It was originallyattributed to passage of recombining clusters in strong absorption regions in an excited state,
namely a ← A transitions near the repulsive wall, a mechanism similar to that seen in studiesof I−
2 in liquids [49, 50]. Instead, very large-scale simulations [75] found that the 2-ps peak wascaused by probe absorption of recombining trajectories from the ground X state at long bondlength (RI−I > 3.7 Å) to the spin-orbit excited B and a� states. The eﬃcient spin-orbit quench­
ing in I−
2 (CO2 )n then allows for the experimentally seen two-photon fragments. The belief thatspin-orbit quenching in I−
2 (CO2 )n would be ineﬃcient led to the dismissal of this mechanism in
the earlier experimental work [45, 47]. This success of the molecular dynamics simulations to
help explain puzzling recombination dynamics presages ﬁndings in this thesis where simulationsof IBr− (CO2 )n ground-state recombination are able to explain surprising experimental results.
−
Less well understood than I−
2 (CO2 )n are the dynamics of ICl (CO2 )n clusters. With

the breaking of the solute symmetry by using a heteronuclear chromophore, mass spectrometry
can now distinguish two dissociated products, I− and Cl− , along with recombined ICl− , see
Figure 1.1(b). Both near-infrared and ultraviolet photodissociation experiments carried out by
the Lineberger group [46, 76, 77] show that once again the solvent has a strong eﬀect on therecombination and spin-orbit relaxation dynamics.
−
Compared to I−
2 (CO2 )n , the dynamics of ICl (CO2 )n demonstrate diﬀerent behavior.

Recombined ICl− products are seen in clusters as small as one solvent molecule and peaking at
ICl− (CO2 )5 . With larger clusters, though, ICl− -based product rapidly decreases and dissociatedCl− product becomes dominant and the sole product channel open with a full solvent shell.
Simulations by Faeder and Parson group [37] have shown that this large-cluster Cl− product is
actually produced adiabatically with spin-orbit excited iodine. Unfortunately, this large cluster
behavior along with a low two-photon absorption cross-section for ICl− (CO2 )n has made time­

8
resolved studies of recombination dynamics problematic. We hope, however, that the researchpresented in this thesis will be able to shed light on the less-understood ICl− (CO2 )n dynamics.

1.3

Dissertation Overview
It was hoped that IBr− could provide a bridge between the well understood dynamics

of homonuclear I−
2 (CO2 )n and the less successful partnership of modeling and experiment inheteronuclear ICl− (CO2 )n . The studies of ICl− (CO2 )n provided glimpses that suggest thatbreaking the solute symmetry could lead to new and interesting solvation dynamics. But thelarge diﬀerence in the solvation characteristics of iodine and chlorine has made interpretation of
the simulations with respect to experiment diﬃcult. The study of IBr− (CO2 )n could therefore
provide a gentler system to study solvation dynamics in an asymmetric solute.
This dissertation hopes to show that this was indeed the case. In Chapter 2, we will
introduce the background of the simulations of IBr− (CO2 )n photodissociation presented herein.
We will begin with a brief overview of the molecular dynamics method we use for our simulations.
Then, we will present the results of quantum chemistry calculations on the six lowest spin-orbit
states of IBr− which provide our molecular dynamics program with the necessary input toperform the nonadiabatic molecular dynamics. We will use this new data, along with LennardJones parameters determined for the Br· · · CO2 interaction, to simulate the absorption spectra
for IBr− and compare it to experiment. We will also explore the properties of minimum energy
clusters for IBr− (CO2 )n and Br− (CO2 )n and how the gradual build-up of solvent aﬀects theenergetics of these systems.
In Chapter 3, we will present the ﬁndings of our simulations of near-infrared (790-nm)
photodissociation product branching ratios of IBr− (CO2 )n in comparison to experiment [78,79].
We will see that while 50-ps long simulations (a time scale commonly used in previous simula­tions) seemed to provide a good agreement with experiment, they actually obscured interesting
behavior. We will see that after 50 ps, clusters like IBr− (CO2 )8 were in fact trapped on an
excited state. We will use extrapolations of long-time simulations performed for later work to9show the correct long-time branching ratios for our simulations. We will also examine the sensi­
tivity of our photoproduct ratios to photoexcitation wavelength and Lennard-Jones short-range
parameters.
One of the main reasons that IBr− (CO2 )n was selected for study after ICl− (CO2 )n wasthat it was hoped that time-resolved experiments could be carried out. The low absorption
cross-section of ICl− (CO2 )n in the wavelengths available for femtosecond study had prevented
a detailed study of the ground-state recombination dynamics of an asymmetric solute. How­ever, when the ﬁrst attempt was made to study the ground-state recombination dynamics ofIBr− (CO2 )8 , the ﬁrst cluster which exhibits total recombination in the photoproduct studies, it
was found that the recombination occurred on a time scale of nanoseconds [77,79], very diﬀerent
to the picosecond scale of I−
2 (CO2 )n . Subsequent experiments [80] found that the ground-state
recombination recovery times depend strongly upon the number of solute molecules, and in an
unexpected fashion. The addition of two solvent molecules, from IBr− (CO2 )6 to IBr− (CO2 )8 ,increases the recovery time by two orders of magnitude. In Chapter 4, we will present a surveyof simulated results which attempts to explain the large eﬀects of the solvent on the groundstate recombination dynamics. With these simulations, we extend our group’s success in using
our model to help explain puzzling results in experiments, as seen with the 2-ps peak in the−I−
2 (CO2 )n time-resolved studies [75]. We will also present simulations on larger IBr (CO2 )nclusters which predict a turnaround in recovery times from the nanosecond scale of IBr− (CO2 )8back to tens of picoseconds.
In Chapter 5 we will focus on the ultraviolet (355-nm) photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )nand compare the experimental product ratios to our simulations. While our simulations willshow worse agreement with experiment than the near-infrared simulation did, we will see thatan analysis of the ultraviolet simulations still provide insight into understanding the experi­mental results. At large cluster size, our simulations predict the appearance of ground-state
recombination IBr− product as a major channel, something not supported in experiment whichsees dissociation as the major product even at the largest cluster sizes. We will present a hy­

10pothesis for the possible reason for this discrepancy: deactivation of spin-orbit excited bromineby the vibrations of the solvent. Previously, it was discussed how simulations of the ultravio­
let photodissociation of I−
2 (CO2 )n by Parson and coworkers [40, 41] supported a mechanism of
solvent-mediated charge transfer for the eﬃcient spin-orbit quenching of iodine. We will see that
this same process is the mechanism of spin-orbit quenching present in our simulations of theultraviolet photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )n . Since the experimental results seem to preclude
this mechanism by the lack of ground-state recombined product, we will hypothesize that ourmodel must neglect a competing process. We will argue that the presence of an eﬃcient spinorbit quenching process between bromine and the vibrations of CO2 —which is treated as rigid
in our model—is a viable candidate.
Finally, Chapter 6 will explore possible future directions for our simulations and theirrelationship to previous work by our group and ongoing and future work in the Lineberger group.
Among these will be the modeling of the time-dependent photoelectron spectra of IBr− (CO2 )n ,a present area of study experimentally, as well as revisiting the dynamics of ICl− (CO2 )n given
the knowledge and experience gained by the work with IBr− (CO2 )n presented in this thesis.

Chapter 2Theoretical Methods

In this chapter we will present both the theoretical methods used in our simulationsof IBr− (CO2 )n photodissociation and applications of these methods to basic properties ofIBr− (CO2 )n and Br− (CO2 )n clusters.
First, we will present a brief overview of the nonadiabatic molecular dynamics (MD)method developed in our group by Paul Maslen, James Faeder, and Robert Parson [26,27,36,37],
hereafter referred to as MFP. This will consist of a summary of both the eﬀective Hamiltonianand dynamics methods in our model.
We will then present the quantum chemistry calculations which were necessary for sim­
ulations of IBr− (CO2 )n . While previous workers had calculated the ab initio potential energy−
surface (PES) and associated properties needed for our MD method for I−
2 and ICl- [36], no suchcalculations were done for IBr− . We will present internally-contracted multireference conﬁgura­tion interaction (icMRCI) calculations for the lowest six spin-orbit states for IBr− and compare
the resulting energetics with experimental values. We will also document the calculation of thenecessary short-range Lennard-Jones (LJ) parameters needed for our eﬀective Hamiltonian.
With these new parameters, we will then explore calculated properties of the IBr− (CO2 )nsystem. First, we will analyze a calculated absorption spectrum for IBr− and compare it toexperimental ﬁndings. Then, we will explore the properties of minimum energy clusters forboth the IBr− (CO2 )n and Br− (CO2 )n systems and how our model compares to experiment.

12

2.1

Molecular Dynamics
All the dynamics simulations presented in this thesis are an application of a nonadiabatic

molecular dynamics (MD) method ﬁrst developed for use in investigating solvated I−
2 . Thismodel was the result of many years of work by MFP, and the associated publications [26, 27, 36]
and Dr Faeder’s thesis [37] are the complete reference to the model. We present here a briefsummary of this model in reference to the IBr− (CO2 )n simulations.

2.1.1

Eﬀective Hamiltonian
Assuming the Born-Oppenheimer (BO) approximation, the electronic Hamiltonian isexpressed for the solute-solvent system as a function of the nuclear coordinates by means of
distributed multipole analysis (DMA) [38,81–85]. In the distributed multipole (DM) expansion,
several sites are chosen within each molecule and then the multipoles for the entire molecule are
divided into contributions from each atom at each site. In the case of IBr− , the expansion sites
selected were the two atom centers and two point equidistant to the nuclei along the internuclear
bond. At each site, the moments are expanded in real spherical tensor moments [86].
As an example, the intermolecular electrostatic energy for non-overlapping charge distri­butions takes the form:
Eelectrostatic =

1
2

�

A B

i j
i
j
QA
QB
t Ttu
u

(2.1)

Ai ,Bj ,t,u

where the sum runs over the sites, Ai , Bj , and multipole orders, t, u, on each pair of moleculesin the system, with the factor of 1/2 compensating for double counting. The elements in theinteraction tensor, T , are complicated but have been tabulated [38, 86, 87] and are eﬃciently
calculated [88–91]. Note that single molecule terms, T Ai Aj , are always zero as it is assumed
these eﬀects are accounted for in the intramolecular energy.
If the components of the electronic Hamiltonian are then expressed in terms of DM
operators, one can construct the electrostatic Hamiltonian operator:Ĥelectrostatic =1
Q·T·Q+q·T·Q
2

(2.2)

13
where we have switched to a more compact tensor notation. In Equation 2.2, Q and q are theDM operator tensors for the solvent and solute respectively, and T is the DM interaction tensor.
Finally, one can introduce a generalized potential for the solvent V deﬁned asV ≡T·Q(2.3)

and a corresponding solute generalized potential vv ≡ T · q.

(2.4)

The generalized potentials contain the electrostatic potential and all derivatives at every pointin the solvent-solute system.
With this framework, the full eﬀective Hamiltonian due to MFP [26, 27, 36, 37] is:ĥef f = Eintra + ĥisolute + ĥshort−range
1+ (Q + q) · T · (Q + q)
2
1
− (Q + q) · T · χ · T · (Q + q)
2

(2.5)

which in the generalized potential nomenclature becomesĥef f = Eintra + ĥisolute + ĥshort−range
1+ (Q + q) · (V + v)
2
1
− (V + v) · χ · (V + v).
2

(2.6)

where we have introduced three new terms, Eintra + ĥisolute + ĥshort−range , and a new oper­
ator tensor, χ,the generalized electric susceptibility which describes the electronic polarization
response of the solvent/solute to the generalized potential. For further details, we once again
refer back to the appropriate publications [26, 27, 36, 37] but state here that the second line of
the eﬀective Hamiltonian, Equation 2.6, deals with the electrostatic energy due to interactionof the permanent moments and the third line is the induction-dispersion energy associated with
the induced moments.
Of the other three terms in the ﬁrst line of Equation 2.6, Eintra describes the solvent14
internal degrees of freedom. In our model, we use rigid CO2 molecules and we set this term to
zero.
The second term, ĥisolute is the Hamiltonian of the isolated solute and is decomposed asĥisolute = ĥa + ĥSO .

(2.7)

ĥa refers to the Hund’s case (a) states for the solute and ĥSO is the spin-orbit (SO) operator−
that transforms them into Hund’s case (c) states. We note that in the case of I−
2 and IClthe ab initio energies were calculated in case (a), with an empirical one-electron SO operator
added on a posteriori as the quantum chemistry program used at the time did not reliably
calculate SO operators. In the case of IBr− , the spin-orbit operator used was a SO eﬀective corepotential (ECP), as detailed below. However, in order to be used by our MD program, the case(a) and spin-orbit operators were extracted from the quantum chemistry program that we used.
Finally, ĥshort−range is included to account for the short-range interactions that our DMA
approximation neglects: the dispersion forces and exchange-repulsion forces. This operator ispartitioned as follows:solvent−solventĥshort−range = ĥsolute−solvent
short−range + E(2.8)

where the solvent-solvent interaction energy, E solvent−solvent , is assumed to be independentof the solute wavefunction and is just a function of the solvent nuclear separation. For all
interactions, it is assumed that the electrostatic terms will dominate both mixing and longrange eﬀects. Moreover, although short-range eﬀects are dependent on the state of the solute,
we assume that this state dependence will be small and thus use state-independent empiricalparameters.
The short-range interactions are represented as a sum of pair-wise Lennard-Jones (LJ)
potentials,
�Ĥshort−range =

�
i<j

4�ij

6
12
σij
σij
− 6
12
Rij
Rij

�
(2.9)

where the CO2 · · · CO2 and I· · · CO2 parameters are taken from MFP [26, 27, 36, 37] and the
Br· · · CO2 interactions are calculated and tabulated below in Section 2.2.2.

15
2.1.2

Overview of Molecular Dynamics Methods
We now present a short description of how the eﬀective Hamiltonian is used to computethe molecular dynamics performed in our method. As always, further reference may be foundin the appropriate publications [26, 27, 36, 37].
In our method, classical dynamics are performed on the current adiabatic states cal­culated from the eﬀective Hamiltonian with nonadiabatic transitions (“hops”) to other statestreated via a surface-hopping algorithm brieﬂy described below. At each step in the trajectory,
the eigenvectors and eigenstates of ĥef f are obtained by diagonalization of Equation 2.6. All
solute state energies and DM operators are obtained via splined data evaluated at the current
conﬁguration. Then, forces on the current adiabatic state are calculated from derivatives of theeﬀective Hamiltonian with respect to the nuclear coordinate, R, using the Hellmann-Feynman
theorem
F = −�R �ψ|ĥef f |ψ� = −�ψ|�R ĥef f |ψ�.

(2.10)

Using these forces the trajectories are propagated according to the velocity Verlet algorithm [92].
In order to simulate the nonadiabatic dynamics during a trajectory Tully’s surfacehopping method [93] is used. In this method quantum amplitudes are integrated using thetime-dependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE)ı�c˙i =

��
�
cj Ei δij − ı�Ṙ(t) · dij(2.11)jwhere ci is the quantum amplitude for state i, Ei is the energy of state i, Ṙ(t) is the nuclear
velocity vector, and dij is the nonadiabatic coupling vector between states i and j. At each time
step, the hopping probability between states is computed and transitions are made according
to Tully’s “fewest-switches” algorithm [93]. This algorithm minimizes the number of hops while
making sure that the ensemble per-state probabilities approach the probabilities from the TDSE.
Following previous work [26, 27, 36, 37], we also use a quantum decoherence reset interval of 200
fs to prevent spurious coherence eﬀects [93, 94].
The quantum amplitudes are integrated using an adaptive Runge-Kutta method [95] at a16much smaller time step than that used for the classical dynamics (1.0 fs in this work). In regionsof strong nonadiabatic coupling, the classical timestep is also shortened to ensure accuracy inthe transition zones. Further speciﬁcs of each ensemble’s MD setup will be provided when
examining the results of the simulations.

2.2

Quantum Chemistry
All quantum chemistry calculations in the following section were performed using MOL­

PRO 2002.6 [96], a high-level ab initio quantum chemistry application. The MOLPRO code was
modiﬁed in analogy to changes made by Paul Maslen to MOLPRO94 [97], to allow for calcula­tion of transition distributed multipoles, a major component of our molecular dynamics (MD)simulation program.

2.2.1

Potential Energy Surface for IBr−
As a dihalide anion, IBr− , behaves like a one-electron molecule with the valence holetaking the place of the electron. Considering the valence s subshell as closed, the electronic
structure is determined by 11 valence p electrons in 6 valence p orbitals. In the absence ofspin-orbit coupling, this corresponds to 4 levels from 12 molecular states, 22 Σ and 22 Π, which
dissociate to a 1 S anion and a 2 P neutral. These are the Hund’s case (a) states and they are
examined in Section 2.2.1.4. The spin-orbit (SO) coupling breaks the degeneracy of the 2 P
neutral into 2 P3/2 and 2 P1/2 states giving rise to four case (c) asymptotes.
The potential energy surface (PES) for the lowest six states for IBr− including spin-orbit
interaction is presented in Figure 2.1. The PES was constructed using MOLPRO 2002.6 [96]and provides the isolated solute Hamiltonian, ĥisolute , Equation 2.7, needed in the eﬀective
Hamiltonian, Equation 2.6. Note that although only six states are shown, each state is, inreality, doubly degenerate in accordance to Kramers’ theorem [98, 99]. In our MD model werigorously keep track of all twelve states, but for practical purposes we refer here in this thesis
only to the six states of IBr− . Though we use case (a) labels for the states of IBr− , which, as

17

2
2 +

B Σ 1/2

1.5

2

a' Π1/2

Energy (eV)1−

I* + Br−I + Br*0.5

2

a Π3/2−

I + Br2

A' Π1/20

I + Br−2

A Π3/2-0.5
2 +X Σ 1/2
-1
2

3

4

5
R (Ang)6

7

8

Figure 2.1: Potential energy curves for the six lowest spin-orbit states of IBr− . The Hund’s case(a) labels used here are approximately valid near Re .

18
shown in Section 2.2.1.4 are approximately valid around Re , the only rigorously good quantum
number in case (c) is Ω, the projection of the total angular momentum along the bond axis.
The X, A, . . . labels are nevertheless retained here since they are widely used in the literature.
As in our group’s previous studies of I−
2 , above the ground X state, upper case labels are used
for states that are “bright” with respect to absorption, while the lower case labels are “dark”(Figure 1.1(a)). While this “bright/dark” distinction may not hold for IBr− , as it was for I−
2 , wecontinue this scheme in our studies of IBr− (CO2 )n as much of the discussion in former and future
publications is couched in terms of, e.g., near-infrared (IR) excitation as a A� ← X transition.
For IBr− , only the ground state is strongly attractive, with higher states either repulsive
or slightly bound. The six states lead to four asymptotes. The lowest four states dissociate
to atomic states corresponding to 1 S and 2 P3/2 and are split by the electron aﬃnity diﬀerenceof bromine and iodine. The fourth and ﬁfth excited states, corresponding to 1 S and spin-orbit
excited 2 P1/2 at dissociation, are separated from the lower asymptotes by the spin-orbit splittingof bromine and iodine.
Finally, we note the coloring scheme used in Figure 2.1 with black representing the
ground state, red the ﬁrst excited state, and so on. This scheme will become important in plotsof trajectories that will be presented in later sections concerning the photodissociation dynamics
of IBr− (CO2 )n . In most of these plots, the coloring can usually be counted on to correspondto the like bare ion states; however, our plot and ﬁgure generation tools assign colors strictlyon the basis of energy ordering. Since the solvent strongly perturbs the electronic states of thebare anion, the color-coded states in the ﬁgures will not always correspond to the color-codedstates of the bare anion. Instances in which this is important will be noted in the text.

2.2.1.1

Basis Set and Eﬀective Core Potentials Used

Our calculations for IBr− use the energy-consistent eﬀective core potential (ECP) of the
Stuttgart-Bonn group [100]. Speciﬁcally, we use the large-core MDF ECPs which are based upon
multiconﬁgurational Dirac-Hartree-Fock (MCDHF) calculations of the neutral atom (sometimes

19called ECPnMDF where n is the number of electrons replaced). These also include a spin-orbit
ECP and a core polarization potential (CPP). The CPP models the charge-induced dipole
interaction of the core and are included in our calculations.
The basis set used is an augmented form of the standard basis set included with the
Stuttgart MDF ECPs. The stock basis set for this ECP is (6s6p)/[4s4p], but an augmented(7s7p3d2f )/[5s5p3d2f ] basis, which was used in the original paper [100], was graciously suppliedby the authors [101]. The extra functions for iodine are an s function with an exponent of 0.030;
a p function with an exponent of 0.023; three d functions with exponents of 0.3550, 0.1851,
and 0.1025; and, two f functions with exponents of 0.4330 and 0.2026. The extra functions
for bromine are an s function with an exponent of 0.041; a p function with an exponent of
0.030; three d functions with exponents of 0.7063, 0.2639, and 0.1047; and, two f functions
with exponents of 0.5515 and 0.2580. This augmented basis was used primarily because ourtransition distributed multipole analysis (DMA) includes quadrupole terms which are better
described using d and f functions. Electronic accuracy also increased with the augmented basis.
Use of the newer small-core MDF-based aug-cc-pVnZ-PP potentials and basis sets [102]were also explored. Naively, it was assumed that the much larger basis set combined with theinclusion of more electrons with a small-core ECP would enhance energetic performance, albeit
at the expense of computational time. However, it was found that the spin-orbit ECPs included
with these sets gave poorer energetics than the large-core MDF used in this study.
−
Finally, in previous work, surfaces for I−
2 and ICl were calculated by Maslen, et al [36]using the MOLPRO94 [97] program, see Figure 1.1. In that work, the medium-size polarized
all-electron basis sets of Sadlej [103, 104] were used. With the suggested additional polarization
functions, the sets were (13s10p4d)/[7s5p2d] and (19s15p12d4f )/[11s9p6d2f ] for chlorine andiodine, respectively, where chlorine’s ﬁrst contracted d function was scaled by 0.9195 to reduce
the error in the electron aﬃnity diﬀerence of I and Cl [36,37]. ECPs were avoided due to doubtsof their accuracy at the time. Calculations of IBr− were undertaken using the Sadlej basis
and MOLPRO 2002’s SO code but the energetics were found to be much worse than with the20large-core MDF and computational performance greatly suﬀered due to the immense size of thebasis set, so these basis sets were not used.

2.2.1.2

Details of Calculation Theory

The internally-contracted multireference conﬁguration interaction (icMRCI) program of
MOLPRO [96] was used for calculation of the curves and all properties. First, a state-averaged
multiconﬁgurational self-consistent ﬁeld (SA-MCSCF) of all six states of IBr− is done. Three
2-state icMRCI calculations were then carried out, one for each symmetry (done at C2v ). The
icMRCI method is a singles-and-doubles multireference conﬁguration interaction (MRCISD) in
which the pairs are internally contracted to reduce the size of the conﬁguration interaction (CI)matrix [105–107]. During the MRCISD calculation, the two valence s and six valence p orbitals
are correlated. The size-consistency errors inherent in conﬁguration interaction calculations areameliorated through use of Pople’s cluster correction [96, 108].
Beyond this, transition DMA, complete active-space self-consistent ﬁeld (CASSCF) an­
gular momentum, nonadiabatic coupling matrix elements (NACMEs), and SO calculations werealso carried out, each of which is required by our MD program.

2.2.1.3

Analysis of the IBr− Potential Energy Surface Properties

In Table 2.2.1.3, the calculated energetics and properties of the IBr− PES are compared
to available experimental data. The ﬁrst sets of data deal with the atomic data that can beextracted from the asymptotes of the IBr− PES, compared to the known spin-orbit splitting
and electron aﬃnities of the isolated atoms.
Our calculations underestimate the SO splittings by 30-50 meV, a relative error of 5­
7%. Likewise, the calculated electron aﬃnity diﬀerence between iodine and bromine is foundto be within 4% of the actual value. Considering we are using a large-core ECP and SO ECP,
this performance is quite remarkable given the small size of our multireference conﬁgurationinteraction (MRCI) active space.

21

Spin-Orbit
Splittings:

Calc. (eV)Expt. (eV)Δ(Expt. - Calc.)Br:I:

0.42370.89320.4569a0.9427a0.03310.0495ΔEAb :

0.31560.3045c-0.0111

D0 :0.948dEA(IBr− ):Re (Å):

2.494
3.05

1.10(4)e0.954(6)f
2.500(6)f
3.06(3)f

0.152
0.006
0.006
0.01

a

: Ref. 109.
: Electron aﬃnity diﬀerence between I and Br.
e: Ref. 110.
d
: Calculated using ωe = 118 cm−1 , see text.
e: Ref. 79.
f: Preliminary results, Ref. 111.
b

Table 2.1: Summary of the energetics and properties from ab initio calculations of IBr− .

22The molecular properties of IBr− are compared to experiments in the second part ofTable 2.2.1.3. Our calculations give a calculated well depth, De , of 0.956 eV at an equilibrium
bond length, Re , of 3.05 Å. Translational energy-release spectroscopy at a series of wavelengths
from 660 and 790 nm has provided an experimental value for D0 of 1.10 ± 0.04 eV [79]. Morerecent photoelectron spectroscopy experiments by the Lineberger group have found a moreaccurate D0 value for IBr− of 0.954 ± 0.006 eV [111]. This is obviously an impressive match
to our calculated value for De , however, we feel that this is more likely the result of error
cancelation in the calculations rather than implicit veriﬁcation of our method. Our calculations
were not designed around ﬁnding the ground-state binding energy of IBr− but rather propertiesof all the valence states.
In order to more fairly compare the experimental and calculated well depth, a value forthe vibrational frequency of ωe = 118 cm−1 was obtained by analysis of the ground state using
Le Roy’s LEVEL 7.7 program [112]. This value is only an estimate as the LEVEL program
does not do half-integer rotational values, so the vibrational levels predicted are actually for
J = 0, whereas in the case of IBr− the ground state is Ω = 1/2 so that the ﬁrst state would
correspond to J = 1/2. Nevertheless, we can use an ωe ≈ 118 cm−1 to estimate that thediﬀerence between De and D0 for our PES is about 8 meV, leading to a calculated D0 = 948
meV. An experimental vibrational frequency of 136 cm−1 was obtained in solution [79], but noknown gas-phase measurement has been made.
A diﬀerence of 144 meV could be signiﬁcant for the dynamics of photodissociation. A
shallower well in simulations for the same photon energy corresponds to a larger kinetic energy
release (KER) in our simulations, c.f. experiment. In order to assess the eﬀect of this error,
simulations were carried out at an excitation energy of 840 nm and compared to those run at
790 nm. This was done rather than scaling the curves which might adversely aﬀect the excitedstates.
Likewise, the newer experimental D0 value leads to a smaller KER in our simulations
since the zero-point energy (ZPE) is not included in our simulations. In order to assess this23
error, simulations were carried out at 770 nm. While this does overestimate the ≈ 8 meV ZPE
oﬀset, it will provide a test of the eﬀect of less KER in the simulations. The results of thisanalysis are presented in Sections 3.4 and 4.6.

2.2.1.4

Mixing of the Hund’s Case (a) States Due to Spin-Orbit Coupling in
the IBr− PES

The Hund’s case (a) ab initio potential energy curves for IBr− are presented in Figure 2.2.
Since SO coupling is by deﬁnition not included, there are only four distinct curves leading to two
distinct asymptotes as the 2 P degeneracy of the neutral atom has not been lifted. The curves
show that, as in case (c), only the Σ state is strongly bound with the other states repulsive or
slightly attractive at longer bond lengths. As in ICl− [36,37], there is a crossing between the Σ∗and Π∗ curves due to the interaction between the quadrupole moment of the neutral atom andthe charge on the ion. The interaction is attractive for all the Σ states and repulsive for the Πstates.
In addition to the curves for case (a), we also tabulate in Table 2.2.1.4 the case (a) mixing
coeﬃcients for the case (c) curves in Figure 2.1. Since Ω is a conserved quantum number, there
is no mixing between the Σ and Π states for the Ω = 3/2 states at any internuclear separation.
For the Ω = 1/2 states, however, mixing can be very strong as the bond length increases.
Table 2.2.1.4 shows that the case (a) labels are approximately valid for the SO coupled curves
around Re . Each state at Re is > 90% Σ or Π and so those labels are valid. This is especiallytrue for the ground-state which is 98% case (a) at the equilibrium bond length. In comparison
to ICl− [36,37], there is more mixing in IBr− due to the stronger spin-orbit coupling in bromine
than in chlorine.
The mixing at Re also has great importance for the photodissociation experiments. At
Re the A� and a� states have some mixing with Σ∗ and it is this mixing that allows for transition
into these states. The perpendicular Σ → Π transition is far too weak to be used for experiment,

24

1.5
Σ*

1

Energy (eV)

0.5

Π*

−

I + Br0ΠI + Br

−

-0.5

-1
Σ
-1.5

2

3

4

5
R (Ang)6

7

Figure 2.2: Hund’s case (a) ab initio potential energy curves for IBr− .

8

25

State
2 +
Σ1/2 (X)2

Π3/2 (A)2

Π1/2 (A� )2

Π3/2 (a)2Π1/2 (a� )2Σ+
1/2 (B)

A)
R (˚
Re
5.3
∞
Re
5.3
∞
Re
5.3
∞
Re
5.3
∞
Re
5.3
∞
Re
5.3
∞

Σ
98.0
71.6
66.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
5.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
5.2
0.0
0.0
17.4
33.3

% of Basis Function Character
Σ∗
Π
Π∗
0.0
1.0
1.0
2.6
24.1
1.6
0.0
33.3
0.0
0.0
99.6
0.4
0.0
99.6
0.4
0.0
100.0
0.0
3.4
95.0
0.8
62.5
8.0
23.8
66.7
0.0
33.3
0.0
0.4
99.6
0.0
0.4
99.6
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.6
0.4
97.8
20.6
0.0
74.1
33.3
0.0
66.7
96.0
3.6
0.4
14.3
67.8
0.5
0.0
66.7
0.0

Table 2.2: Case (a) composition of the spin-orbit coupled states of IBr− as a function of thebond length.

26
while the parallel Σ → Σ∗ transition, i.e., B ← X, is always strong. However, the small amountof Σ∗ character that is mixed into the A� state at Re is what gives the A� ← X peak its intensity,and thus makes the near-IR experiment possible. In Section 2.2.3, an absorption spectrum is
calculated from the ground state for IBr− (Figure 2.9). The three largest peaks are, in order,
B ← X, A� ← X, and a� ← X just as the case (a) mixing coeﬃcients imply.
As the bond is extended just slightly to 5.3 Å, the mixing changes quite rapidly. The case(a) labels become less appropriate as more mixing occurs. This is especially true for states A�
and B which switch from nearly all Π and Σ∗ around Re to being mainly Σ∗ and Π, respectively,
all in 2.3 Å! Also, with this change, the polarization of these states also changes signs as eachchanges its Re bonding/antibonding character.
Finally, as we approach dissociation, the case (a) mixing eventually approaches the case(c) proportions associated with the 2 P3/2 and 2 P1/2 neutral atoms. This is expected as at longbond lengths, spin-orbit coupling dominates, whereas near Re the SO coupling is eﬀectively“quenched” by molecular bonding interactions.

2.2.1.5

Assessment of Potential Energy Surface Quality

Although our simulations were designed to be used in collaboration with the Lineberger
group, the group of Andrei Sanov has also used our PES for IBr− [113]. Their work on time−used the PES in Figure 2.1 for semiclassicalresolved photoelectron imaging of I−
2 and IBr

simulations of the photodissociation of IBr− .
By use of their experimental results on the A� ← X photodissociation of IBr− in con­junction with classical trajectories, they were able to transform time-versus-electron kinetic
energy (eKE) data into R-versus-A� state energy with the results presented in the color contour
map in Figure 2.3. This mapping was constructed by ﬁrst solving Newton’s second law�µdV A − (r)d2 R= − IBr2dt
dR(2.12)
�A�where R is the internuclear distance, µ is the reduced mass, and dVIBr− (R) is the A state

27

Figure 2.3: Comparison of the theoretical IBr− A� state potential energy curve (white line) withexperimental data from Mabbs, et al [113]. Reproduced with permission from Dr Sanov.

28
potential for IBr− (The curves were scaled to match the experimental ground-state well depth,
D0 = 1.10 ± 0.04 eV [79]. By integrating Equation 2.12, trajectories R(t) were obtained whichallowed construction of an eKE(t) trajectory. Since each point on in time corresponds to a
speciﬁc expectation value of R(t), it is possible to transform the (t, eKE) photoelectron data
into (R, eKE) according to��A�
eKE(R) = hν + VIBr
− (R) − VIBr (R),

(2.13)

where VIBr (R) is the neutral IBr energy curves. In this case, the neutral states considered were
the A and C states of IBr [114] and the subsequent trajectory was an average of both states’
contributions. Then, using an average of the A and C IBr potential curves as a single “reference”
�A
neutral state, the (R, eKE) data was transformed into the (R, VIBr− ) phase space.

Also included in Figure 2.3 is an overlay of the A� curve from our PES of IBr− . There isreasonable agreement between the ab initio calculations and their experimental “rebuild” of thesurface for A� state. The fact that this agreement is seen in an excited state of IBr− , provides
extra support for our electronic structure. This is important since the near-IR photodissociation
studied by the Lineberger group modeled in this work is based on the A� ← X excitation.

2.2.2

Lennard-Jones Parameters for IBr− (CO2 )nIn the eﬀective Hamiltonian in our MD method, Section 2.1.1, the ab initio operator

is only the ﬁrst of several terms. While the DMA calculated along with the PES takes careof the rest of the solute-solvent electrostatic and induction eﬀects, an operator for the shortrange dispersion and exchange-repulsion forces between solvent and solute, and between solvent
molecules not included in the DMA prescription is needed as well. As stated before, these forces
will be included with the addition of pair-wise Lennard-Jones forces on each of the atoms. The
values of the parameters used for the IBr− (CO2 )n work are tabulated in Table 2.3.
The C-O, C-C, O-O, I-O, and I-C parameters used in our model for IBr− (CO2 )n remain
the same as formulated in previous eﬀorts. While it should be suspected that perhaps the29

Molecular Geometry
RC−O (Å)

1.16

Charge distributionb
q1 = q5
q2 = q4
q3

charge (au)0.1216−0.6418
1.0404

Polarizabilitya
αzz (Å3 )αxx = αyy (Å3 )

4.487
2.127

LJ parameters
C–Cb
O–Ob
C–Ob
C–Ic
O–Ic
C–Br
O–Br

σ (Å)
2.824
3.026
2.925
3.805
3.200
3.751
3.016

distance from C (Å)
1.523
1.066
0.000

� (meV)
2.256
6.477
3.823
16.33
12.56
16.00
10.00

a

Ref. 115.
Ref. 116.
cRef. 37.
b

Table 2.3: Short-range potential parameters for IBr− (CO2 )n .

30parameters for the CO2 · · · CO2 should remain the same, we are currently using a very diﬀerent−
basis set than was used in the studies of I−
2 and ICl . However, this turns out not to be aconcern as shown in Figure 2.4 which is a Lennard-Jones (LJ) ﬁt for the I− · · · CO2 T-shaped
conﬁguration that can be extracted from our MD program using the IBr− ab initio dataset.
However, values for the Br· · · CO2 interaction need to be obtained. To this end, coupledcluster with single, double, and iterative triple excitations (CCSD(T)) calculations were cal­culated for the Br− · · · CO2 T-shaped and linear conﬁgurations using the MOLPRO quantum
chemistry program [96], with the resulting curves in Figure 2.5. The MDF ECP [100] was used
for bromine, as was used for the IBr− PES. For the carbon and oxygen, the aug-cc-pVTZ basis
set [118, 119] was used. The C-O bond length was ﬁxed at 1.16 Å. The Br− · · · CO2 separation
was then varied at 46 diﬀerent bond lengths from 2.5 to 100 Å.
Figure 2.5 contains both the “T-shaped” conﬁguration and the “linear” conﬁguration.
T-shaped refers to a conﬁguration where the bromine anion and carbon in CO2 are collinearwith the oxygens perpendicular to the Br-C line. The linear conﬁguration is one in which the
all four atoms of the Br− · · · CO2 system are collinear. As in I− · · · CO2 and Cl− · · · CO2 , theanion energetics in the T-shaped geometry are attractive due to the strong interaction of the ion
with the CO2 quadrupole. Also, the slightly negative oxygens are repelled by the anion causing
a bend in the true structure of Br− · · · CO2 . This bend is about 7◦ in Br− · · · CO2 , between
the values of 5◦ in I− · · · CO2 and 10◦ in Cl− · · · CO2 [53]. However, in both the CCSD(T)calculations and in our simulations, the solvent is considered rigid.
Using our MD program, similar surfaces for Br− · · · CO2 were generated in order toextract from these surfaces the “quantum” energies, deﬁned as the contribution to the energetics
due to the whole eﬀective Hamiltonian, Equation 2.6, less ĥshort−range . These values were thensubtracted from the CCSD(T) curves to obtain the short-range energies. We then attempted toﬁnd best Br-O and Br-C parameters which would duplicate the CCSD(T) LJ curves in Figure 2.5.
Unfortunately, it was found that an attempt to exactly duplicate, say, the T-shaped Br− · · · CO2
CCSD(T) curves with one set of LJ parameters led to a poor ﬁt with the linear Br− · · · CO2

31

200

100

E (meV)

0

-100

-200

-300

2

3

4

5
R (Ang)6

7

8

Figure 2.4: Comparison of the standard Lennard-Jones ﬁt tabulated in Table 2.3 (solid) toI− · · · CO2 potential energy surfaces from experiment [117] (dashed).

32

300

200

Energy (eV)

100

0

-100

-200

-300

2

3

4

5

6
RBr-C (Ang)

7

8

9

10

Figure 2.5: Calculated CCSD(T) T-shaped (solid) and linear (dashed) Br− · · · CO2 potential
energy surfaces using the Stuttgart-Bonn MDF eﬀective core potential [100] for Br and aug-cc­
pVTZ basis [118, 119] for C and O.

33
interaction and vice versa. Therefore, a compromise set of LJ parameters were chosen and they
are the values tabulated in Table 2.3. These parameters give the short-range interactions seenin Figure 2.6. These LJ parameters for Br-O and Br-C then lead to the T-shaped surface inFigure 2.7 and the linear surface in Figure 2.8.
In Figures 2.7 and 2.8, the solid line is the curve our MD program outputs for theBr− · · · CO2 interaction at that geometry. This curve, when compared to the CCSD(T) curves,is not perfect as the parameters used were a compromise to achieve the best of both geometries.
While both geometries show that our MD program overestimates the Br− · · · CO2 distance by
about 0.25 Å, our major concern is the underestimation of the energy in the T-shaped geometry.
To assuage these concerns, a second set of LJ parameters were constructed such that the energyof the Br− · · · CO2 T-shaped well matched that of the CCSD(T) well, and a third set thatmatched the shallower well calculated using the icMRCI method. In this case, the eﬀect on thelinear Br− · · · CO2 interaction was not considered.
The inﬂuence the choice of LJ parameters on the IBr− (CO2 )n system is explored inseveral parts of this thesis. First, the eﬀect on Br− (CO2 )n clusters is analyzed in Section 2.2.5
in comparison to experimental results. Also the sensitivity of IBr− (CO2 )n properties choice of
LJ parameters will be examined: the eﬀect on the near-IR photoproduct ratios in Section 3.5, theeﬀect on the ground-state recombination (GSR) of the near-IR photodissociation in Section 4.7,
and the eﬀect on the ultraviolet (UV) photodissociation product ratios in Section 5.3.

Calculated Absorption Spectrum for IBr−

2.2.3

Electronic absorption spectra from the ground electronic state were computed from thecalculated potential energy surface shown in Figure 2.1. These calculations use a modiﬁed
reﬂection approximation [120] due to Heller [121]. The absorption cross section at frequency ω
is given by
� �
�−1
�
�
2
σif (ω) = 4π 2 αa20 ω �Vf (qT )� |µif (qT )ψi (qT )|(2.14)

34

50
40
30

Energy (meV)

20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50

2

3

4

5
RBr-C (Ang)

6

7

8

Figure 2.6: Curves for the Br− · · · CO2 Lennard-Jones T-shaped (solid) and linear (dashed)short-range interactions using the Lennard-Jones parameters from Table 2.3.

35

500
400

Energy (meV)

300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300

2

3

4

5

6
RBr-C (Ang)

7

8

9

10

Figure 2.7: T-shaped Br− · · · CO2 potential energy surface using the standard Lennard-Jonesﬁt tabulated in Table 2.3 (solid) compared to MRCI (dotted) and CCSD(T) (dashed) curves
calculated using the MDF eﬀective core potential [100] for Br and aug-cc-pVTZ basis [118, 119]for C and O.

36

300

Energy (meV)

200

100

0

2

3

4

5
RBr-C (Ang)

6

7

8

Figure 2.8: Linear Br− · · · CO2 potential energy surface using the standard Lennard-Jones ﬁttabulated in Table 2.3 (solid) compared to CCSD(T) (dashed) curves calculated using the MDF
eﬀective core potential [100] for Br and aug-cc-pVTZ basis [118, 119] for C and O.

37
where µif is the f ← i transition moment, ψi is the lower-state vibrational wavefunction, Vf (qT )is the higher-state potential at the classical turning point qT . At a given lower-state energy Ei ,the turning point is deﬁned by Ei + �ω = Vf (qT ). The ground vibrational state is approximatedby a harmonic oscillator whose frequency is determined from the ground-state potential forthe cluster conﬁguration under study. Thus, in an IBr− (CO2 )4 conﬁguration, the oscillator’sfrequency is determined from the IBr− potential in the cluster, not that of the bare ion. The
harmonic approximation is justiﬁed by the fact that the anharmonicity for the ground state isfound to be on the order of a wavenumber.
The absorption spectrum for bare IBr− , Figure 2.9, was calculated according to the aboveprescription. The spectrum is generated by averaging over 100 conﬁgurations of bare IBr− at
60 K in the ground state, the same temperature at which we sample conﬁgurations for our
photodissociation simulations. As discussed in Section 2.2.1.4, the major peak in the spectrum,B ← X, is strong due to the parallel Σ → Σ∗ charge transfer transition. The other peaks in the
spectrum would be quite small if Σ and Π were good quantum numbers (Hund’s case (a)). WhenSO coupling is included, the case (a) states mix, allowing for some Σ∗ character to mix into
otherwise perpendicular states. Since the spectrum in Figure 2.9 is taken from conﬁgurationsin the ground-state well, the relevant lines to focus on in Table 2.2.1.4 are those that indicate
the degree of mixing at Re . We ﬁnd, as expected, that state B contains the largest amount ofΣ∗ character and is the largest peak, but that states A� and a� also display some Σ∗ character,with A� having more than a� . Figure 2.9 shows that the A� ← X peak is larger than the a� ← X
peak (which is barely visible on the main ordinate’s scale).
Sanford [77] measured the absorption cross-section for the A� ← X transition of IBr-−and determined that the peak was approximately Gaussian and centered at 740 nm with afull-width half-maximum (FWHM) of approximately 50 nm. The calculated spectrum has its
peak value near 770 nm and has a FWHM of 60 nm. Thus, the calculated spectrum is slightly
red-shifted from experiment. This red-shift is not unexpected. As stated in Section 2.2.1.3,
the calculated ground-state for IBr− has a shallower well depth, De = 0.956 eV, than that

38

1.5

cm )

0.04
2 +

Absorption Cross Section ( x10-162

B Σ 1/2
0.03

1
0.02

0.01

0

0.5

2

2

A Π3/2a Π3/2
400

600

800

1000

1200

2

A' Π1/2

2

a' Π1/2
0
300

400

500

600
700
Wavelength (nm)

800

900

1000

Figure 2.9: Calculated absorption spectrum for IBr− . Coloring corresponds to the coloring ofA2 .
the bare ion curves in Figure 2.1. 10−16 cm2 = 1 ˚39determined by measurements [79], D0 = 1.10 ± 0.04 eV. As the well depth is less, all simulated
excitations could require less energy depending on whether the excited states also shift and by
how much.
An absolute cross section for IBr− was also measured by Sanford [77]. At 760 nm,
the absolute cross section was found to be 6.9 · 10−18 cm2 . Using their relative cross section
measurements this implies an absolute cross section of 3 · 10−18 cm2 at 790 nm, the wavelength
used in the near-IR photostudies. The simulated spectrum predicts a cross section of 16 · 10−18
cm2 , which reﬂects both the red-shift of our simulation as well as a generally taller peak.
As a point of comparison for the calculated spectrum of IBr− , we present the calculated−
spectra [36, 37] for I−
2 , Figure 2.10, and ICl , Figure 2.11.

As expected the B ← X peakis the largest of the peaks. Relative to the B ← X peak, the A� ← X peak is largest in I−
2,smaller in IBr− , and smallest in ICl− . This follows the expected pattern when compared to the−IX− mixing, at Re for the A� state. The most mixing occurs in I−
2 and the least in ICl . Thea� ← X peak in the simulated spectrum for I−
2 is not seen as this is a dipole-forbidden transition(g � u). This selection rule is lifted in the heteronuclear IX− species and the mixing predictedfrom the spin-orbit operator introduces a peak in both IBr− and ICl− .

2.2.4

Minimum Energy IBr− (CO2 )n Clusters
The minimum energy IBr− (CO2 )n structures for the IBr− (CO2 )n (n = 0-16), Figure 2.12,

are constructed by sampling 201 conﬁgurations from a 1-ns trajectory on the IBr− ground state
having an average temperature of 80 K. These conﬁgurations are then quenched to local minima
using Newton-Raphson minimization [95]. The energetic properties of the complete range ofIBr− (CO2 )1−16 clusters are shown in Table 2.2.4.
To examine the energetics of IBr− (CO2 )n , we deﬁne a sequential binding energy,
Δn = PEn−1 − PEn(2.15)

where PEn is the potential energy of the cluster with n solvent molecules. In Table 2.2.4, we

40

1.5

cm )

0.002
2 +

Absorption Cross Section ( x10-162

B Σ g,1/2
0.00152

A Πg,3/2

10.001

0.0005

0
900

0.5

1000

1100

1200

1300

2

A' Πg,1/2
0
300

400

500

600
700
Wavelength (nm)

800

900

1000

−16
Figure 2.10: Calculated absorption spectrum for I−
cm2 = 1 ˚A2 .
2 . 10

1.5

2

cm )

0.00062

Absorption Cross Section ( x10-16A Π3/20.00041

0.00022 +B Σ 1/2
0
800

0.5

900

2

a' Π1/2
0
200

300

400

500
600
Wavelength (nm)

1000

1100

1200

2

A' Π1/2
700

800

Figure 2.11: Calculated absorption spectrum for ICl− . 10−16 cm2 = 1 ˚
A2 .

900

Figure 2.12: Minimum energy structures for IBr− (CO2 )n . The pattern for CO2 ﬁlling is ﬁrst around the I-Br bond, then the Br end, and ﬁnally the I
end.

41

42
see the sequential binding energies for the minimum energy structures for IBr− (CO2 )n .
The ﬁrst two clusters of IBr− (CO2 )n in Table 2.2.4 show a Δn similar to that of I−
2(Table 2.5); each cluster builds similarly at low n primarily due to similar energetics. IBr− (CO2 )1and I−
2 (CO2 )1 both have one CO2 perpendicular to the bond at the bond center; with n = 2,
the second is placed opposite the ﬁrst CO2 , again perpendicular. These early sequential binding
energies also compare reasonably well to previous measurements of Br− (CO2 )1−2 [54], although
the calculated values are a bit lower than experiment, see also Subsection 2.2.5.
With the third CO2 , diﬀerences are seen as the ﬁlling is no longer at the bond center.
Rather, the three solvent molecules interact favorably not just with each other, but with thebromine, lowering the sequential binding energy (SBE) in regards to n = 1, 2. A SBE of
approximately 220 meV is seen until n = 8 where a particularly stable half-ﬁlled solvation shell
is formed with maximum interaction with bromine. After this, the ﬁlling proceeds around theiodine end of IBr− as the I· · · CO2 interaction takes over. Throughout the ﬁlling, the CO2 · · · CO2
interaction controls the solvent cage conformation. Starting with IBr− (CO2 )3 , the favored Tshaped CO2 · · · CO2 geometry can be seen as the slightly negative oxygens prefer to point tocarbons on other solvent molecules.
Experimentally, it was found that the average energy removal per CO2 evaporated from
IBr− was 263 ± 12 meV [77]. A statistical model [122] estimated the kinetic energy associatedwith solvent evaporation at 40 meV, giving an average SBE of 223 meV for 7-15 solvent moleculeson IBr− . This compares favorably with the calculated values in Table 2.2.4.

2.2.4.1−
Comparison to I−
2 (CO2 )n and ICl (CO2 )n−Figure 2.13 and Table 2.5 show that IBr− (CO2 )n is intermediate between I−
2 and ICl . In

I−
2 (CO2 )n , the clusters built predictably with SBEs on the order of 190-200 meV. In comparison,ICl− (CO2 )n shows a strong contrast between the solvation of chlorine versus that of iodine. The
CO2 bind to the chlorine with approximately 280 meV until the “half-shell” of solvation around
it is ﬁlled at n = 6. There are two reasons for this high SBE in the early solvation of ICl− . First,

43
n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
a
b

PE
(meV)a
-205
-406
-627
-852
-1074
-1301
-1525
-1775
-2009
-2248
-2483
-2680
-2917
-3157
-3380
-3588

Δn
(meV)b
205
201
222
225
222
227
224
251
233
240
234
198
237
240
223
208

-PE/n
(meV)
205
203
209
213
215
217
218
222
223
225
226
223
224
225
225
224

ΔΦ
(meV)
-16
-35
-316
-229
-340
-503
-936
-1113
-922
-784
-691
-444
-136
-144
54
-84

# localminima
1
23
22
47
65
98
104
63
64
112
135
111
126
143
131
140

Not including IBr− bond energy (0.956 eV).
See Eqn. 2.15

Table 2.4: Properties of minimal energy clusters of IBr− (CO2 )n generated at 80 K.

300
−

IBr
−
ICl
−
I2

Sequential Binding Energy (meV)

280

260

240

220

200

180
1

2

3

4

5

6

7
8
No. of CO2

9

10

11

12

13

14

Figure 2.13: Sequential binding energies for IBr− (CO2 )n , ICl− (CO2 )n , and I−
2 (CO2 )n in meV.

44

n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

IBr− (CO2 )n
205
201
222
225
222
227
224
251
233
240
234
198
237
240
223
208

ICl− (CO2 )n
258
263
276
277
278
293
250
195
204
208
234

I−
2 (CO2 )n
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
200
200
200
200
200
200
200

Table 2.5: Sequential binding energies, Δn , for IBr− (CO2 )n , ICl− (CO2 )n and I−
2 (CO2 )n in meV.

45
the chlorine is more electronegative and has a greater attraction to the solvent. Second, Cl− isa small anion allowing tighter packing of CO2 leading to more CO2 · · · CO2 interactions. Thereis rapid decrease in SBE after n = 6 as the CO2 ﬁnd themselves solvating the iodine, which isless electronegative and larger. Finally, there is a slight increase at larger clusters as the CO2
molecules are able to pack more eﬃciently.
For IBr− (CO2 )n , the ﬁrst two CO2 ﬁll around the I-Br bond similar to I−
2 (CO2 )n . Fromn = 3 to n = 8, IBr− (CO2 )n then ﬁlls around the bromine, leading to a higher SBE due tofavorable interactions. IBr− (CO2 )8 can be viewed as similar to ICl− (CO2 )6 as both mark themost asymmetric clusters in each system. At that point, the solvent shell is most concentrated
around the more electronegative atom. Unlike ICl− (CO2 )n , IBr− (CO2 )n does not have the large
drop-oﬀ in SBE as the CO2 begin to ﬁll around the iodine. Indeed, the SBE slowly increases assolvent-solvent interactions become more favorable as in I−
2 (CO2 )n .
The lone exception is IBr− (CO2 )12 which has a low SBE compared to other large clusters.
This indicates that compared to both n = 11 and 13, that CO2 does not form a particularly
stable, minimum energy structure. To show this, we deﬁne the asymmetry of the solvent con­ﬁguration, ΔΦ, as the energy required to move a charge of −e from the I end to the Br endof a cluster [24]. Negative values describe a solvation that favors bromine, while positive val­
ues are those that favor iodine. Using this measure of solvent asymmetry, Figure 2.14 showsthat IBr− (CO2 )12 has a labile ground-state conﬁguration reﬂecting its less rigid solvent-shellstructure. The labile conﬁguration of IBr− (CO2 )12 will become important in later studies ofground-state recombination in Section 4.5.1.

2.2.5

Properties of Br− (CO2 )n Solvation
The building of the minimal energy IBr− (CO2 )n clusters is not the only cluster property

that can be compared to previous work. The Neumark group [53,54] has explored the structure ofBr− (CO2 )n clusters which provides another check of the LJ parameters tabulated in Table 2.3.
Table 2.6 presents the sequential binding energies for calculations of Br− (CO2 )1−16 for our

46

0.4
0.2

Initial ∆Φ (eV)

0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7
8
9
No. of CO2

10

11 12 13 14 15 16

Figure 2.14: Average ΔΦ in eV for 100, 60-K conﬁgurations of IBr− (CO2 )0−16 in the groundstate. Error bars represent one standard deviation of the mean.

47
model, compared to experimental values.
While it is not immediately apparent from Table 2.6, our model predicts the completionof a solvent shell at Br− (CO2 )13 . This was conﬁrmed by viewing the cluster directly and seeingthat in larger clusters the solvent molecules began ﬁlling in a second shell. At Br− (CO2 )13 , theSBE suddenly decreases indicating that the solvent molecules are no longer binding with themore favorable Br· · · CO2 and I· · · CO2 interactions but rather through CO2 · · · CO2 interactions.
Also, the calculated SBEs for the Br− (CO2 )n ﬁlling are larger than that seen in experiment.
The calculated values tend to average 250 meV or more over the ﬁrst solvent shell, compared toaround 200 meV in experiment.
Moreover, experiment predicts that the ﬁrst solvent shell is complete at Br− (CO2 )8 ,much earlier than our simulated results. While this seems odd considering the higher calculated
SBE, it is not entirely unexpected. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, our model’s LJ parameters
exhibit a Br− · · · CO2 interaction that is both weaker and at a larger distance than the CCSD(T)calculations predicted, see Figure 2.7, in the T-shaped geometry.
To test whether this could be causing the larger solvent shell seen in Table 2.6, an alternate
set LJ parameters were determined so that the MD model would return the same attraction as
seen in the CCSD(T) curve from Figure 2.7. This CCSD(T) LJ ﬁt shown in Figure 2.15 would
then allow for tighter Br− · · · CO2 binding which would lead to earlier Br− (CO2 )n solvent shellcompletion. The new solvent binding pattern shown in Table 2.2.5 shows that this is indeed thecase. Using the new CCSD(T) LJ ﬁt, the Br− (CO2 )n simulated clusters now complete a solvent
shell at Br− (CO2 )10 , 3 solvent molecules than before. This smaller solvent shell, however, is at
the cost of an even larger average SBE for Br− (CO2 )n interactions. (We do not calculate theBr− (CO2 )n interactions for the MRCI ﬁt seen in Figure 2.7 as this would lead us to even larger
solvent shells.)
These ﬁndings might lead one to suspect that the LJ values used in the simulations,
Table 2.3, will fail to work for IBr− (CO2 )n . Sections 3.4 and 4.7 will demonstrate that this is
not true. The small amount of extra Br· · · CO2 binding energy the CCSD(T) LJ ﬁt would provide

48
n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

PE
-219
-470
-748
-1010
-1268
-1536
-1807
-2081
-2342
-2629
-2857
-3090
-3296
-3475
-3631
-3852

Δan
219
251
279
262
258
268
270
274
261
287
228
234
206∗
179
156
221

Δexpt,b
n

-PE/n
219
235
249
253
254
256
258
260
260
263
260
258
254
248
242
241

230
219
219
224
181
173
158
159∗
77
79
21
...
...
...
...
...

∗

First solvation shell complete.
See Eqn. 2.15.
b
Refs. 53 and 54.
aTable 2.6: Properties of minimal energy Br− (CO2 )n clusters. All energies in meV.

500
400

Energy (meV)

300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300

2

3

4

5

6
RBr-C (Ang)

7

8

9

10

Figure 2.15: Br− · · · CO2 potential energy surface calculated using the standard Lennard-Jonesﬁt (solid) tabulated in Table 2.3 and the best Lennard-Jones ﬁt (dotted) compared to CCSD(T)Br− · · · CO2 interaction calculated using the MDF ECPs [100] for Br and aug-cc-pVTZ ba­
sis [118, 119] for C and O (dashed).

49

n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Δan
219
251
279
262
258
268
270
274
261
287
228
234
206∗
179
156
221

it
ΔCCF
n
242
269
295
279
274
280
300
273
296
216∗
199
169
196
204
189
195

Δexpt,b
n
230
219
219
224
181
173
158
159∗
77
79
21
...
...
...
...
...

∗

First solvation shell complete.
See Eqn. 2.15.
b
Refs. 53 and 54.
aTable 2.7: Comparison of sequential binding energies of minimal energy Br− (CO2 )n clusters
using standard Br− · · · CO2 ﬁt tabulated in Table 2.3 and a tight ﬁt (“CCFit”) to CCSD(T)calculations, see Figure 2.7. All energies in meV.

50
greatly aﬀects the photodissociation dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n , especially in larger clusters. Thisis due to the formation of an excited-state IBr− (CO2 )n species which dominates the larger
cluster dynamics, and the extra Br· · · CO2 binding leads to these excited-state IBr− (CO2 )nspecies being too stable.

2.3

Conclusions
In summary, this chapter has described the techniques used to incorporate IBr− into themolecular dynamics method ﬁrst used by Maslen, Faeder, and Parson [26, 27, 36, 37] to explore−
in various solvents. Quantum chemistry calculations of the six
the dynamics of I−
2 and ICllowest spin-orbit states of IBr− were performed using energy-consistent ECPs and it was foundthat, despite the small size of the basis set—compared to the size of all-electron basis sets
for large halogens—very good energetic performance was achieved. When compared to recent
photoelectron spectroscopy measurements of the ground-state binding energy, our calculations
matched quite well. Likewise, photoelectron imaging experiments on the near-infrared (IR)excitation of IBr− demonstrated reasonable agreement with our excited A� state energetics.
Both of these have prime import when considering the near-IR (i.e., excitation to the A� state)
simulations of the photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )n .
With this potential energy surface and other associated properties of IBr− calculated,
we then proceeded to demonstrate how our model performs when calculating various propertiesof both the bare anion and clusters with solvating CO2 . Our calculated absorption spectrum
for IBr− had fair agreement with experimental ﬁndings and showed the expected periodic pro­−
gression of peak strength when compared to I−
2 and ICl in line with the calculated spin-orbit

mixing for these three ions.
We also showed the derivation of Lennard-Jones (LJ) parameters to help model the
Br· · · CO2 interaction necessary for us to simulate IBr− (CO2 )n dynamics. Calculations of theminimum energy clusters of IBr− (CO2 )n using these compared favorably with the experimen­
tally-found binding energy of CO2 solvating IBr− . Calculations of the Br− (CO2 )n minimum

51
energy cluster properties had a lesser match with experiment, but were still fairly good.
Indeed, it is these diﬀerences with experiment that will be an important area of study inthe following chapters detailing the near-IR and ultraviolet (UV) photodissociation dynamics ofIBr− (CO2 )n . The diﬀerences in the ground-state well energetics for the bare ion will provide
a test of the eﬀect of excitation wavelength on the dynamics. Likewise, we saw in this chapterthat our “standard” LJ parameters were chosen as a compromise between the calculated Tshaped and linear Br− · · · CO2 interactions. However, as we saw when looking at the propertiesof the Br− (CO2 )n clusters, there are tighter ﬁts to our ab initio calculations of the Br− · · · CO2
interaction that improved the match between the formation of the ﬁrst solvent shell compared toexperiment. We will see in future chapters that the dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n photodissociation
are quite sensitive to model parameters and successes in Br− (CO2 )n properties to not always
imply success with the dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n .

Chapter 3

Dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n Near-Infrared Photodissociation

In this chapter we will explore the dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n photodissociation following
excitation at 790 nm in the near-infrared. We will ﬁrst summarize the simulation methods usedin constructing and running the trajectories used in our research. We will then present oursimulated results for the product branching ratios for near-infrared (IR) photodissociation at
790-nm excitation and compare these results to experiment. We will also analyze the average
number of CO2 molecules lost after photodissociation.
After that, two sensitivity tests are described. As mentioned in Section 2.2.1.3, the cal­culated well depth for the ground state of bare IBr− is shallower than that found in experiment.
We will use a redder, 840-nm excitation in simulations to determine the eﬀect of our stan­
dard curves on the photoproduct ratios. Likewise, in Section 2.2.2, we noted that the standard
Br− · · · CO2 Lennard-Jones (LJ) parameters used for simulation, tabulated in Table 2.3, do notexactly match the energetics of the calculated coupled cluster with single, double, and iterative
triple excitations (CCSD(T)) Br− · · · CO2 interaction. We will test the eﬀects of diﬀerent LJ
parameters on the photodissociation product ratios and compare them to our standard ﬁt.

3.1

Near-Infrared Trajectory Simulation Methods
All trajectories in this chapter use the molecular dynamics (MD) methods detailed in

Section 2.1. Ensembles for near-infrared (IR) MD simulations are constructed via the following
process. First, using the calculated minimum energy structures (Section 2.2.4), the cluster is53heated for 40 ps at a temperature of 60 K, followed by a 100-ps run on the ground state to test
that the cluster energetics are stable. After that, ensembles are constructed by running a 2-fs
time-step trajectory on the ground state that is sampled every 5 ps until 100 conﬁgurations areconstructed. A long trajectory with a wide sample window is used in order to assure that thestarting conﬁgurations for the simulations have suﬃciently random geometries.
To start the photoproduct trajectories, the conﬁgurations of the constructed ensemble
have their I-Br bond lengths adjusted to match the experimental photon energy of 790 nm.
Since each of these excitations lies in the A� ← X absorption band (Figure 2.9), only small
adjustments are needed, on the order of 0.1-0.2 Å.
Trajectories are then run for a maximum of 50 ps. If the bond length exceeds 40 a0 , thetrajectory is terminated and classiﬁed as dissociated. If more than 20 crossings of the groundstate well occur, the trajectory is considered to have recombined. A step-size of 1 fs is used for
all trajectories which results in energy conservation on the order of 10−3 Eh .

3.2

Simulated Near-Infrared Photodissociation Results
The ﬁrst simulated 790-nm photodissociation results for 50-ps simulations of IBr− (CO2 )nare compared to experimental results [79] in Figure 3.1. This ﬁgure details the three photoprod­
uct channels of IBr− (CO2 )n dissociation: I− -based, Br− -based, and IBr− -based products. As
noted, these are the simulated product branching ratios for IBr− (CO2 )n after 50 ps of simulation
run times. Unfortunately, it turns out that, despite the fairly good agreement to experiment,
near-infrared (IR) photodissociation has additional complications which makes these results lessuseful. As will be detailed in Chapter 4, IBr− (CO2 )7−15 exhibit trapping on the A� state which
can last for nanoseconds. The tools used to extract the simulated branching ratios shown in
Figure 3.1 naively assumed that all IBr− -based product is ground-state recombination (GSR)
product. However, a more detailed analysis of the 50-ps results shows that after 50 ps not allof the IBr− -based product has recombined in the ground state. The results of this analysis areshown in Figure 3.2.

54

100

%I

−

80
60
40
20
0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
No. of CO2

100

% Br

−

80
60
40
20
0
100

% IBr

−

80
60
40
20
0

Figure 3.1: Near-infrared (790 nm) 50-ps simulated (dashed with squares) photodissociation
product branching ratios for IBr− (CO2 )n . Experimental results (solid) from Sanford, et al [79].

55

0.8

−

Fraction of ES 50-ps IBr Product

1

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
10
No. of CO2

11

12

13

14

15

16

Figure 3.2: Fraction of IBr− product trapped in the A� state at 50 ps as a function of cluster
size.

56
Figure 3.2 shows the fraction of IBr− products that are still trapped in the excited state
after 50 ps over the range of 5-16 solvent molecules. It shows that beginning with IBr− (CO2 )7 ,the IBr− product shown in Figure 3.1 are more correctly referred to as excited-state trapped
IBr− ! The trapping dominates short-time dynamics up to IBr− (CO2 )12 , beyond which the“fast” ground-state recombination channel begins to predominate.
The experimental products are counted after 5-10 µs of travel time to the mass spec­
trometer, by which time any IBr− product has presumably relaxed to the ground state. The
photodissociation experiments found that the recombined IBr− products are produced with 5-6
CO2 solvent molecules [77]. The average energy removal per CO2 evaporated from IBr− wasdetermined to be 263 ± 12 meV. A statistical model [122] estimated the kinetic energy associ­ated with solvent evaporation at 40 meV, giving an average sequential binding energy (SBE)of 223 meV for 7-15 solvent molecules on IBr− , which, as previously discussed (Section 2.2.4)
compares favorably with our simulated binding energies. Dissipation of a photon energy of
1.57 eV, 790 nm, would then require approximately 6 CO2 evaporating at an SBE of 263 meV.
Thus, a comparison of the simulated 50-ps results to experiment is not exact. Rather, a fairer
comparison between simulation and experiment can be accomplished by extrapolating the prod­
uct ratios to “inﬁnite” time as seen in Figure 3.3. The extrapolated results were tabulated byuse of nanosecond-long trajectories performed to simulate the ground-state recovery signal ofIBr− (CO2 )n [80] the details of which are described in Chapter 4.
Longer simulations performed for the clusters which demonstrate trapping show that thetrapped products eventually dissociate or recombine in the ground state. We therefore hypoth­esize that the ﬁnal dissociated/recombined product ratios after nanoseconds of simulation time
are the same as that at completion. Any remaining trapped product is apportioned according
to the fraction that ﬁnished in each product channel. With this procedure, Figure 3.3 shows
only ﬁnal ground-state IBr− product, and not both excited- and ground-state product. While
it would be preferable to run simulations until all trajectories had transited through the excitedstate, in some cases this would require tens of nanoseconds of simulation. This extrapolation

57
procedure provides our best estimate of how the simulations would conclude if run to completion.

This new extrapolated data allows us to better compare the simulations to experiment.
We see that, unlike experiment where the I− -channel closes at IBr− (CO2 )5 , the simulations
show it to be open to IBr− (CO2 )13 . Second, the Br− -channel is both exaggerated in number
in simulation and stays open in larger clusters. This is especially true in smaller clusters where
simulation predicts a larger fraction of Br− than seen in experiment. By comparing the patternof the additional Br− product to what is “missing” from the IBr− channel, the larger bromine
product seems to be at the expense of what experimentally is recombined product. This suggeststhat the model might underemphasize the strength of the I· · · Br interaction or, perhaps, thesolute-solvent interactions allow for too facile dissociation. Nevertheless, the simulations show
a similar pattern of Br− -product increase and decrease up to IBr− (CO2 )7 .
With the larger clusters, IBr− (CO2 )8 and beyond, both experiment and simulation pre­dict that the major product will be ground-state recombined IBr− . One signiﬁcant diﬀerenceis that simulation still reports small amounts (approximately 5%) of I− and larger amounts ofBr− product at nearly every cluster size, while, experimentally, the atomic anion channels areclosed at IBr− (CO2 )8 .
Overall, however, there is reasonable agreement between the trends displayed in thesimulations and experiments. While both I− and Br− products are more prevalent in simulation,
the simulated product ratios correctly predict the patterns of each channel.

3.2.1

A Closer Look at the Three Product Channels
In this section, we investigate the three product channels for IBr− (CO2 )n in more depth.

Figure 3.4 presents the smallest and simplest cluster for which both dissociation channels ap­
pear, IBr− (CO2 )1 . These plots document the adiabatic energies (top), the charge characterof the cluster (middle), and the I-Br bond length over the run-time of the simulation. Bothtrajectories exhibit rapid dissociation of the cluster along with charge localization onto the io­

58

100

%I

−

80
60
40
20
0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
No. of CO2

100

% Br

−

80
60
40
20
0

% Ground-State IBr

−

100
80
60
40
20
0

Figure 3.3: Near-IR (790 nm) photodissociation product branching ratios for IBr− (CO2 )n . Sim­ulated results (dashed with squares) based on an “inﬁnite” time scale extrapolation. Experi­mental results (solid) from Sanford, et al [79]. Error bars are 1σ sampling error for n = 6 andis representative of that at other cluster sizes.

00.5Time (ps)

1

(b)

0.5
Time (ps)1

R (Ang)Figure 3.4: Near-infrared (790-nm) photodissociation of two exemplar IBr− (CO2 )1 trajectories. The adiabatic energies are plotted in the ﬁrst row asa function of time with the bold line being the occupied state. The second row plots the charge character of the trajectory over time. The third row
plots the I-Br bond length over time. (a) shows a trajectory that dissociates to Br− and (b) shows a trajectory that dissociates to I− .

5(a)Charge1015Br

deloc.

I-1

0

1
Energy (eV)59

60
dine, as the bond extends. Figure 3.4(b) shows a trajectory which then continues along the A�state producing I− product. Figure 3.4(a), however, is an example trajectory where the solvent
interaction causes a nonadiabatic hop to a lower state. This hop, which occurs around 500 fs,
causes an immediate charge transfer in the solute reﬂecting the diﬀerent character of the newstate. The cluster then dissociates leading to Br− . In each case, the trajectories dissociate on
the expected states from the IBr− bare ion potential energy surface (PES), Figure 2.1.
The simple picture provided by the IBr− (CO2 )1 trajectories begins to break down as theclusters grow larger. The greater and more numerous solute-solvent interactions lead to more
complicated dynamics. Three exemplar trajectories for IBr− (CO2 )6 that result in the three
product channels —Br− , I− , and ground-state recombined product—are presented in Figure 3.5.
The exemplar trajectory that results in Br− dissociation, Figure 3.5(a), shows a trajectorythat dissociates (i.e., reached 40 a0 ) to Br− (CO2 )4 in 16 ps. This trajectory exhibits ratherinteresting dynamics. After excitation, the solute begins to dissociate reaching over 6 Å before
the solvent arrests the escape. At the same time, the charge ﬂuctuates on the solute until it
localizes on the bromine. At that point, the cluster “explores” a region at 4-7 Å before ﬁnallydissociating at 8 ps. This sort of “exploration” is not uncommon as the solvent is exerting
forces on both solute atoms to contain the cluster. Indeed, as in Figure 3.5(a), the charge canbe completely localized on one solute atom, and yet the strong solute-solvent interactions areenough to hold the cluster together for several picoseconds. This is contrasted to the IBr− (CO2 )1
trajectories, Figure 3.4, where the single solvent molecule can cause a nonadiabatic hop, butthere aren’t enough interactions to stop dissociation.
Figure 3.5(b) shows an example of a trajectory that dissociates to I− (CO2 )6 , with dis­sociation being so rapid that no solvent is able to escape before the 40 a0 limit is reached. In
contrast to the previous Br− trajectory, though, this trajectory does not “explore” but rather
explodes apart as the charge localizes on the iodine, reaching 10 Å in just over 2 ps. One inter­esting thing to note in Figure 3.5(b) is the energetics. As the charge localizes on the iodine andthe I-Br bond dissociates, the cluster is on the lowest energetic state. This might be surprising5Time (ps)

10

1

(b)

2 3 4
Time (ps)51020Time (ps)(c)

30

R (Ang)Figure 3.5: Near-infrared (790-nm) photodissociation of three exemplar IBr− (CO2 )6 trajectories. The adiabatic energies are plotted in the ﬁrst row
as a function of time with the bold line being the occupied state. The second row plots the charge character of the trajectory over time as a 10-point
moving average to smooth out some ﬂuctuations. The third row plots the I-Br bond length over time. (a) shows a trajectory that dissociates to Br− .
(b) shows a trajectory that dissociates to I− . (c) shows a trajectory that recombines in the ground state, with the energies being plotted as a 50-point
moving average to eliminate vibrational grassiness.

0(a)Charge510Brdeloc.

I-1

0

1
Energy (eV)61

62

Figure 3.6: Example dissociating IBr− (CO2 )6 cluster showing solvated I− , qv. Figure 3.5(b).

given our expectation that I− product should dissociate on the second-lowest asymptote of ourbare ion PES, Figure 2.1. However, one must remember that that PES is for the bare anion.
In Figure 3.5(b), the state energies show the eﬀect of the solvent conﬁguration at each point in
the trajectory. Since this trajectory dissociates to I− , at later times, the conﬁguration is one
with solvent surrounding the I− , Figure 3.6. In this conﬁguration, states corresponding to Br−
are therefore in a less favorable solvent conﬁguration and are higher in energy. The lowest
energy state for this solvent conﬁguration has the charge on iodine, and it is this state uponwhich dissociation takes place. The analogous phenomenon in Br− dissociation can be seen in
Figure 3.5(a,top). After the charge localizes on bromine following the hop to the lower state,
the state corresponding to I− is suddenly less energetically favored and it increases in energy
relative to the Br− states.
Figure 3.5(c) is an example of a trajectory that ends as IBr− recombined on the groundstate after 30 ps. Viewing all three sets of data together, for the ﬁrst 20 ps, the cluster seems tobe trapped on the A� state around roughly 4 Å in a delocalized charge state. Then, suddenly, thecluster hops to a lower state and the I-Br bond begins to stretch. From the charge localization
plot, the cluster assumes a Br− character but it is prevented from dissociating by the solvent
which reforms IBr− . The cluster then hops to the ground state where it falls into the well and−−Br Loss
Avg. No. of CO2 Lost

3−

I Loss3

IBr Loss

63

7
6

2

5

2

4
3
1

1

2
1

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cluster Size0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cluster Size0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cluster Size

Figure 3.7: Experimental (solid line with circles) and simulated (dotted line) results for the
average CO2 loss for IBr− (CO2 )n , n = 0 − 16. Experimental results from Sanford [77].

vibrationally relaxes, evaporating solvent molecules. At this point the solute has reformed andthe charge is widely delocalized, albeit polarized towards bromine as electronegativity would
predict for the ground state. This phenomenon of excited-state trapping becomes a major
theme for IBr− (CO2 )7−11 , where solvent ﬂow plots, previously developed by our group [24], areused to better analyze the trajectories that are trapped and how they escape and recombine
to the ground state. These ideas are developed in Chapter 4 which examines the ground-state
recombination dynamics for near-IR trajectories.

3.3

Average CO2 Loss in Near-Infrared Photodissociation
In this section the average solvent loss at the end of a simulation is compared to the

products seen in experiment. These results are presented in Figure 3.7. The poor match between
the experimental and simulated results in Figure 3.7 might perhaps raise a cause for alarm given
our group’s success with solvent loss prediction in I−
2 (Ar)n [23]. Argon, however, is a much moreloosely bound solvent than CO2 . In the experiment, the clusters have microseconds of travel time
to reach the mass spectrometer detector. In comparison, the simulations end in two ways that
could aﬀect our modeling of solvent loss. First, with the dissociated product, the simulations
end once the I-Br bond length exceeds 40 a0 in length since recombination at that distance is64
simply not possible. Second, for recombined products, the simulations end after 20 “crossings”
of the ground state. In either case, these criteria are met in picoseconds of simulation time once
either process has begun, even if there were nanoseconds of trapping. Thus, with the recombined
products, the process of vibrational relaxation of the solute, which would result in boiling of
the solvent as the cluster relaxed to the bottom of the ground state well, is cut oﬀ from thetime it needs to complete the process. Moreover, the time required to simulate equilibrium mass
distributions is extremely long. Even when IBr− is fully relaxed, it can take a long time forevaporation to take place. For this reason, simulation of the mass distribution for CO2 clusters
has never been reliable.
In order to test these hypotheses, a few simple simulations were run. Simulation ofIBr− (CO2 )4 were run and the dissociated products were allowed to run to double the normal
dissociation I-Br separation, 80 a0 . Doing so increased the numbers of CO2 lost by almost halfa solvent molecule. While this doesn’t prove much, it does show that a “longer” dissociationthreshold does result in the expected behavior.
Likewise, to test the recombined process, simulations of IBr− (CO2 )13 , a large clusterwith a fast ground-state recombination (GSR) time, were run with parameters of 100 and 500
ground-state crossings. The results showed that from 20 → 100 → 500 crossings, the average
CO2 loss grew from 1.33 → 2.98 → 3.96, just as would be expected.

3.4

Sensitivity of Near-Infrared Photoproduct Ratios to Excitation
Wavelength
In Section 2.2.1.3, the question was raised as to whether the calculated ground-state

well depth, when compared to experiment, would present diﬃculties when it came time tosimulate the dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n photodissociation. The existence of two measures of theexperimental D0 for IBr− leads to two logical tests. First, we will assess the eﬀect of less kinetic
energy release in the photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )n by using a redder, 840-nm excitation tomodel the deeper, experimental well. Then, we will test the more recent ﬁndings of a D0 almost

65
equal to the calculated De for IBr− by incorporating the eﬀect of zero-point energy (ZPE) oﬀset
by using a slightly bluer, 770-nm excitation.
In order to test these eﬀects, trajectories were assembled for IBr− (CO2 )1−14 . Each en­
semble was composed of 100 trajectories assembled in the same fashion as before. The trajec­
tories ran with a classical time-step of 1.0 fs for durations of 100 ps for IBr− (CO2 )1−6 , 400
ps for IBr− (CO2 )7,12,13 , and 5000 ps for IBr− (CO2 )8−11,14 . If the bond length exceeds 40 a0 ,the trajectory was terminated and classiﬁed as dissociated. If more than 20 crossings of theground-state well occur, the trajectory was considered to have recombined.
The resulting product ratios for the 840-nm and 770-nm runs are compared to the 790­
nm and experimental results in Figure 3.8. The diﬀerences between the 840-nm, 770-nm, and790-nm runs are minimal. Indeed, the I− and Br− product channels at 840 nm seem to be
only slightly worse when compared to experiment than the results from the 790-nm studies.
The slightly larger kinetic energy release (KER) provided by the 770-nm excitation does lead toresults that are slightly better than the 790-nm simulations at small cluster sizes, but the eﬀect
is negligible at larger clusters. Indeed, the 770-nm and 840-nm photoproduct ratios seem to beroughly within the sampling error of the 790-nm results.
Thus, the possible under- or overestimation of the calculated ground-state well depth ofIBr− with respect to experiment has little eﬀect on the near-infrared (IR) photodissociation
branching ratios for IBr− (CO2 )n . However, this is not the ﬁnal test of excitation wavelength
on the dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n photodissociation. As stated above, the intermediate-size andlarger clusters of IBr− (CO2 )n (i.e., n ≥ 8) demonstrate trapping on the excited A� state which
necessitated the use of extrapolated results. We will see in Section 4.6 that the eﬀects of
excitation wavelength on the ground-state recombination (GSR) recovery dynamics are more
profound.
We note for completeness that the 840-nm photoproduct branching ratio results forIBr− (CO2 )8−11 are not included in Figure 3.9. These trajectories were so long-lived that onlyaround 10 of the 100 trajectories set up ran to completion in the allotted run-time after a month

66

100

%I

−

80
60
40
20
0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
No. of CO2

100

% Br

−

80
60
40
20
0

% Ground State IBr

−

100
80
60
40
20
0

Figure 3.8: Near-infrared simulated 790-nm (dash with square), 840-nm (red circle), and 770­
nm (blue circle) photodissociation product branching ratios for IBr− (CO2 )n . Simulated results
based on an “inﬁnite” time scale extrapolation. Experimental results (solid line) from Sanford,
et al [79]. Error bars are 1σ sampling error for n = 6 and is representative of that at othercluster sizes.

67
of compute time. The reason for this extremely long duration is explored in Chapter 4 which
examines the GSR dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n . The 840-nm excitation has a much greater impact
on the GSR dynamics compared to the photoproduct branching ratios. However, we would
expect that the 840-nm results for IBr− (CO2 )8−11 would approximate the 790-nm and 770-nm
results as the reported ratios do.

3.5

Sensitivity of Near-Infrared Photoproduct Ratios to LennardJones Parameters
In Section 2.2.2 it was noted that the standard Lennard-Jones (LJ) parameter ﬁt to theBr− · · · CO2 interaction, tabulated in Table 2.3, was slightly less attractive than the well depth
for the Br− · · · CO2 T-shaped geometry calculated at the coupled cluster with single, double,
and iterative triple excitations (CCSD(T)) level of theory (Figure 2.7). In order to explore theeﬀect of this on the dynamics simulations, an alternate set of LJ parameters was determinedthat matched the energetics of the CCSD(T) ﬁt as shown in Figure 2.15. A similar set of
LJ parameters was determined that matched the Br− · · · CO2 T-shaped energetics predictedby a multireference conﬁguration interaction (MRCI) calculation of the system. This MRCI
prediction is shown in Figure 2.7 and it is shallower even than the standard LJ ﬁt.
In order to test the eﬀect of the LJ ﬁt parameters on photoproduct ratios, trajectories
were assembled for IBr− (CO2 )1−14 . Each ensemble was composed of 100 trajectories assembled
in the same fashion as before. The trajectories were run with a classical time-step of 1.0 fs
for durations of 50 ps for IBr− (CO2 )1−6 and 3000 ps for IBr− (CO2 )7−14 . If the bond length
exceeded 40 a0 , the trajectory was terminated and classiﬁed as dissociated. If more than 20
crossings of the ground-state well occur, the trajectory was considered to have recombined. The
results of these simulations are shown in Figure 3.9.
For the smaller clusters, the inﬂuence of the alternative LJ parameters appears negligible.
For n ≤ 6, the coupled cluster (CC) ﬁt leads to much the same ratios as the standard ﬁt for
all the product channels. The conﬁguration interaction (CI) ﬁt seems to give better results for

68

100
Experiment
Theory (Inf.)

%I

−

80

Theory (CI Fit)
Theory (CC Fit)

60
40
20
0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
No. of CO2

100

% Br

−

80
60
40
20
0
100

% IBr

−

80
60
40
20
0

Figure 3.9: Branching ratios for near-infrared (790-nm) photodissociation including results fortight Lennard-Jones ﬁts to MRCI (dot-dash) and CCSD(T) (dot) Br− · · · CO2 data as seen in
Figure 2.7, as well as the normal Lennard-Jones ﬁt from Table 2.3 (dash with squares) andexperimental data from Sanford, et al [79].

69
the Br− channel, but at the expense of the I− channel which is much too prevalent. This canbe explained by the fact that the CI ﬁt leads to a Br− · · · CO2 interaction that is less attractive
than the I− · · · CO2 interaction, thus favoring the I− channel.
In larger clusters, the CI ﬁt results in more extreme behavior. The I− channel is much
too large at the expense of the ground-state recombination (GSR) IBr− channel, especiallyfor IBr− (CO2 )8 where the CI ﬁt leads to near total domination of the I− channel with severe
depletion of the IBr− products. This larger I− channel trend continues even up to IBr− (CO2 )12 .
Comparing the CC ﬁt results to the standard ﬁt in Figure 2.15, it would seem that thetighter CC ﬁt would provide the best LJ parameters. As the cluster size grows, the IBr− channel
dominates the product ratios much faster than the standard ﬁt, although there is less agreement
when comparing the Br− channel in IBr− (CO2 )3−7 . For this channel, the overproduction ofBr− product from the standard ﬁt is enhanced making it worse. Despite this overenhancementof the Br− channel, though, the better ﬁt with ground-state recombination (GSR) IBr− productwould seem to favor the use of the CCSD(T) LJ parameters.
However, as shown in Chapter 4, the CC ﬁt results in ground-state relaxation times thatare much too long compared to experiment, whereas the standard ﬁt provides a better match to
the experimental trends. For consistency, we have therefore relied primarily upon the standard
ﬁt for analyzing the time-independent data in this chapter.

3.6

Conclusions
Simulations of the near-infrared (IR) photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )n were performed

and compared to experiment. We found that 790-nm excitation to the A� state leads to dy­
namics in larger clusters that cannot be studied on the tens-of-picoseconds scale. As will beshown in Chapter 4, these dynamics correspond to trapping on the A� state which can occur
for many nanoseconds. By extrapolating long-duration simulations to predict their products if
run to completion, our simulations show reasonable agreement to experiment, Figure 3.3. The
simulations tend to overestimate dissociation at the expense of ground-state recombined IBr−

70
product, but the general pattern demonstrated in experiment is largely duplicated. Using exem­
plar trajectories for IBr− (CO2 )1 and IBr− (CO2 )6 , we were able to detail how increasing solvent
begins to alter the properties of the system. The larger solvent environment of IBr− (CO2 )6 led
to interesting dynamics such as rapid charge localization leading to state energetics that diﬀeredfrom expectations if one were to only use the bare ion curves, Figure 2.1, as reference.
Sensitivity tests on the near-IR photodissociation dynamics were also described. The
ﬁrst explored the use of a redder, 840-nm excitation to model a shallower, calculated groundstate well depth compared experiment which leads to less kinetic energy release (KER) upon
excitation. We found that the 840-nm excitation had little eﬀect on the photoproduct channels ofIBr− (CO2 )n . Newer photoelectron spectroscopy experiments on IBr− have provided a diﬀerent,
shallower D0 value which, when zero-point energy is taken into account means the standard
790-nm simulation is too red. To model this eﬀect, a slightly bluer, 770-nm excitation wasmodeled and the photoproduct ratios of IBr− (CO2 )n again showed little eﬀect. A greater eﬀect
was seen in the other sensitivity test described, that of the Lennard-Jones (LJ) parameters
used in the molecular dynamics (MD) model. We found that a more attractive, tighter ﬁt to
the calculated coupled cluster with single, double, and iterative triple excitations (CCSD(T))
T-shaped Br− · · · CO2 interaction led to slightly better photoproduct ratios than that of thestandard ﬁt presented in Table 2.3.
However, tests performed on the sensitivity of the ground-state recombination recovery
times of IBr− (CO2 )n in Chapter 4 to both excitation wavelength and the LJ parameters willshow a more profound eﬀect. The small eﬀects seen on the photoproduct ratios due to excitation
wavelength will contrast with the large eﬀects seen on the ground-state recovery times, often
improving our performance relative to experiment in contrast to the ﬁndings in this chapter.
Likewise, we will show that the CCSD(T) ﬁt leads to a worse match with the experimental
ground-state recombination recovery times. This shows the need to balance various criteria
when selecting parameters for the MD model. If we had selected the tighter CCSD(T) ﬁt as
our primary parameters based on its performance in the photoproduct ratios, the successes that

71
will be seen in Chapter 4 using the standard ﬁt may have been missed.

Chapter 4

Ground-State Recombination Dynamics in IBr− (CO2 )n Near-Infrared
Photodissociation

In this chapter we will focus on the ground-state recombination (GSR) dynamics ofIBr− (CO2 )n near-infrared (IR) photodissociation. We hinted that these dynamics were thesource of the oddities seen in the short-time photoproduct ratios in the previous chapter. We
will begin by laying down a brief overview of the theoretical methods we will be using in thesesimulations.
We will start our investigation not with the smallest IBr− (CO2 )n clusters that demon­
strate GSR, but rather with the cluster that started the investigation historically in experiment:
IBr− (CO2 )8 . During this analysis, we will explore the excited-state trapping that characterizes
the long-time recombination dynamics. We will also introduce our main tool to view these
trajectories, the solvent ﬂow plot, which allows us to view the interplay of solute and solvent
geometries over the course of a trajectory. With these plots, we will plainly see the trapping
as well as the transition state whose barrier we believe causes the dynamics to occur at longer
times than was assumed.
After the focus on IBr− (CO2 )8 , we will then survey the range of IBr− (CO2 )n clusters bymoving from the smaller clusters to the largest studied. In this survey, we will focus again on
two clusters, IBr− (CO2 )12 and IBr− (CO2 )14 . The former is representative of the dynamics seen
in most of the larger clusters, the latter exhibits a unique double time scale which includes both
fast and slow recovery trajectories. A summary of the ground-state recombination dynamics

73
for IBr− (CO2 )5−16 can be found in Appendix B. A similar, smaller tabulated summary will bepresented in each of the three sections of the survey below.
During this survey, we will compare our predicted GSR recovery times to those observed
experimentally. However, as we progress to the larger clusters, we will see that experimentis no longer able to provide comparative data. Using simulations of absorption spectra forIBr− (CO2 )12 , we will propose an explanation on energetic grounds for the diﬃculties that theexperimentalists have encountered in trying to obtain recombination results.
Finally, we will perform two sensitivity experiments on our simulations. As mentioned
in Section 2.2.1.3, the calculated well depth for the ground state of bare IBr− is shallower thanthat found in experiment. We will use a redder, 840-nm excitation in simulations to determine
the eﬀect of our standard curves on the GSR recovery times for IBr− (CO2 )n photodissociation.
Likewise, in Section 2.2.2, we noted that our standard Br− · · · CO2 Lennard-Jones (LJ) param­
eters used for our simulations, tabulated in Table 2.3, do not exactly match the energetics ofthe calculated coupled cluster with single, double, and iterative triple excitations (CCSD(T))
Br− · · · CO2 interaction. We will show the eﬀects of using diﬀerent LJ parameters which matchthe CCSD(T) Br− · · · CO2 interaction on the simulated GSR recovery times, as well as a diﬀerent
ﬁt to a less attractive multireference conﬁguration interaction (MRCI) Br− · · · CO2 interaction.

4.1

Theoretical Methods of Ground-State Recombination
Long-time nonadiabatic molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of IBr− (CO2 )5−16 werecarried out to obtain simulated time constants for ground-state recombination (GSR), see Fig­ure 4.1. All simulations used a time step of 1 fs, while the length of simulations ranged from 20
ps for IBr− (CO2 )5 to 2 ns for IBr− (CO2 )8,10 with ensemble sizes ranging from 100 trajectories
to more than 1700 for IBr− (CO2 )5 .1
Time constants were calculated via single-exponential ﬁt of the number of total recom­
1 The extra-large ensemble size for IBr− (CO ) was used in order to help resolve short-time behavior in this
2 5
system.

74

Absorption Recovery Time (ps)

10000

1000

100

10

1
5

6

7

8

9
10
11 12 13−
No. of CO2 Solvent on IBr

14

15

16

Figure 4.1: Experimental [80] (dotted with X) and simulated (dashed with circles) ground-state
recombination recovery times for near-infrared (790 nm) photoexcitation of IBr− (CO2 )n . Error
bars for simulations are within the size of the circle, save for the long-time IBr− (CO2 )14 point.
Experimental n = 12 point is unreported and provisional.

75
bined trajectories over time:��N (t) = A0 1 − e(−t/τ ) .

(4.1)

A trajectory was considered “recombined” when the IBr bond length had reached 3.3 Å on the
ground state. The lone exception to the single-exponential ﬁt was IBr− (CO2 )14 which required
the use of two time constants, see Figure 4.25. The preexponential factor, A0 , in Equation 4.1
was used in order to both achieve the best ﬁt and as a check to see if the distribution achieved thecorrect “inﬁnite-time” behavior. That is, if simulations showed that 70 trajectories recombinedby the end of the time scale considered, as t → ∞, N (t) → 70, and so A0 → 70. If this trend
was not seen, A0 was adjusted so long-time behavior was met. Also, with the smaller clusters,
IBr− (CO2 )5,6 , it was necessary to oﬀset the time axis due to a delay in GSR rise, so Equation 4.1
was modiﬁed:��
N (t) = A0 1 − e(−(t−t0 )/τ )(4.2)

where t0 accounts for the shift. This shift was ﬁt along with A0 and τ and will be given whennecessary. Finally, all error bars included in the simulated results below are based on the 95%
conﬁdence interval for the asymptotic standard errors of the ﬁts.
We note that technically speaking, our time constant does not correspond exactly to thatmeasured in the experiment. The simulated results count the populations of trajectories thatreach a particular conﬁguration on a speciﬁc electronic state; they do not directly simulate thepump-probe recovery. While there is no guarantee that these should lead to the same results,
we believe the evidence presented below shows that this population recovery analysis of thesimulations is valid. The time scale of the trajectories in reaching the ground-state (often,
hundreds of picoseconds to nanoseconds) are much longer than any subsequent time scales for
dynamics on the ground state. We expect any vibrations, vibrational relaxation, etc., to becomplete within a few picoseconds so we do not worry about the time necessary to reach theground-state absorption window.

76

4.2

IBr− (CO2 )8 : The Troublemaker That Started It All
Following the IBr− (CO2 )n photoproduct studies of the Lineberger Group [77,79], the ﬁrst

time-resolved pump-probe recombination experiments were conducted on IBr− (CO2 )8 . This
cluster was chosen because it was the smallest cluster to demonstrate complete recombination
to the ground state, see Figure 3.3. By analogy to I−
2 (CO2 )n [45], an absorption recovery timeof 10-30 ps was expected. As shown in Figure 4.2, however, no probe absorption signal was seen
over the ﬁrst 200 ps, the maximum delay possible on the setup at that time. In order to extend
the experiment, a crude delay-line was set up to gather points from 5-8 ns. These long-timedelays showed that the recombination had essentially completed by 5 ns.
When this discrepancy was discovered, our original 50-ps simulations, see Figure 3.1,
were reexamined as they had seemed to show recombination on a 50-ps time scale at least. It
was found that the script used to assign the products was grouping all IBr− -based products
together, instead of counting only the ground-state IBr− products. A further analysis, shownin Figure 3.2, revealed that clusters from IBr− (CO2 )7 to IBr− (CO2 )15 all had excited-state
trapped IBr− product at the end of 50 ps; indeed, for IBr− (CO2 )8−11 nearly all the productwas trapped in the excited-state well!
In an attempt to reconcile experiment and simulation, long-time trajectories of nearinfrared (IR) photodissociation were undertaken for IBr− (CO2 )8 . An ensemble of 100 trajecto­ries was propagated for 2 ns using a timestep of 1.0 fs. Of those 100 trajectories, 75 recombined in
the ground-state in 2 ns, leading to a ﬁtted time constant of 498 ± 23 ps, Figure 4.3. Subsequenttime-resolved experiments led to a time scale of 900 ± 100 ps.
This long-time relaxation behavior is attributed to the presence of a well on the excitedA� state in the solvated ion that inhibits the expected fast ground-state recovery signal. One
attempt to visualize this well is shown in Figure 4.4, which is an example potential energy
surface (PES) for IBr− (CO2 )8 . These curves were generated by using as input the minimalenergy structure for IBr− (CO2 )8 , shown in Figure 2.12. In this conﬁguration, the iodine in77Normalized two-photon
counts

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0

200

5000
Pump-probe delay (ps)8000

Figure 4.2: Ground-state recombination probability of IBr− (CO2 )8 as a function of time. The
time scale is broken in order to indicate the large diﬀerence. Dotted line provided as a guide forthe eyes. Figure reproduced with permission from Sanford [77].

78

80

1

τMD = 498 ± 23 ps
0.6
40
0.4
τexpt = 900 ± 100 ps

Expt. Signal (Arb. Units)

No. of Recomb. Trajectories

0.8
60

20
0.2

0

0

500

1000
Time (ps)

1500

0
2000

Figure 4.3: Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )8 . The red line represents
theoretical results and the green dots represent experimental data. Dotted lines represent singleexponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1. Experimental results from Dribinski, et al [80].

79
the cluster is not hindered by any solvent, so the iodine is “pulled” from the cluster and theresulting state energies plotted as a function of the I-Br separation. The arrow in Figure 4.4
roughly corresponds to a 790-nm photon excitation from the ground-state. This arrow is mainly
included as a guide to show that the energetics, even in a naive comparison with this PES, showthat trapping in the solvent-generated well on the excited state is possible. In fact, as a test,
50-ps simulations of IBr− (CO2 )8 were run using a 730-nm photon and the extra kinetic energy
release (KER) provided by this more energetic photon allowed most of the IBr− product torecombine in the ground state within 50 ps.
However, these curves are not the best way to interpret the trajectories on the excitedstate. The problem is that these curves are generated only for one solvent conﬁguration forthe cluster; moreover, this solvent conﬁguration is the minimal energy conﬁguration for the
ground state. This is a conﬁguration that would rarely, if ever, be seen after warming thecluster to 60 K, let alone after excitation with a 790-nm photon. Instead, to visualize thetrajectories, a technique used previously by the Parson group [41, 75] is adopted, in which
trajectories are analyzed in terms of two coordinates, solute bond length and a collective solvent
coordinate. We deﬁne this solvent coordinate, ΔΦ, as the change in energy when a chargeof −e is moved from one solute atom to another. In IBr− , a negative ΔΦ broadly represents
a solvent conﬁguration that is concentrated around the bromine atom, while a positive ΔΦ
corresponds to a conﬁguration concentrated around the iodine. A larger absolute value of ΔΦ
represents more solvent asymmetry, Figure 4.5 (bottom), while a ΔΦ near zero represents a more
symmetric solvent conﬁguration, Figure 4.5 (top). Note that, unlike a symmetric solute system
like I−
2 (CO2 )n , ΔΦ = 0 does not exactly equal a symmetric solvent conﬁguration as the twosolute atoms are not the same. Also, while ΔΦ is a measure of the energy for a cluster geometry,it does not directly specify the nuclear separation. Many diﬀerent solute-solvent conﬁgurations
correspond to the same value of ΔΦ.
While these plots will allow analysis of the concerted motion of the solute and solvent overthe length of the trajectory, the energy landscape will have to be inferred from the limitations of

80

2.5

2

Energy (eV)

1.5

1

0.5

0

-0.5
2

3

4

5
R (Ang)6

7

8

Figure 4.4: Potential energy surface for IBr− (CO2 )8 generated by “pulling” the iodine from theIBr− (CO2 )8 minimal energy structure seen in Figure 2.12 and plotting the energy as a functionof separation. Arrow roughly shows a 790-nm excitation as a guide for the eyes.

81

Figure 4.5: Visual representation of the solvent coordinate, ΔΦ, using IBr− (CO2 )8 clusters(bromine on left, iodine on right of solute). Symmetric solvent conﬁguration, top, small ΔΦ.
Asymmetric solvent conﬁguration, bottom, large ΔΦ.

82
this movement on the landscape. That is, wells and valleys of the energy landscape will appear
as trajectories trapped either in small, compact areas (wells) or long, slim areas (valleys) of
movement. Finally, included in these plots is an extra dimension of analysis: the state which a
trajectory currently occupies is color-coded according to the scheme used in the bare IBr− PES,
Figure 2.1, where green, red, and black represent the second- and ﬁrst-excited states and theground state, respectively.
To demonstrate the utility of these solvent ﬂow plots, two examples for IBr− (CO2 )8 , arepresented that allow analysis of the ground-state recombination (GSR) dynamics. The ﬁrst ofthese plots, Figure 4.6, is an example of a trajectory that was trapped over its 50-ps lifetime.
After excitation to the excited state (the point roughly at 3 Å), the solute begins to dissociate,
and the solvent becomes more asymmetric around the solute. At this point it becomes trappedin a well located at about 3.8 Å. While the trajectory does make an attempt to dissociate, theturning point implies the existence of a wall to dissociation as the I-Br bond length increases.
In comparison to this trapped trajectory, one that achieves ground-state recombinationin shown in Figure 4.7. In this case, while the cluster was initially trapped in the same excitedstate well, it eventually achieved a more symmetric solvent conﬁguration which allowed it tocross over to a conﬁguration in which I−
2 is solvated (positive ΔΦ). At this point it was able toincrease its bond length to a point where a nonadiabatic transition to lower states was possible(shown as a color change from green to red). After the hop was made, the trajectory quickly(on the order of a few ps) hopped to the ground state and recombined in the ground-state well.
Thus, the long-time dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )8 are attributed to the need for the solvent
to reorganize, passing through a more symmetric conﬁguration in order to reach the area of thesurface where nonadiabatic transitions to lower states and, later, relaxation to the ground state
can occur.
To better show the location of this conﬁgurational transition state, a solvent ﬂow plot of
all 75 trajectories that relaxed to the ground state during the 2-ns runs, overlaid into one plot,
is presented in Figure 4.8. This plot shows that every single trajectory that eventually relaxes

83

Figure 4.6: Plot of solvent coordinate, ΔΦ, versus solute bond length for a trapped trajectory for
IBr− (CO2 )8 . Green represents trajectory dynamics on the second-excited state. dPhi (=ΔΦ)
is in eV and R is in Angstroms.

84

Figure 4.7: Plot of solvent coordinate, ΔΦ, versus solute bond length for a trapped trajectoryfor IBr− (CO2 )8 . Black, red, and green represent trajectory dynamics on the ground, ﬁrst-, andsecond-excited states, respectively dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in Angstroms.

85

Figure 4.8: Plot of solvent coordinate, ΔΦ, versus solute bond length for 2-ns trajectories forIBr− (CO2 )8 that end as IBr− product in the ground state. Black, red, and green represent
trajectory dynamics on the ground, ﬁrst-, and second-excited states, respectively dPhi (=ΔΦ)
is in eV and R is in Angstroms.

86
to the ground state must pass through a transition state located at roughly at ΔΦ = −0.3 eV
and R = 3.9 ˚
A. There appears to be a very narrow range of solvent conﬁgurations that willaﬀord escape from the excited state well. Furthermore, Figure 4.8 also allows a more complete
mapping of the energy surface seen by IBr− (CO2 )8 during its trajectories. First, the excitedstate well, while concentrated around 4 Å of solvent separation, isn’t so compact that trajectories
can’t reach bond lengths of up to 6 Å, although that seems to be the limit. In other words,
the excited state is bound, but only loosely. At longer bond lengths, the A� state seems to
evolve from a single well structure to a double well structure. This seems to be crucial as itallows the clusters to reach the valley in the A� state located at zero ΔΦ where the nonadiabaticA� → A transitions occur. Likewise, the long-bond length double-valley structure extends toboth the A state and ground-state. As discussed in earlier studies of I−
2 (CO2 )n [24, 29], thedouble-wells in the X and A states correspond to localized charge distributions (solvated-I− andbromine and iodine and solvated-Br− ), whereas the single well on the X state at short bondlengths corresponds to a delocalized, molecular charge distribution. The delocalized distribution
wins out at short separations where the chemical bonding interactions are stronger than the X− ­solvent interactions. In the A state, the chemical forces are weak for all R, so the charge remains
localized at nearly all internuclear distances.
In fact, it is this double-valley conﬁguration that provides clues into the mechanismsof both Br− dissociation, Figure 4.9, and I− dissociation, Figure 4.10, in IBr− (CO2 )8 . As in
Figure 4.8, these are composites of all trajectories that led to Br− and I− products before 2
ns was reached.

The mechanism for both Br− and I− dissociation follows that for GSR.

Both channels begin with trapping in the excited-state well that is escaped only by crossing thesame conﬁgurational transition state needed to reach the area of nonadiabatic transition. The
clusters then enter either the -ΔΦ valley and dissociate to form Br− product or they enter the+ΔΦ valley and dissociate to form I− product. Interestingly, in Figure 4.9, evidence is seen of
the A state forming a single-well structure at shorter bond lengths as a few trajectories wereactually able to transition from the +ΔΦ valley to the -ΔΦ valley by moving to a tighter solute

87

Figure 4.9: Plot of solvent coordinate, ΔΦ, versus solute bond length for 2-ns trajectories forIBr− (CO2 )8 that end as Br− product. Black, red, and green represent trajectory dynamics
on the ground, ﬁrst-, and second-excited states, respectively dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in
Angstroms.

88

Figure 4.10: Plot of solvent coordinate, ΔΦ, versus solute bond length for 2-ns trajectories forIBr− (CO2 )8 that end as I− product. Black, red, and green represent trajectory dynamics on
the ground, ﬁrst-, and second-excited states, respectively dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in
Angstroms.

Duration
(ps)
5
20
6
20
7
200
a
t0 shift in Eqn. 4.2
bRef. 80
No. of CO2

No. of
Traj.
1796
1000
237

No. of GSR
Product
711
440
155

τsim
(ps)
3.43 ± 0.06
6.97 ± 0.18
33.4 ± 0.7

t0 a
(ps)
0.7
1.65
—

τexpt b(ps)
12 ± 0.530 ± 5140 ± 2089

Table 4.1: Summary of ground-state recombination (GSR) recovery dynamics of near-IR (790nm) photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )5−7 . All simulations performed with 1.0 fs time step. A
trajectory was considered dissociated once I-Br bond length reached 40 a0 or recombined after
20 crossings of the ground state well.

conﬁguration. This facilitated a solvent reorganization allowing entry into the Br− channel.
One ﬁnal note about the long-time solvent ﬂow plots shown above is that when comparedto the 50-ps plots in Figures 4.6 and 4.7 is that they seem “coarser” in their representation ofa trajectory. This is an artifact of the resolution: while the same 1.0-fs time-step was usedin all nonadiabatic runs, for these long-time runs the properties associated with the trajectorywere only reported every few picoseconds in order to reduce the disk space needed to store
these runs. If a multi-nanosecond run reported properties at the same rate as the shorter runs,
each trajectory could consume hundreds or thousands of megabytes each. It was felt that somecoarseness would not seriously impede the ability to analyze the properties of any trajectory.

4.3

Ground-State Recombination Dynamics in Smaller Clusters
The behavior of IBr− (CO2 )n ground-state recombination (GSR) in the smaller clusters

is a good starting point to view how the long-time dynamics change as the clusters grow more
asymmetric. As the cluster size increases from IBr− (CO2 )5 to IBr− (CO2 )7 —only two CO2
molecules—the GSR time increases by an order of magnitude. Table 4.3 summarizes the boththe ensemble starting statistics and resulting simulated GSR dynamics results for the small
clusters. In all cases in this and subsequent sections, a time-step of 1.0 fs was used. If the bondlength exceeded 40 a0 , the trajectory was terminated and classiﬁed as dissociated. If more than
20 crossings of the ground-state well occurred, the trajectory was considered to have recombined.

90
The investigation begins with IBr− (CO2 )5 , the smallest cluster considered here for ex­
amination of GSR dynamics. As seen in Figure 3.3, experiment observes over 90% ground-state
recombination (GSR) in IBr− (CO2 )5 , while in simulation, both IBr− - and Br− -based products
are signiﬁcant. It was found that the simulated GSR time for IBr− (CO2 )5 was 3.43 ± 0.06
ps, compared to the experimental value of 12 ± 0.5 ps (Figure 4.11). For the simulated ﬁt in
Figure 4.11, the shifted exponential, Equation 4.2, was used with a shift of t0 = 1.71 ps.
The reason such a large number of trajectories were included in the IBr− (CO2 )5 (and,vide infra, IBr− (CO2 )6 ) ensemble was that the experimentalists had noted that the GSR signal
began to rise only after a time delay of ≈ 0.7 ps. Previous simulations used ensembles too small
to deﬁnitively see this delay in the data, so the larger ensemble was run, resulting in 711 of the1796 trajectories relaxing to the ground state by 20 ps. With this larger data set, the simulations
were able to conﬁrm this delay in the GSR rise although the simulations see it occurring at ≈ 1.0
ps. We attribute this diﬀerence in the short-time dynamics between simulation and experiment
to the fact that, as stated above, we count the populations of trajectories that reach a certain
conﬁguration on a speciﬁc electronic state. The experiment, rather, measures the appearanceof the probe absorption signal which may (and most likely does) occur in a diﬀerent area ofthe potential energy surface. This diﬀerence in the short-time dynamics could therefore be areﬂection of our diﬀering methods of obtaining the time constant. This delay was accounted
for in the calculation of the simulated time constant by the use of the shifted exponential,
Equation 4.2, t0 = 0.7 ps, for the ﬁt.
Analysis of recombined trajectories attribute this time delay to the basic mechanics of thesystem. A trajectory that recombines on the ground state needs approximately one picosecond
to physically reorganize the solvent, nonadiabatically transition to the ground state, and reachthe 3.3 Å separation wherein it is counted as a ground-state product. The reason this delay is
only noticed, and therefore studied, for IBr− (CO2 )5,6 is that they are the only systems whose
simulated GSR time scales are small enough for the phenomenon to be observed. As will be seen
later in this chapter, larger clusters undergo trapping on the excited-state where this dynamical

91

800

τMD = 3.43 ± 0.06 ps

600

0.6

400
0.4
τexpt = 12 ± 0.5 ps
200

0Expt. Signal (Arb. Units)

No. of Recomb. Trajectories

0.8

0.2

0

5

10
Time (ps)

15

0
20

Figure 4.11: Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )5 . The red line represents
theoretical results and the green dots represent experimental data. Dotted lines represent singleexponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1. Experimental results from Dribinski, et al [80].

92
delay is precluded from being studied. Likewise, in experimental studies [80], the low GSR
signal at early times in larger clusters precludes the study of delayed onset in those systems.
Note, though, that there is no reason to assume such a short-time delay wouldn’t occur in larger
systems.
Similar GSR behavior is seen in simulations of IBr− (CO2 )6 , see Figure 4.12. The simu­
lated GSR time was found to be 6.97 ± 0.18 ps compared to the experimental value of 30 ± 5
ps. For the simulated ﬁt in Figure 4.12, the shifted exponential, Equation 4.2, was used with ashift of t0 = 1.65 ps. The addition of one solvent molecule has thus doubled the GSR time insimulation, with an even larger increase seen in the experiment. This diﬀerence is attributed tothe extra solvent asymmetry built in the cluster which has further stabilized the excited state
well. Figure 2.14 shows that when the clusters grows from IBr− (CO2 )5 to IBr− (CO2 )6 , theground-state solvent asymmetry becomes much more negative; that is, the bromine is solvatedmore eﬀectively. This can be observed pictorially in Figure 2.12 which charts the building of
the IBr− (CO2 )n clusters.
The trapping in IBr− (CO2 )6 , however, is not as severe as that seen IBr− (CO2 )8 . In
IBr− (CO2 )8 , the long-time trapping was caused by the need to reach a more symmetric conﬁg­
uration so transit to the nonadiabatic transition region could be made. But, from Figure 2.12,
the IBr− (CO2 )6 cluster, though asymmetric, needs much less concerted solvent motion in orderto reach a symmetric solvent geometry.
That said, one should not depend too much on the minimum energy cluster geometries
and ground-state ΔΦ trends to predict trends in GSR. From our experience with IBr− (CO2 )5and IBr− (CO2 )6 , one would expect that the diﬀerence from IBr− (CO2 )6 to IBr− (CO2 )7 would
not be as drastic. The ground-state ΔΦ does not change much and the ground-state solvent
geometries are not drastically diﬀerent. Yet, when GSR simulations of IBr− (CO2 )7 were run(Figure 4.13), the recovery time was found to be 33.4 ± 0.7 ps in simulation compared to a timeof 140 ± 20 ps seen in experiment. Although the solvent conﬁguration diﬀerence in the groundstate between IBr− (CO2 )6 and IBr− (CO2 )7 is not that great, the GSR recovery time has more

93

500

0.5

0.4
300

τMD = 6.97 ± 0.18 ps
0.3

200

τexpt = 30 ± 5 ps

0.2

100

0

Expt. Signal (Arb. Units)

No. of Recomb. Trajectories

400

0.1

0

5

10
Time (ps)

15

0
20

Figure 4.12: Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )6 . The red line represents
theoretical results and the green dots represent experimental data. Dotted lines represent singleexponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1. Experimental results from Dribinski, et al [80].

94

200

0.8

0.6

τMD = 33.4 ± 0.7 ps

100

0.4
τexpt = 140 ± 20 ps

50

0Expt. Signal (Arb. Units)

No. of Recomb. GS Traj.

150

0.2

0

50

100
Time (ps)

150

0
200

Figure 4.13: Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )7 . The red line represents
theoretical results and the green dots represent experimental data. Dotted lines represent singleexponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1. Experimental results from Dribinski, et al [80].

Duration No. of No. of GSR
(ps)
Traj.
Product
8
2000
100
75
9
4000
100
54
10
4000
90
44
11
3000
100
74
a
A0 in Eqn. 4.1
bRef. 80c
Lower bound to time constant
No. CO2Extrap. GSR
Producta
—
76
70
87

τsim
(ps)
498 ± 233620 ± 60c
4150 ± 120c
2540 ± 60c

τexpt b(ps)
900 ± 100—900 ± 100—95

Table 4.2: Summary of ground-state recombination (GSR) recovery dynamics of near-IR (790nm) photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )8−11 . All simulations performed with 1.0 fs time step. A
trajectory was considered dissociated once I-Br bond length reached 40 a0 or recombined after
20 crossings of the ground state well.

than tripled. The reason is that the additional solvent molecule has a much larger impact upon
the solvation of the excited state than the ground state. Figure 4.18 will be crucial in explaining
the dynamics of the larger clusters, but it can also help explain the smaller cluster increases
as well. As the cluster size increases from IBr− (CO2 )6 to IBr− (CO2 )10,11 , the average ΔΦ
of the excited-state well grows in magnitude. Thus, the excited state cluster’s conﬁguration
is more asymmetric than a casual glance at the minimum energy structures in the groundstate, Figure 2.12, would predict. And since the cluster must reorganize to symmetric solvent
conﬁgurations in order to reach the transition state, the GSR recovery time is lengthened.

4.4

Ground-State Recombination Dynamics of Intermediate-Sized
Clusters
As the size of the IBr− (CO2 )n clusters increase from n = 5 → 8, the ground-state

recombination (GSR) recovery time increases from 5 → 500 ps in simulation and 10 → 1000
ps in experiment. This is remarkable agreement with both predicting a change of 2 orders ofmagnitude. However, the simulations of the intermediate-sized clusters, IBr− (CO2 )9−11 , begin
to diverge from experiment. Table 4.4 summarizes both the ensemble starting statistics andresulting simulated GSR dynamics results for the intermediate-sized clusters.
The ﬁrst two intermediate-sized clusters, IBr− (CO2 )9 and IBr− (CO2 )10 , represent the

96
peak of GSR times in simulation. It was found that the simulated GSR time for IBr− (CO2 )9 was
at least 3.62 ± 0.06 ns (Figure 4.14. This number is based on the assumption that the productratio at 4 ns was the same at it would be at inﬁnite time, and so the preexponential factor, A0 in
Equation 4.1, was set to 76 as the inﬁnite extrapolation predicted an additional 23 trajectories
recombining. No experiments were carried out at IBr− (CO2 )9 , but it is suspected that thesimulations overestimate the GSR time for this cluster. This assumption is made by visualinspection of the overall GSR trends in Figure 4.1 where it appears that there is a turnaroundin GSR time between IBr− (CO2 )8 and IBr− (CO2 )10 . If this is true, the experimental time
constant is likely on the order of 1-3 ns compared to the simulations which give a lower boundnear 4 ns.
Likewise, simulations of IBr− (CO2 )10 were run, and it was found that the simulated GSRtime had a lower bound of at least 4.15 ± 0.12 ns (Figure 4.15). Like IBr− (CO2 )9 , IBr− (CO2 )10
had many trajectories that did not escape the excited-state well. This recovery time is based on
the assumption that the product ratio at 4 ns was the same at it would be at inﬁnite time, and so
the preexponential factor, A0 in Equation 4.1, was set to 70 as the inﬁnite extrapolation predicted
an additional 26 trajectories recombining. Unlike IBr− (CO2 )9 , there is some experimental data
for IBr− (CO2 )10 which has shown a GSR time constant of 900 ± 100 ps, roughly the same timescale as IBr− (CO2 )8 .
The simulations of IBr− (CO2 )9 and IBr− (CO2 )10 predict GSR recovery times on theorder of at least 4-5 ns. When compared to the experimental data for these two clusters, a GSR
recovery time for IBr− (CO2 )10 of less than a nanosecond, the simulations have overestimatedthe recovery time. This seems to indicate that our model creates too large a barrier for thesolvent reorganization. Our ability to analyze the reasons for this diﬀerence are hindered by theextremely long simulation times needed. The 4-ns simulations referenced above took a month ofcomputation time to run just 100 trajectories...many of which did not even escape the excitedstate! That said, there is no evidence that the mechanism for IBr− (CO2 )9,10 GSR is any diﬀerent
than that shown for IBr− (CO2 )8 in Section 4.2. In each case it is the solvent reorganization to

97

60

No. of Recomb. Trajectories

50

40

30
τ = 3.62 ± 0.06 ns
20

10

0

0

1000

2000
Time (ps)

3000

4000

Figure 4.14: Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )9 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1.

98

50

2

τMD = 4.15 ± 0.12 ns
1.5

30
1

τexpt = 900 ± 100 ps
20

Expt. Signal (Arb. Units)

No. of Recomb. Trajectories

40

0.5
10

0

0

1000

2000
Time (ps)

3000

0
4000

Figure 4.15: Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )10 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1.
Experimental results from Dribinski, et al [80].

13

Duration(ps)300

No. ofTraj.
250

No. of GSR
Product
199

14

3000

100

96

15
16
a
Ref. 80

150
150

100
100

99
97

No. of CO2

τsim
(ps)
34.1 ± 1.6
40.9 ± 1.91500 ± 440
32.7 ± 2.8
52.0 ± 3.1

a
τexpt
(ps)
—

99

—
—
—

Table 4.3: Summary of ground-state recombination (GSR) recovery dynamics of near-IR (790nm) photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )12−16 . All simulations performed with 1.0 fs time step. A
trajectory was considered dissociated once I-Br bond length reached 40 a0 or recombined after
20 crossings of the ground state well.

a small range of symmetric geometries that is stalling the recovery.
Fortunately, IBr− (CO2 )9,10 turned out to yield the longest GSR times in this cluster.
When simulations of IBr− (CO2 )11 were run, with the results shown in Figure 4.16, it was foundthat the simulated GSR time was still long, but was only at least 2.54 ± 0.06 ns. While this is
not a drastic drop-oﬀ in recovery time, it does presage the change in dynamics in larger clusters
shown in Figure 4.1. Like IBr− (CO2 )9 , the GSR time constant for IBr− (CO2 )11 was calculatedusing the same “inﬁnite-time” extrapolation where it was assumed that of the 15 trajectories
still trapped at 4 ns, 13 would undergo GSR, so the preexponential factor, A0 in Equation 4.1,
was set to 87.

4.5

Ground-State Recombination Dynamics of Larger Clusters
The dynamics of the larger clusters, IBr− (CO2 )12−16 , diﬀer markedly from those of theintermediate-sized clusters, IBr− (CO2 )8−11 . Table 4.5 summarizes both the ensemble starting
statistics and resulting simulated ground-state recombination (GSR) dynamics results for thelarge clusters.

4.5.1

Focus on IBr− (CO2 )12 : A Transitional Cluster
Simulations of IBr− (CO2 )12 found the GSR time was not on the order of multiple nanosec­

onds, as was true for just one fewer solvent molecule, but rather 61.8 ± 2.1 ps (Figure 4.17).

100

No. of Recomb. Trajectories

8060
τ = 2.54 ± 0.06 ns

40

20

0

0

1000

2000
Time (ps)

3000

4000

Figure 4.16: Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )11 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1.

101
Obviously, something dramatic has occurred to the solvent environment of the cluster.
First, recalling the ground-state ΔΦ statistics shown in Figure 2.14, IBr− (CO2 )12 has aparticularly labile solvent conﬁguration in the ground state. Its average structure has nearly
the same ΔΦ as IBr− (CO2 )5 and it can sometimes have a structure that is nearly symmetric.
Thus, like IBr− (CO2 )5 , IBr− (CO2 )12 does not start in a solvent conﬁguration that greatly favors
the bromine end. In fact, IBr− (CO2 )12 seems to act as a “bridge” between the intermediatesized clusters, characterized by large |ΔΦ|, and the larger clusters which begin to approach asymmetric conﬁguration (small |ΔΦ|).
Similar trends are seen in the excited state. The average excited-state well ΔΦ values
for IBr− (CO2 )n are plotted in Figure 4.18, while the average IBr− (CO2 )n excited-state solute
geometry is plotted in Figure 4.19.

The most dramatic statistic is the average excited-statesolvent conﬁguration for IBr− (CO2 )12 in Figure 4.18; once again, IBr− (CO2 )12 can be seen asa bridge between smaller and larger clusters.
For IBr− (CO2 )6−11 , the large negative ΔΦ values in the ground-state conﬁguration imply
that after excitation the cluster dynamics begin on the -ΔΦ side of the excited state. As wehave seen in the previous sections, trajectories in this region are easily trapped. However,IBr− (CO2 )12 has much more freedom of movement in its solvent conﬁguration and can begin toaccess the +ΔΦ side of the excited state. To see this more clearly, Figure 4.20 shows the solvent
ﬂow dynamics of short-time (50-ps) trajectories which were trapped on the excited state forIBr− (CO2 )12 . From this plot, there are in fact two wells identiﬁed that IBr− (CO2 )12 can accessonce promoted to the excited state. Focusing on the starting points for the trajectory near 3.6
Å, which side of the excited state it enters appears to be a function of the initial conﬁgurationon the ground state. Those that began with the bromine end solvated, end up in a well thatfavors that conﬁguration, and similarly for iodine. In fact, the IBr− (CO2 )12 clusters having
ΔΦ > 0 on the ground state are already in that part of the excited state after excitation, where,
following IBr− (CO2 )8 , transitions to lower states occur. Analysis of GSR trajectories showsthat many of the rapidly relaxing clusters come from this side, although that is not a certainty

102

No. of Recomb. Trajectories

200

150

100
τ = 61.8 ± 2.1 ps

50

0

0

50

100

150
Time (ps)

200

250

300

Figure 4.17: Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )12 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1.

103

2

∆Φ (eV)

1

0

-1

-2

6

7

8

9

10
11
No. of CO2

12

13

14

15

Figure 4.18: Average solvent coordinate (ΔΦ) of the excited-state well in IBr− (CO2 )6−15 sim­
ulations. Error bars represent one standard deviation of the mean.

104

4.3
4.2
4.1

R (Ang)

4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
6

7

8

9

10
11
No. of CO2

12

13

14

15

Figure 4.19: Average solute bond length of the excited-state well in IBr− (CO2 )6−15 simulations.
Error bars represent one standard deviation of the mean.

105

Figure 4.20: Plot of solvent coordinate versus solute bond length for IBr− (CO2 )12 short-length
trajectories that were trapped on the excited state. Green represents trajectory dynamics on
the second-excited state. dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in Angstroms.

106
as long excursions can occur on the lower states. Also, since IBr− (CO2 )12 has a fairly fast GSR
recovery time, the transition state barrier for the -ΔΦ IBr− (CO2 )12 trajectories is probably not
as large as for the intermediate-sized clusters.
In Figure 4.21, the solvent ﬂow dynamics are plotted for IBr− (CO2 )12 trajectories that
relax to the ground state. While messy, the ﬁgure gives an overall picture of the process thatIBr− (CO2 )12 uses to recombine. Unlike IBr− (CO2 )8 (Figure 4.8), IBr− (CO2 )12 is able to easily
reorganize the solvent shell so that it can access the transition zone at ΔΦ ≈ 0.3 eV and around
5 Å. After that, though, the dynamics are quite similar. Both quickly move to either bromine or
iodine solvated conﬁgurations in the A state and then relax to the ground state and recombine.
This helps conﬁrm that the barrier seen in IBr− (CO2 )8−11 exists because of the fairly rigid
solvent conﬁgurations that these clusters can easily access in the excited state.
Finally, preliminary studies [123] have shown a possible experimental recovery time forIBr− (CO2 )12 on the order of 10 ps which is indicated in Figure 4.1. While this data has not been
conﬁrmed with additional experiments, it does provide evidence that our predicted turnaroundin the GSR recovery time at IBr− (CO2 )12 has an experimental counterpart. As discussed in
Section 4.5.4, experimental studies in this regime are diﬃcult to carry out.

4.5.2

The Large Clusters: IBr− (CO2 )13,15,16
The clusters whose GSR dynamics can be considered to be typical of large clusters are

IBr− (CO2 )13,15,16 . Analysis of IBr− (CO2 )14 is deferred until Section 4.5.3 due to its unique
double time scale dynamics. First, the simulated dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )13 (Figure 4.22) con­tinue the rapid recovery seen in IBr− (CO2 )12 . It was found that the simulated GSR timefor IBr− (CO2 )13 was 34.1 ± 1.6 ps. Thus, IBr− (CO2 )13 undergoes GSR at a faster rate thanIBr− (CO2 )12 . This phenomenon can be explained, for IBr− (CO2 )13 as well as IBr− (CO2 )15,16 ,by referring back to the excited-state statistics in Figure 4.18. Unlike IBr− (CO2 )12 , there is
not a component of the dynamics in the -ΔΦ side of the excited state. Instead, all the clusters
begin their recombination dynamics on the same side of the excited state as the transition zone

107

Figure 4.21: Plot of solvent coordinate versus solute bond length for IBr− (CO2 )12 trajectories
that relax to the ground state. Black, red, and green represent trajectory dynamics on the
ground, ﬁrst-, and second-excited state. dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in Angstroms.

108

No. of Recomb. Trajectories200

τ = 34.1 ± 1.6 ps

150

100

50

0

0

50

100

150
Time (ps)

200

250

300

Figure 4.22: Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )13 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1.

109
located at +ΔΦ. This means that while there might be some movement in an excited state
well, there exists little to no barrier to solvent reorganization, so that the solvent conﬁgurations
where nonadiabatic transitions occur are readily reached.
Similar dynamics are seen in IBr− (CO2 )15 and IBr− (CO2 )16 . Simulations of IBr− (CO2 )15
were run (Figure 4.23) and it was found that the simulated GSR time for IBr− (CO2 )15 was
32.7 ± 2.8 ps. Also, simulations of IBr− (CO2 )16 were run (Figure 4.24) and it was found thatthe simulated GSR time for IBr− (CO2 )16 was 52.0 ± 3.1 ps. Thus, for the largest clusters
studied, the simulations show that GSR becomes both fast and the dominant channel for nearinfrared (IR) photodissociation. Except, that is, for IBr− (CO2 )14 .

4.5.3

The Curious Case of IBr− (CO2 )14
The most interesting larger cluster of IBr− (CO2 )n is that of IBr− (CO2 )14 , which simu­

lation predicts has a double time scale for ground-state recombination (GSR). Shorter, 150-ps
runs similar to those done for the other larger clusters showed a signiﬁcant number of trajec­
tories still trapped on the excited state at the end of the run-time. In order to fully test thisphenomenon, an ensemble of 100 trajectories was run for 3 ns with the results for GSR shown in
Figure 4.25. The GSR data for IBr− (CO2 )14 could only be reliably ﬁt to a double exponential
with time constants of 40.9 ± 1.9 ps and 1500 ± 440 ps. Thus, there appear to be two diﬀerent
processes present in IBr− (CO2 )14 . One is much like the fast recovery process seen in the larger
clusters, while the other is slow like that seen in IBr− (CO2 )8−11 .
In order to investigate this double “personality” of IBr− (CO2 )14 , solvent ﬂow plots fortwo diﬀerent recombined trajectories are presented below that demonstrate the two mechanisms.
Figure 4.26 shows a trajectory that gets caught in an excited-state well on the A� state. This
well is the +ΔΦ mate to the -ΔΦ well seen in IBr− (CO2 )8 trajectories. Like IBr− (CO2 )8 there
again appears to be a conﬁgurational transition state that must be crossed in order to reach the
nonadiabatic transition valley. And, as before, the hopping region lies in a conﬁguration that ismore symmetrical than that of the trapped species.

110

120

No. of Recomb. Trajectories

10080
τ = 32.7 ± 2.8 ps
60

40

20

0

0

50

100

150

Time (ps)Figure 4.23: Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )15 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1.

111

100

No. of Recomb. Trajectories80τ = 52.0 ± 3.1 ps

60

40

20

0

0

50

100

150

Time (ps)Figure 4.24: Ground-state recombination dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )16 . The red line represents
theoretical results. Dotted lines represent single-exponential ﬁts to the data, see Equation 4.1.

112

100
τsing = 68.9 ± 6.0 ps
No. of Recomb. Trajectories

80τfast = 40.9 ± 1.9 psτslow = 1500 ± 440 ps
60

40

20

0

0

500

1000
Time (ps)

1500

2000

Figure 4.25: Comparison of single- and double-exponential ﬁts to the ground-state recombination
time of IBr− (CO2 )14 . The red line represents the theoretical results. The green-dashed andblack-dashed lines are single- and double-exponential ﬁts, respectively. Ensemble composed of
100 3-ns trajectories.

113

Figure 4.26: Plot of solvent coordinate versus solute bond length for a long IBr− (CO2 )14 trajec­
tory that ends as IBr− on the ground state. Black, red, and green represent trajectory dynamics
on the ground, ﬁrst-, and second-excited states, respectively dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and R is in
Angstroms.

114
Conversely, a larger proportion of the IBr− (CO2 )14 GSR product actually proceeds in a
fashion similar to other large clusters. As seen in Figure 4.27, the trajectory manages to avoid
being trapped in the A� well and instead proceeds with a fast recombination to the groundstate. The reason why IBr− (CO2 )14 can proceed by a fast process is obviously that it is similar
in its near-symmetric conﬁguration like that of IBr− (CO2 )13,15 . The solvent-mediated tran­
sition state shown for the long-time GSR recovery is most likely lower than the one seen inIBr− (CO2 )8−11 since even the long-time component is faster than the “fastest” intermediatesized cluster, IBr− (CO2 )11 . This is most likely due to the location of the nonadiabatic transitionzone. As seen in both Figure 4.26 and Figure 4.8, the transition zone is located at positive val­ues of ΔΦ. Thus, the IBr− (CO2 )8−11 clusters must wholly change their solvent character frombromine- to iodine-solvated before the recombination process can begin. IBr− (CO2 )14 , on theother hand, is already solvated on the iodine and need less solvent motion as a consequence.
What is still unclear, however, is why IBr− (CO2 )14 shows a long-time process at all and whether
this is an artifact of the simulations or is based in reality.
As a test of the simulations, in analogy to IBr− (CO2 )8 , runs for IBr− (CO2 )14 were madeusing a bluer, 730-nm photon with the results shown in Figure 4.28. These simulations consistedof 100 total trajectories, of which 99 recombined in the ground state by the end time of 2000
ps. A trajectory was considered complete when 2000 ps had elapsed, an I-Br separation of 40
a0 was reached, or 20 crossings of the ground state had occurred. Using a 730-nm excitation,
simulations predict a single GSR recovery time of 54.3 ± 1.3 ps. This is in contrast to the double
time scale for recovery seen using the 790-nm excitation. Thus, it is possible that the excitedstate well seen for IBr− (CO2 )14 is perhaps just a coincidence of the energetics. However, inthe favor of trapping is the fact that the ground-state well depth predicted by our calculations,Figure 2.1, is shallower than in experiment. Thus, even a 790-nm excitation could be too blue!
An experimental test is needed to successfully resolve this oddity.

115

Figure 4.27: Plot of solvent coordinate versus solute bond length for a short IBr− (CO2 )14
trajectory that ends as IBr− on the ground state. Black, red, and green represent trajectory
dynamics on the ground, ﬁrst-, and second-excited states, respectively dPhi (=ΔΦ) is in eV and
R is in Angstroms.

116

100

No. of Recomb. Trajectories

80τsing = 54.3 ± 1.3 ps
60

40

20

0

0

250

500
Time (ps)

750

1000

Figure 4.28: Ground-state recombination dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )14 excited with a 730-nm pho­ton. The red line represents the theoretical results. The dotted line represents single-exponential
ﬁt to the data, see Equation 4.1.

117
4.5.4

Experimental Diﬃculty with Large IBr− (CO2 )n Clusters
The theoretical predictions of a recombination time turnaround at large cluster size andof a possible double time scale for recombination in IBr− (CO2 )14 have yet to be veriﬁed byexperiment. Unfortunately, several factors combine to make such experiments very diﬃcult.
To begin with, generation of these clusters is diﬃcult. As the size of the clusters in­creases, the yield of starting clusters decrease. For example, IBr− (CO2 )12 is generated at a
rate one-fourth that of IBr− (CO2 )6−8 . Various changes to the experimental setup including
more powerful electron guns, valve oriﬁce size alterations, and pulse variance have led to no
improvement, and indeed, sometimes resulted in a decrease in signal. [123]Moreover, as the cluster size increases, our simulated absorption spectra indicate that thepeak for A� ← X absorption is blue-shifted away from that of bare IBr− (Figure 4.29). As theexcitation laser used for the near-IR experiments is only slightly adjustable around the 790-800
nm range, by the time the cluster size increases to IBr− (CO2 )12 , the absorption cross section isessentially gone. Moreover, as the calculated ground-state well depth is shallower than that in
the experiment [79], the calculated values for all IBr− (CO2 )n spectra are redshifted by default,
q.v. Section 2.2.3. This means the experimentalists are “doubly-damned” when attempting toeﬀect absorption of large clusters.
While this does presage diﬃculty in experimental veriﬁcation of larger cluster dynamics,
the calculated IBr− (CO2 )12 spectrum, Figure 4.29, does have some interesting features thatare worth exploring. From the inset, the A� ← X peak for IBr− (CO2 )12 appears to be a
combination of two peaks. As seen in Figures 2.14 and 4.18, IBr− (CO2 )12 presents itself insimulation as a “bridge” between the highly asymmetric clusters of IBr− (CO2 )8−11 and themore symmetric larger clusters, IBr− (CO2 )13−16 . To show this phenomenon in the spectrum,
spectra for IBr− (CO2 )11 and IBr− (CO2 )16 were calculated and their A� ← X peaks were plottedin comparison to that of IBr− (CO2 )12 . As seen in the inset of Figure 4.29, the IBr− (CO2 )12 peakis a combination of two peaks, corresponding to asymmetric and symmetric clusters. Likewise,

118

2 +

B Σ 1/2

2

cm )

1

0.8

Absorption Cross Section ( x10

-16

n=11
0.1

n=16

0.6
0.05

0.4
0

600

700

800
2

A' Π1/2

0.2

Bare IBr−2

a' Π1/2
0
200

300

400

500
600
700
Wavelength (nm)

800

900

1000

Figure 4.29: Calculated absorption spectrum for IBr− (CO2 )12 . Inset shows peaks on A� statefor IBr− (CO2 )11,16 , dotted. Spectrum is average of 100 conﬁgurations sampled at 60 K.

119
the B ← X also has the double-peak shape that can be attributed to this phenomenon. We
note with caution that existence of this phenomenon in experiment could depend sensitively oncluster energetics (real v. simulated model) and cluster temperature, which is not well known.

4.6

Ground-State Recombination Sensitivity to Excitation Wave­
lengthThis section will explore how the calculated well depth diﬀerence, see Section 2.2.1.3,

aﬀects the ground-state recombination (GSR) dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n . Earlier experimental
results [79] have shown that the D0 for bare IBr− is 1.10 ± 0.04 eV while the calculations give a
De of 0.956 eV. Thus, when a 790-nm photon is used to model experiments undertaken at 790­
nm, the simulations are providing the cluster with a larger kinetic energy release than in reality.
More recent experimental results have demonstrated a D0 for IBr− of 0.954 ± 0.006 eV [111]. As
this is a much closer match to our calculated value of De , we must take into account the possible
zero-point energy (ZPE) oﬀset which would account for smaller kinetic energy release (KER) in
simulation using a 790-nm photon.
To assess the eﬀect of a lower KER upon excitation, simulations were run using an 840-nm
photoexcitation. Likewise, 770-nm photoexcitation simulations were also carried out to model
the eﬀect of slightly more KER in IBr− (CO2 )n . Section 3.4 demonstrated that adjusting theexcitation wavelength had minimal impact on the photodissociation product ratios. Figure 3.8
shows that in the “inﬁnite-time” extrapolation that the 770-nm and 840-nm product ratios
closely matched that of the 790-nm simulations and were essentially within the sampling error.
However, there could still be a signiﬁcant eﬀect on the relaxation dynamics. The previous resultsin this chapter suggest that the GSR recovery dynamics for IBr− (CO2 )n are determined by therate of passage across a transition state barrier. In that vein, one would expect any change thataﬀects the energy either needed to cross that barrier or the energy available to the system tohave an exponential eﬀect on the dynamics [124].
In order to test this eﬀect, trajectories were assembled for IBr− (CO2 )5−16 . Each en­120semble was composed of 100 trajectories assembled in the same fashion as detailed previously
in Section 3.1. The trajectories ran with a classical time-step of 1.0 fs for durations of 100
ps for IBr− (CO2 )5,6 , 400 ps for IBr− (CO2 )7 , 5000 ps for IBr− (CO2 )8,9 , and 400 ps again forIBr− (CO2 )12−16 . The results of the simulations were then modeled according to the prescrip­
tions in Section 4.1 and the resulting time constants are shown in Figure 4.30.
Lowering the photoexcitation to mimic a lower KER does appear to have an eﬀect. As
expected, lowering the energy available to traverse the conﬁgurational transition state barrier
increases the recovery times at all cluster sizes. For IBr− (CO2 )5−7 , the simulated results moreclosely match the experiment, with a near match at IBr− (CO2 )7 . In all cases, the 840-nm
photoexcitation has had the expected eﬀect of lengthening the GSR recovery time.
In the larger clusters, however, the eﬀect of the redder excitation becomes one of overcor­
rection, signiﬁcantly increasing GSR recovery times. The 840-nm results shown for IBr− (CO2 )8 ,IBr− (CO2 )9 , and IBr− (CO2 )11 are shown in Figure 4.30 as 5 ns for convenience only. In reality,
as in the intermediate clusters above, see Section 4.4, these numbers are a lower bound forthe true recovery times. The lowering of the photon energy, and, thus, the KER, has had theeﬀect of greatly strengthening the eﬀect of the A� well; so much so, that only approximately 10
trajectories for each cluster size completed their run-time in two weeks of calculations. This isalso the reason that no results for IBr− (CO2 )10 are included in Figure 4.30.
However, in IBr− (CO2 )n , with n > 12, the situation returns to being similar to the 790­
nm results. IBr− (CO2 )12 is once again a bridge between the long-time trapping clusters andthe faster, larger clusters. Like the IBr− (CO2 )5,6 , there is once again a slight increase in thecalculated GSR recovery times. Again, this is the expected eﬀect of less KER from the redder
excitation. And, as seen in the 790-nm simulations, IBr− (CO2 )14 exhibits a double time scale
and both time constants show the expected eﬀect. The short-time dynamics are slightly longer,
with the long-time dynamics greatly enhanced.
When compared to the 790-nm results, the 770-nm simulations again show the expectedbehavior for increasing the KER after excitation. In the smaller clusters, IBr− (CO2 )5−7 , the121

Absorption Recovery Time (ps)

10000

1000

100

10

1
5

6

7

8

9
10
11 12 13−
No. of CO2 Solvent on IBr

14

15

16

Figure 4.30: Simulated 790-nm (black solid with circles), 840-nm (red circles), 770-nm (bluecircles) and experimental (dotted with X’s) ground-state recombination times for IBr− (CO2 )nphotodissociation. Experimental results from Dribinski, et al [80].

122
simulated GSR recovery times are slightly less than those found in the 790-nm simulations. Since
more kinetic energy should lead to faster dynamics out of the well, this is as we expect. But,
since our calculated 790-nm GSR recovery times were already too fast compared to experiment,
this is a less than desirable pattern. Likewise, in the larger clusters we see much the same withslightly smaller recovery times for the 770-nm excitation. One possible exception is IBr− (CO2 )15
whose recovery time at 770-nm is slightly higher than that for the 790-nm excitation; however,the diﬀerence is minimal, on the order of 10 ps.
More interesting trends are seen when we compare the results for the 770 nm excitation
to the 790-nm simulations for the intermediate-sized clusters. In these clusters, we have formed
once again a strong excited-state well whose presence is dominating the dynamics. While the770-nm simulations still overestimate the recovery times, increasing the excitation energy by just40 meV has decreased the GSR recovery times for the trapped species by a half to a quarter.
More importantly, this has had the eﬀect of bringing the simulated GSR recovery times into
closer match with experiment. However, this ﬁnding is tempered by the fact that this eﬀect isdue to altering the excitation wavelength while keeping all other possible simulation parametersconstant. As we will seen in the next section, the simulations can also be profoundly aﬀectedby the choice of the Lennard-Jones parameters for the solute-solvent short-range interactions.

4.7

Ground-State Recombination Sensitivity to Alteration of theModel Potential Parameters
In Section 2.2.2 it was pointed out that the standard Lennard-Jones (LJ) ﬁt, tabulated inTable 2.3, may not be the ideal ﬁt. From Figure 2.7, the standard ﬁt, while a best compromise,
was not the best that could be made to the coupled cluster with single, double, and iterative triple
excitations (CCSD(T)) calculations carried out for the Br− · · · CO2 interaction. An alternate
set of LJ parameters were determined that matched the energetics of the CCSD(T) ﬁt as shownin Figure 2.15. A similar set of LJ parameters were determined that matched the Br− · · · CO2
T-shaped energetics predicted by a multireference conﬁguration interaction (MRCI) calculation

123
of the system. This MRCI prediction is shown in Figure 2.7 and is shallower even than thestandard LJ ﬁt.
In order to test the eﬀect of the other parameter sets, simulation for IBr− (CO2 )1−14 wererun. For each cluster size, the ensemble was composed of 100 trajectories assembled in the same
fashion as detailed in Section 3.1. The trajectories ran with a classical time-step of 1.0 fs fordurations of 50 ps for IBr− (CO2 )1−6 and 3000 ps for IBr− (CO2 )7−14 . The results for thesesimulations are shown in Figure 4.31.
The top plot in Figure 4.31 compares the simulated and experimental results to that using
the more attractive CCSD(T) LJ ﬁt to the Br− · · · CO2 interaction. The eﬀect on ground-state
recombination (GSR) recovery times is quite a bit like that seen in the well depth sensitivity
studies (Figure 4.30). However, the CCSD(T) LJ ﬁt seems to have a much more pronounced
increase in the simulated recovery time. While the eﬀect on IBr− (CO2 )5 is to nearly match theexperimental result, the GSR recovery time for IBr− (CO2 )6 is increased by an order of magni­
tude. For IBr− (CO2 )7 and IBr− (CO2 )12 , the eﬀect is an increase of two orders of magnitude.
We note for completeness that, like the 840-nm results above, the CCSD(T) LJ ﬁt simulations
for IBr− (CO2 )8−12 were truncated in the number of completed trajectories, due to the lack ofcomputation time.
This much larger eﬀect of the CCSD(T) LJ parameters compared to the eﬀect of chang­
ing the excitation wavelength is due to the size of each correction. Changing the excitation
wavelength had the eﬀect of only lowering the kinetic energy release (KER) of all clusters by
a ﬁxed amount upon excitation. However, the use of a more attractive Br− · · · CO2 interaction
causes any eﬀect to be multiplied as more solvent molecules are added. Also, the minimal energy
clusters, Figure 2.12, show that as clusters build to IBr− (CO2 )8 , the solvent is primarily addedon the bromine end. And, while these clusters were constructed with the standard LJ ﬁt, thebromine end is more heavily favored with use of the CCSD(T) ﬁt.
Proceeding to larger clusters, the eﬀect of the CCSD(T) Br− · · · CO2 LJ ﬁt is less drastic.
Indeed, the results move back into a near match with the GSR recovery times seen with the

124

10000

Absorption Recovery Time (ps)

1000
100
10
1
10000
1000
100
10
1
5

6

7

8

9
10
11
12
−
No. of CO2 Solvent on IBr

13

14

15

16

Figure 4.31: Simulated ground-state recombination times for near-infrared (790-nm) photoex­
citation for the Lennard-Jones ﬁts from CCSD(T) (top, green) and MRCI (bottom, red)Br− · · · CO2 calculations as seen in Figure 2.7, as well as the normal Lennard-Jones ﬁt from
Table 2.3 (dashed with circles) and experimental results (dot with X’s) from Dribinski, et al [80].
Experimental IBr− (CO2 )12 point is unpublished and preliminary [123].

125
standard ﬁt. This is due to the fact that the added solvent molecules primarily interact with theiodine, rather than the bromine. Since the I· · · CO2 LJ parameters were not altered, one would
expect these additional solvent molecules to have a smaller diﬀerence compared to the standard
ﬁt. The simulations do show the appearance of another double time scale point, nCCSD(T ) = 13,
similar to that seen in the standard IBr− (CO2 )14 , Section 4.5.3, showing that in the case of the
CCSD(T) LJ ﬁt, IBr− (CO2 )13 is acting more as a bridge between the long- and short-time
recoveries.
As for the other LJ parameter set, that based on the weaker MRCI Br− · · · CO2 ﬁt, Fig­ure 4.31 (bottom), the situation is more confused. With the smaller size clusters, IBr− (CO2 )5−8 ,the MRCI recovery times roughly matches that of the standard parameter set. As the Br· · · CO2
interaction is now lessened, one would expect that solvent motion on the excited state would
be more labile, leading to faster GSR recovery times. After that, though, the MRCI results
begin to wildly oscillate. Both IBr− (CO2 )9 and IBr− (CO2 )11 are extremely fast compared tothe standard ﬁt, yet IBr− (CO2 )12 and IBr− (CO2 )13 are orders of magnitude slower. At evenlarger cluster sizes, the MRCI results can only be ﬁt to a double-exponential! One guess as to
the reasons behind these oddities is the fact that the MRCI Br− · · · CO2 interaction actually isless attractive than the I− · · · CO2 interaction used in the standard model (and still used here,
only the bromine was changed). It is possible that the clusters for IBr− (CO2 )9 and IBr− (CO2 )11
are actually more iodine-solvated so they can act more like the standard larger clusters from
Section 4.5. Thus, the solvent motion necessary to reach the nonadiabatic transition zone would
be all on the +ΔΦ side rather than requiring the solvent to reorganize from a bromine-solvatedto an iodine-solvated conﬁguration.
Nevertheless, these results suggest that neither the CCSD(T) nor the MRCI LJ parameter
sets provide a superior overall description of the solute-solvent interactions than the standard
set.

126

4.8

Conclusions
In summary, early pump-probe absorption recovery experiments of the near-infrared (IR)photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )8 found that ground-state recombination occurred on the orderof a nanosecond, rather than the expected tens of picoseconds. In order to help explain thesesurprising ﬁndings, long-duration simulations of the near-IR photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )nwere carried out. Our simulations also found a ground-state recombination (GSR) recovery
time on the order of nanoseconds for IBr− (CO2 )8 . Analysis of solute and solvent motion in thecluster over the duration of a trajectory through the use of solvent-ﬂow plots found that thislong-time recovery is due to the presence of a well on the excited A� state. Clusters are trappedin this well and must undergo a conformational transformation over a transition-state barrier
to a more symmetric solvent conﬁguration before relaxation to the ground state can occur.
Subsequent experiments and simulations of the ground-state recovery of IBr− (CO2 )nfrom clusters as small as ﬁve solvent molecules to a complete solvent shell have shown strong
agreement. Simulations broadly agree that, as the number of solvent molecules increase fromﬁve to eight, the GSR time increases by two orders of magnitude—from tens of picoseconds tonanoseconds. In the smaller clusters, our simulations tend to underestimate the GSR, while forthe intermediate-sized clusters our simulations overestimate the recovery time.
We were also able to use our simulations to investigate the GSR recovery dynamics inlarger cluster still not characterized in experiment. We predict a turnaround in GSR recovery
times in larger clusters back to tens of picoseconds. IBr− (CO2 )12 is seen as the critical cluster
size where the recovery dynamics change drastically. Analysis of the solvent environment of both
the ground and excited A� state clusters show that this turnaround is due to a more favorable
solvent conﬁguration upon excitation which no longer requires traversal of a large transition-statebarrier. Our simulations have also predicted a double time scale for recovery for IBr− (CO2 )14
due to a diﬀerent excited-state well. This prediction has not yet been tested by experiment.
Preliminary experimental ﬁndings on IBr− (CO2 )12 , however, agree with the general trend of

127
a turnaround in recovery times, although future experiments on larger clusters have proved tobe diﬃcult. We have oﬀered a partial explanation for this diﬃculty by calculating absorption
spectra for large clusters in the ground state which predict a blue-shift in the A� ← X absorption
band away from the 790-nm excitation wavelength.
Sensitivity tests on the GSR recovery times were also performed. We found that the
choice of excitation wavelength had a large eﬀect on the dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n ground-state
recombination in contrast to the small eﬀects seen with photoproduct ratios in Chapter 3.
Simulations of the eﬀect of reduced kinetic energy release (KER) by use of a redder, 840-nm
excitation greatly increased the recovery times of the intermediate-sized clusters, away fromthe experimental values. However, recent experiments have found a shallower D0 for IBr−very close to our calculated De . This new result means that zero-point energy (ZPE) becomes
important and so simulations using slightly bluer, 770-nm excitation were performed. The
slightly larger KER this excitation allows, relative to a 790-nm excitation, was found to improve
the performance of our simulated recovery times relative to experiment in intermediate-sizedclusters. This ﬁnding could present a possible avenue of exploration in the future. A survey ofphotoexcitations more energetic than 790 nm could provide a possible measure of the diﬀerence
between our calculated potential energy curves for IBr− and actual ones. That said, however,
we must remember that this would only be exploring the eﬀect of excitation wavelength keeping
all other parameters of the simulation—most notably the Lennard-Jones parameters—constant.
Tests were also performed on the eﬀect of using diﬀerent Lennard-Jones (LJ) parameters
for the Br· · · CO2 interaction in our model. Parameters which more closely matched the cou­
pled cluster with single, double, and iterative triple excitations (CCSD(T)) calculations of theBr− · · · CO2 interaction— in eﬀect, a greater Br· · · CO2 attraction—led to a large enhancementof the excited-state well responsible for the long-duration dynamics and much longer recovery
times. LJ parameters which modeled a shallower-than-standard Br· · · CO2 interaction led tosimilarly bad performance with both over- and underestimation of the recovery times. How­ever, in this chapter and the previous, we have demonstrated that small changes in our model

128
of the IBr− (CO2 )n system, can lead to large eﬀects—both beneﬁcial and detrimental—on thesimulated dynamics.

Chapter 5

Dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n Ultraviolet Photodissociation

In this chapter we will explore the overall dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n ultraviolet (UV)(355-nm) photodissociation. We will ﬁrst present a summary of the simulation methods usedin constructing and running the trajectories used in our research. We will then present oursimulated results for the product branching ratios for UV photodissociation at 355-nm excitationand compare these results to experiment. In doing so, we will notice that there are two separate
regimes of comparison between experiment and theory. In the smaller clusters, we will show thatsimulation roughly agrees with experiment. However, with the larger clusters, simulation andexperiment diverge with the growth of IBr− as a major photoproduct. This is in sharp contrast
to experiment where the recombined products are minimal. We will propose an explanation
based upon spin-orbit quenching.

5.1

Ultraviolet Trajectory Simulation Methods
Ensembles for ultraviolet (UV) molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of IBr− (CO2 )0−14

are constructed via the following process. First, using the calculated minimum energy structures,
see Section 2.2.4, the cluster is warmed for 40 ps at a temperature of 60 K, followed by a 100-ps
run on the ground state to test that the cluster energetics are stable. After that, the ensembles
are constructed using a 2-fs time-step run on the ground state that samples every 5 ps until 100
conﬁgurations are constructed.
To start the photoproduct trajectories, the conﬁgurations of the constructed ensemble

130
have their I-Br bond lengths adjusted to match the experimental photon energy, 355 nm. Since
each of these excitations lie in the B ← X absorption band, see Figure 2.9, only small adjust­ments are needed, on the order of 0.1-0.2 Å. Trajectories are then run for 50 ps or until the bondlength exceeded 40 a0 or more than 20 crossings of the ground-state well occur. A step-size of
1 fs is used for all trajectories which results in energy conservation on the order of 10−3 Eh .

5.2

Simulated Ultraviolet Photodissociation Results
The results for the ultraviolet (UV) molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are shown in

Figure 5.1. This ﬁgure details the three main product channels for the UV photodissociation ofIBr− (CO2 )n : I− , Br− , and ground state recombined IBr− .
As ﬁrst glance, the simulations seem to agree poorly with experiment. In general, thisdisagreement is attributed to the large kinetic energy release (KER) the cluster receives at
excitation. The simulations are run using a 355 nm, or nearly 3.5 eV photon. In the bareion, this results in more than 1.5 eV of kinetic energy compared to the B state asymptote, see
Figure 2.1. In contrast, the 790-nm simulations of Chapters 3 and 4 receive about 0.5 eV in
the bare ion case which, as the cluster grows, isn’t enough to escape from a solvent-induced
well. Moreover, the expected weaknesses of the model, the Lennard-Jones (LJ) parameters
for bromine, have more severe consequences at higher energy. As seen in previous chapters,a relatively small change in the Br− · · · CO2 interaction can lead to substantial eﬀects in thesimulated photoproduct branching ratios and ground-state recombination (GSR) recovery time.
In Section 5.3, we will perform a test of the sensitivity of the UV photoproduct branching ratios
to the LJ parameter set.
However, the comparison of theory and experiment can still provide useful insight. In
the next two sections, the analysis is partitioned into two regimes for UV photodissociation. In
the ﬁrst, the simulations for IBr− (CO2 )1−7 are examined where there seems to be a “shifted”
agreement when compared to simulation. Then, the larger clusters are described where thesimulations diverge sharply from the experimental results with the formation of a large GSR

131

100

%I

−

80
60
40
20
0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
No. of CO2

100

% Br

−

80
60
40
20
0
100

% IBr

−

80
60
40
20
0

Figure 5.1: Ultraviolet (355 nm) simulated (dashed with square) photodissociation productbranching ratios for IBr− (CO2 )n . Experimental results (solid) from Sanford, et al [79]. Error
bars are 1σ for n = 6.

132
IBr− channel in the simulations.

5.2.1

Ultraviolet Photodissociation in Small Clusters
In the smaller clusters, IBr− (CO2 )1−7 , the only product channels of signiﬁcance are I−

and Br− . While simulation and experiment diﬀer, they diﬀer by what appears to be an overall
shift. If one were to shift the simulated results in Figure 5.1 to the left by two cluster sizes (i.e.,
simulated IBr− (CO2 )5 moves to IBr− (CO2 )3 ), the agreement—pattern-wise—is quite good. For
example, there is a broad drop-oﬀ in Br− from nexpt = 0 → 2, with concomitant increase ofI− product. The simulations show this same pattern occurring at nsim = 2 → 4. Also, the“dip” in I− product at nsim = 5 echoes that seen at nexpt = 3. Of course, although the patternmatch is fairly good, our simulations do disagree about the magnitude of the two channels. The
simulations show Br− being the major product up to IBr− (CO2 )5 , whereas in experiment it
becomes the minor product by IBr− (CO2 )2 .
For further analysis into the process of I− and Br− product formation in the UV pho­todissociation, two trajectories for IBr− (CO2 )6 that exemplify both channels are presented in
Figure 5.2. This ﬁgure shows that the dissociation process is quite rapid. Both the Br− chan­nel, Figure 5.2(a), and the I− channel, Figure 5.2(b) reach 15 Å of I-Br separation in under
one picosecond. The Br− product occurs with spin-orbit (SO) excited iodine as its companion
neutral along the highest excited state as one would predict from the bare ion curves, Figure 2.1,
where the B state dissociates to Br− + I∗ . Likewise, the I− product dissociates with SO excited
bromine after a nonadiabatic transition to a lower state.
Also important to note in Figure 5.2 is the behavior of the charge at the beginning of
the trajectory. The UV B ← X excitation is a charge transfer Σ → Σ∗ transition. So, in the
ground-state well, before excitation, the cluster has the solvent mainly around the bromine end,
as shown in Figure 2.12, and the charge on the solute is located mainly on the solvated bromine.
Upon excitation to the B state, though, the charge switches such that the solvent is now aroundthe more neutral atom. Since this arrangement is not that favorable, the solvent shifts to favor

133

1Energy (eV)

0
-1
-2
I

Chargedeloc.
Br
15

(a)

(b)
R (Ang)

10
5
0

0

0.2

0.4
Time (ps)

0.6

0.2

0.4
0.6
Time (ps)0.8

1Figure 5.2: Ultraviolet (355-nm) photodissociation of two exemplar IBr− (CO2 )6 trajectories.
The adiabatic energies are plotted in the ﬁrst row as a function of time with the bold line being
the occupied state. The second row plots the charge character of the trajectory over time. The
third row plots the I-Br bond length over time. (a) shows a trajectory that dissociates to Br− .
(b) shows a trajectory that dissociates to I− .

134
the iodine.
This early solvent shift can be better seen by use of a solvent ﬂow plot ﬁrst introduced in
our analysis of the GSR dynamics of near-infrared (IR) photodissociation. Figure 5.3 shows thesolvent ﬂow plots for all IBr− (CO2 )6 UV photodissociation trajectories that end as Br− product,
Figure 5.3(a), and as I− product, Figure 5.3(b). In each case there is a range of starting solvent
conﬁgurations, i.e., a range of starting ΔΦ. Both sets begin at -ΔΦ as the bromine is thesolvated solute atom in the ground state. But, after excitation to the B state (brown) there isa rapid move to to a more symmetric conﬁguration as the solvent shifts to solvate the iodide
anion after which the two product channels diverge. For the Br− product, the solute dissociates
after reaching a symmetric conﬁguration where the charge can transfer back to the bromine.
The reason most of the trajectories end near zero ΔΦ is because the dissociation is so rapid(Figure 5.2) that most of the Br− product ends with at most one solvent molecule.
As for the I− product, Figure 5.3(b), once again there are rapid solvent shifts at the startof the trajectory. However, instead of a charge transfer the symmetric conﬁguration is reached,
the solvent reorganization continues over to the iodine-solvated +ΔΦ geometry. At the sametime, a nonadiabatic hop occurs to a lower state that dissociates to I− . Since the solvent wasable to fully reorganize around the iodine, the trajectories dissociate with more solvent (and,thus, at larger absolute ΔΦ) than did the Br− . Indeed, an analysis of the trajectories end on
average with 2-3 solvent molecules.

5.2.2

Divergence of Simulation and Experiment with Large Clusters
Of course, the major diﬀerence between simulation and experiment as seen in Figure 5.2

is with the larger clusters, IBr− (CO2 )8−11 . The simulations predict the appearance of groundstate recombined IBr− product. At IBr− (CO2 )9 , it becomes a signiﬁcant product channel andby IBr− (CO2 )11 it is the major product of the simulated photodissociation. Experiment, on theother hand, barely shows any IBr− product even in the largest clusters studied.
A possible explanation for this divergence begins with the observation that in the simula­(b)Figure 5.3: Plot of solvent coordinate versus solute bond length for ultraviolet (355-nm) trajectories for IBr− (CO2 )6 that end as (a) Br− product and(b) I− product. Brown, yellow, and blue represent trajectory dynamics on the ﬁfth-, fourth-, and third-excited state, respectively. dPhi (=ΔΦ) is ineV and R is in Angstroms.

(a)

135

136
tions, SO quenching starts to become important in these clusters. In Figure 5.4, three exemplar
trajectories are plotted for IBr− (CO2 )13 . Although this is larger than any cluster yet studied
experimentally, the size provides a clearer picture of the dynamics.
For the dissociation trajectories of the Br− channel, Figure 5.4(a), and the I− channel,
Figure 5.4(b), unlike the IBr− (CO2 )6 trajectories in Figure 5.2, both the Br− and I− are pro­
duced not with the spin-orbit excited companion neutrals, but with their quenched analogues.
Also, while the example I− trajectory is nearly as fast as those shown for IBr− (CO2 )6 , the Br−
trajectory is slower. This is attributed to exploration of the lower state much like that seen in
the IBr− (CO2 )8 near-IR Br− product solvent ﬂow plot, Figure 4.9.
The ﬁnal trajectory, Figure 5.4(c), shows a cluster that recombines as IBr− in the groundstate. This channel, which rarely is more than 10% of the total photoproduct in experiment,
is a major product by IBr− (CO2 )11 in simulation. We also note that we see the ﬁrst vibrationof the ground-state recombined IBr− solute at the latter times of Figure 5.4(c). We see themovement to the inner turning point and the associated rise in energy due to repulsion. At
the same time we see the charge delocalize as the solute bond length decreases. The forcesthen cause the solute to separate, the charge localizes back on the bromine, and the patterncontinues. Of course, like the other IBr− (CO2 )13 trajectories shown, this product channel also
requires SO quenching to occur. Clearly, we must focus on this process and see whether it canhelp us explain the diﬀerences between experiment and simulation.

5.2.2.1

Spin-Orbit Quenching via Charge Transfer

In order to better understand the spin-orbit quenching (SOQ) process presented above,
we refer back to the work of Delaney, Faeder, and Parson [40] on the simulation of UV photodis­
sociation in I−
2 (CO2 )n . In this study, they detailed a process of spin-orbit quenching via chargetransfer (SOQ-CT) which helped explain the process of ground-state recombination in larger
clusters. To facilitate our summary of this process, Figure 5.5 presents a visual summary of the
dynamics of UV photodissociation in I−
2 (CO2 )n . This ﬁgure is inspired by the classical Marcus

5

10 15 20
Time (ps)

25

(b)

0.5
1
Time (ps)

0.5

(c)

1
1.5
Time (ps)2

R (Ang)Figure 5.4: Ultraviolet (355-nm) photodissociation of three exemplar IBr− (CO2 )13 trajectories. The adiabatic energies are plotted in the ﬁrst row as afunction of time with the bold line being the current state. The second row plots the charge character of the trajectory over time. The third row plots
the I-Br bond length over time. (a) shows a trajectory that dissociates to Br− , with the energies plotted as a 50-point moving average to eliminate
grassiness. (b) shows a trajectory that dissociates to I− . (c) shows a trajectory that recombines in the ground state.

0(a)Charge510Brdeloc.

I

-2

-1

0

1
Energy (eV)
137

138

Figure 5.5: A summary of the dynamics of I−
2 (CO2 )n following ultraviolet photoexcitation withenergy as the ordinate and solvent coordinate(=ΔΦ) as the abscissa. Dashed states exhibit“anomalous charge ﬂow” where the charge and solvent move in opposition to each other. The as­terisk denotes spin-orbit excited neutral. Green arrow represents path detailed in Section 5.2.2.2.
Reproduced with permission from Delaney, Faeder, and Parson [40].

139

Figure 5.6: Illustration of anomalous charge ﬂow in a diatomic anion. In the bare ion (left),the charge is equally shared between atoms in both the bonding and antibonding states. In thepresence of solvent (right), the increased charge density due to solvation in the solvated atom inthe bonding state leads to higher charge density for the unsolvated atom in the antibonding state
to preserve orthogonality. Reproduced with permission from Parson, Faeder, and Delaney [29].

theory [42, 125, 126] where the familiar parabolas represent the adiabatic states of I−
2 (CO2 )n at
large solute bond length where the I− + I states (lower manifold) are essentially degenerate.
As in this theory, the abscissa is the collective solvent coordinate, known as ΔΦ in our work,and the ordinate is energy. Figure 5.5 also details another ﬁnding of the study by Delaney,
et al, [40] that is crucial for our understanding of the spin-orbit quenching process. Namely,
the dashed curves in Figure 5.5 represent states with “anomalous charge ﬂow”, a term intro­
duced by Papanikolas and detailed in our group’s work [23, 24, 27, 29, 35, 127] to indicate states
where solvent and charge motion occurs in opposition to each other. While counterintuitive, a
simple diatomic linear combination of atomic orbitals-molecular orbitals (LCAO-MO) picture,illustrated in Figure 5.6, shows how it arises. In the bare ion case, Figure 5.6(left), the bonding
and antibonding states are orthogonal and the charge in each is shared equally between eachatom. However, upon solvation, Figure 5.6(right), the charge prefers the solvated atom due toenergetic reasons. Since the antibonding state must be orthogonal to the bonding state, thecharge density in the antibonding state lies more on the unsolvated atom.
While both Figures 5.5 and 5.6 detail dynamics and charge ﬂow in I−
2 (CO2 )n , a homonu­

140
clear solute, the basic mechanics apply to IBr− (CO2 )n . The main diﬀerence is with Figure 5.5,
where with IBr− (CO2 )n the solvent coordinate symmetry is broken due to the diﬀerence inelectron aﬃnity and spin-orbit splittings of iodine and bromine. However, we believe that theﬁgure is still of use in analyzing the dynamics of recombination in the UV photodissociation ofIBr− (CO2 )n . To that end, Figure 5.7 presents an more detailed look at the dynamics of therecombining IBr− (CO2 )13 trajectory ﬁrst shown in Figure 5.4(c). In this ﬁgure, we focus on
the ﬁrst 1000 fs of dynamics in this trajectory. In addition to the state energies, solute charge
localization, and solute bond length, we also present the solvent coordinate, ΔΦ(=dPhi), as afunction of time.
We begin our detailed look at this trajectory with the ﬁrst 100 fs, where we see thatafter excitation to the B state, the charge localizes on iodine and the solvent begins to shift toa more symmetric—smaller |ΔΦ|—solvent conﬁguration. Referring back to Figure 5.5, this isanalogous to the ﬁrst two “steps” illustrated at the top of the ﬁgure. Then, at approximately
125 fs, we transition to the a� state, marked in Figure 5.7 as the ﬁrst dashed vertical line. At thispoint, the cluster undergoes solvent transfer to favor the iodide rather than the bromine, shownby the transition from negative to positive ΔΦ. This is analogous to following the right-hand
path in Figure 5.5. Then, at ≈ 310 fs (second vertical line in Figure 5.7), the cluster reaches alarge enough solvent coordinate so that the solvation environment compensates for the bromine
spin-orbit splitting, the solute can then undergo spin-orbit quenching. At the same time, thecharge character of the solute immediately switches from iodide to bromide as it moves to an
antibonding, anomalous state. This is the SOQ-CT step seen in Figure 5.5. The potential
energy is now converted into kinetic energy and solvent is boiled oﬀ as the cluster relaxes to
the ground state. The transition to the ground state occurs in Figure 5.7 at ≈ 500 fs, all thewhile the cluster is moving to a more symmetric solvation geometry before ﬁnally stabilizing ina bromide-solvated conﬁguration. This is as expected for ground-state recombined IBr− (CO2 )nclusters.
We note for completion that, as mentioned above, both dissociation channels also proceed141

Energy (eV)

0

-2

I
Chargedeloc.

Br
0.02
dPhi

0
-0.02
8

R (Ang)

6
4
2

0

200

400
600
Time (fs)

800

1000

Figure 5.7: Details of the ﬁrst 1000 fs of an IBr− (CO2 )13 trajectory that ends as ground-state
recombined IBr− product, seen previously in Figure 5.4(c). The plots detail as a function oftime, from top to bottom, the adiabatic energies and the currently occupied state in bold, thecharge localization on the solute, the solvent coordinate, ΔΦ(=dPhi), and the I-Br bond length.
The three vertical dashed lines are used as guides for the eye for important point in the trajectory
which are detailed in Section 5.2.2.1.

142
via spin-orbit quenching via charge transfer. In these cases, however, rather than removing
the excess kinetic energy gained by the relaxation via solvent evaporation, the cluster instead“explodes” and leads to the dissociation channels. In the case of the Br− channel, Figure 5.4(a),the energetics of the lower state are suﬃcient to allow transitory exploration before dissociation
ﬁnally occurs. This occurs in much the same location as seen in the trapping dynamics ofChapter 4.

5.2.2.2

Spin-Orbit Quenching via Vibrational Deactivation

What we have detailed in the previous section is the recombination process seen in the−simulations of UV photodissociation in both I−
2 (CO2 )n and IBr (CO2 )n . However, as seenin Figure 5.1, in the larger clusters, the recombination channel is a very minor product whencompared to the simulation. This implies that a diﬀerent process must be occurring that could
still lead to dissociating products, but would inhibit the recombination channel.
First, we hypothesize that ground-state recombination must occur via the SOQ-CT pro­cess. Partial support for this is in the similarity of the onset of GSR in both I−
2 (CO2 )n andIBr− (CO2 )n . In both the experiment [19] and simulation [40] of the UV photodissociation ofI−
2 (CO2 )n , the onset of GSR product was sharp and occurred at eight or nine solvent moleculesin size. This sudden onset was due to the need for there to be enough solvent molecules toallow the solvent asymmetry to become large enough to overcome the spin-orbit splitting inthe system (qv., Figure 5.5 and the intersection of the lower and upper states at large solvent
coordinate). Similarly, in our simulations of UV photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )n , we also seean abrupt opening of the IBr− channel at larger cluster size,1 followed by a sharp rise in the
product channel, although it never reaches the dominance it has in I−
2 (CO2 )n .
Moreover, we also hypothesize that the only SOQ process occurring, the only one ofimportance regarding our search for a possible mechanism for the diﬀerence between experimentand simulation, is quenching of bromine. We support this hypothesis with an example shown in
1 While the onset is at eight solvent molecules much like I− (CO ) , we do not assume that this is a magic
2 n2number for all systems.

143
Figure 5.8. In Figure 5.8 we present an “abbreviated” solvent ﬂow plot of all the IBr− (CO2 )11
trajectories that completed as GSR product; similar plots can be shown for all GSR trajectories
for the IBr− (CO2 )n clusters that undergo it in silico. It is “abbreviated” in the sense that we only
plot motion on the two highest excited states as well as indicating the transitions to the a statewith the dots. We see that in every case, the SOQ transition seen is the Br(2 P1/2 ) → Br(2 P3/2 )relaxation. From our walkthrough of the trajectory in Figure 5.7, we know that once we movefrom the B state to the a� state (brown to yellow), we are in a normal charge ﬂow state so theiodide ion is solvated and the spin-orbit excited neutral is the bromine.
Moreover, as additional evidence that perhaps the bromine SOQ-CT process is being
frustrated in the experiment, we note that in Figure 5.1, the growth of the IBr− channel seems
due to the depletion of the I− product. This is also supported by the observation that Br− isrelatively unchanged by the growth of IBr− . So, if there was a process in the experiments that
inhibits the bromine SOQ process for IBr− (CO2 )n seen in the simulations that our model does
not include, one would imagine the IBr− would grow at the expense of the I− product channel.
The question for us now is, does there exist a SOQ process that our model would not be able
to simulate that is eﬃcient enough to compete with the charge-transfer process that the model
does include?
We hypothesize that the answer involves the vibrations of CO2 . As noted in Chapter 2,
our model treats the solvent as rigid as an approximation. Most of the time this approximation
is valid as the present and other simulations have born out. We propose a spin-orbit quenching
via vibrational deactivation (SOQ-VD) mechanism wherein the bromine is spin-orbit quenched
via collisional deactivation by CO2 .
If one analyzes the vibrations of CO2 [128], it is found that the symmetric stretch is foundat ν1 = (100 0) = 1388.19 cm−1 , the asymmetric stretch is at ν3 = (000 1) = 2349.16 cm−1 , andtheir combination band, ν1 + ν3 = (100 1), at 3714.78 cm−1 . From our table of IBr− properties,
Table 2.2.1.3, the experimental bromine spin-orbit splitting, Br(2 P1/2 ) → Br(2 P3/2 ), is 0.4569
eV = 3685 cm−1 . This is nearly resonant, only 30 cm−1 diﬀerent from the combination band

144

Figure 5.8: Plot of solvent coordinate versus solute bond length for all ultraviolet (355-nm)
simulated IBr− (CO2 )11 trajectories that end as IBr− on the ground state. Only the motion
on two highest excited states are plotted for clarity. Yellow and brown represent trajectory
dynamics on the fourth- and ﬁfth-excited states, respectively, in analogy to Figure 2.1. The
blue-and-yellow circles represent hops from the yellow to blue (next-lowest) states. dPhi (=ΔΦ)
is in eV and R is in Angstroms.

145
excitation frequency.
Moreover, collisional E −V quenching of SO excited halogens has been extensively studied
for many decades [129]. One of the most important quenching processes studied has been the
one considered here:
E−V

Br(2 P1/2 ) + CO2 (000 0) → Br(2 P3/2 ) + CO2 (100 1).

(5.1)

It has been found that this E − V transfer has a rapid rate coeﬃcient, k = 1.5 · 10−11
cm3 /molecule/s [130], and produces CO2 (100 1) with a branching ratio of φ = 0.87 ± 0.15 [131–133]. Indeed, this E − V transfer has been used as the pumping step for many CO2 lasers [134–137].
If we refer back to Figure 5.5, we can now include a possible new path that corresponds
to the SOQ-VD process which we have noted with the green arrow. If we were to quench thebromine via the solvent vibrations instead of charge transfer, we could imagine taking thecluster located at the tail of the green arrow and just “removing the asterisk”, i.e, SOQ of thebromine, but having no associated solvent reorganization. In that case, we would end up with aheavily solvated iodide anion and a loosely bound bromine that would undergo facile dissociation
and would not be expected to recombine with any eﬀectiveness.
Thus, we have shown that a SOQ-VD process for the quenching of SO excited bromine by
CO2 does exist, and is eﬃcient. We have seen in Figure 5.8 that the SOQ-CT process that would
need to be inhibited in order to prevent ground-state recombination is that of Br(2 P1/2 ) →Br(2 P3/2 ). Unfortunately, there is no good way at this time to simulate this via our model
since we lack quantized vibrations of the solvent. However, even with our model’s lack ofability to simulate this process, our hypothesis does have one beneﬁt. We have put forth one−
possible reason why the I−
2 (CO2 )n and IBr (CO2 )n experiments are diﬀerent due mainly to

our simulations’ lack of diﬀerences between the two systems!

146

5.3

Sensitivity of Ultraviolet Photoproduct Ratios to LennardJones Parameters
In Section 2.2.2 it was shown that the standard Br− · · · CO2 interaction Lennard-Jones(LJ) parameter ﬁt, tabulated in Table 2.3, was slightly less attractive than the well depth
for the Br− · · · CO2 T-shaped geometry calculated at the coupled cluster with single, double,
and iterative triple excitations (CCSD(T)) level of theory (Figure 2.7). In order to explore
the eﬀect of a tighter ﬁt on the dynamics simulations, LJ parameters were determined thatmatched the energetics of the CCSD(T) ﬁt as shown in Figure 2.15. Likewise, LJ parameters
were determined that matched the Br− · · · CO2 T-shaped energetics predicted by a internallycontracted multireference conﬁguration interaction (icMRCI) calculation of the system as well.
This multireference conﬁguration interaction (MRCI) prediction is shown in Figure 2.7 and it
is shallower than our standard LJ ﬁt.
These two extra ﬁts allow determination of the sensitivity of the product branching ratios
for ultraviolet (UV) (355-nm) photodissociation simulations of IBr− (CO2 )n . In order to test
the eﬀect of the LJ ﬁts, trajectories were assembled for IBr− (CO2 )1−14 . Each ensemble wascomposed of 100 trajectories assembled in the same fashion as before. The trajectories ran
with a classical time-step of 1.0 fs for durations of 100 ps for all cluster sizes. In each case, a
trajectory is run until either the run-time duration is reached, until the bond length exceeds
40 a0 , or more than 20 crossings of the ground-state well occur after which that trajectory is
considered recombined. The results for these simulations are shown in Figure 5.9. We note that,as shown in Figure 5.9, MRCI simulations were stopped after IBr− (CO2 )8 due to an obvious
mismatch to both experiment and previous simulations.
Since there is such an obvious diﬀerence between the MRCI results and the standard
results, their analysis is carried out ﬁrst. The MRCI results, Figure 5.9 (red), show that from
IBr− (CO2 )0 to IBr− (CO2 )8 , the vast majority of product is Br− . Indeed, of the 900 trajectories
represented in Figure 5.9 for MRCI, only one IBr− (CO2 )8 trajectory ended as I− products.

147

100

%I

−

80
60
40
20
0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
No. of CO2

100

% Br

−

80
60
40
20
0
100

% IBr

−

80
60
40
20
0

Figure 5.9: Branching ratios for UV (355-nm) photodissociation including results for tight
Lennard-Jones ﬁts to MRCI (red) and CCSD(T) (green) Br− · · · CO2 data as seen in Figure 2.7,
as well as the normal Lennard-Jones ﬁt from Table 2.3 (dash with squares) and experimental
data (line) from Sanford, et al [79].

148
The reason for this overwhelming preference for the Br− product is that the MRCI Br− · · · CO2
interaction is actually weaker than the I− · · · CO2 interaction when those LJ parameters are used.
Since the B ← X transition is a charge transfer process, upon excitation the charge switchesfrom bromine to iodine, and the solvent rapidly reorganizes to solvate the iodine while the solutecontinues to rapidly dissociate. Indeed, the solute dissociates faster than in the standard LJ ﬁt
trajectories because there is a smaller Br· · · CO2 interaction. Thus, the solvent isn’t “holdingon” to the bromine as tightly as it does in our standard LJ ﬁt. Finally, this weaker Br· · · CO2
interaction leads to ﬁnal Br− products that are largely without solvent. Even in the IBr− (CO2 )8clusters, the MRCI LJ Br− product is produced as 80% Br− (CO2 )0 !
Whereas the MRCI LJ ﬁt produces a rather simple distribution, the CCSD(T) ﬁt has amuch more interesting eﬀect on the UV photodissociation dynamics. Figure 5.9 (green) showsthat the more attractive CCSD(T) Br− · · · CO2 interaction leads to a better ﬁt with experiment.
Indeed, by IBr− (CO2 )5 , the Br− channel is too low due to extra I− product production. In
analogy to the MRCI results, the stronger bromine-solvent interaction delays the dissociationof the solute enough to allow more product to undergo nonadiabatic transition to the lower
state leading to more I− product. Unfortunately, though, the shifted pattern match that wasobserved with the standard LJ parameters has been lost, especially at IBr− (CO2 )5 .
The larger clusters see the reappearance of spin-orbit quenching. And, as with thestandard LJ trajectories, Figure 5.4, the larger cluster I− and Br− product is produced with
spin-orbit (SO) quenched neutral. Moreover, the appearance of SO quenching again opens theground-state recombination (GSR) IBr− product channel at IBr− (CO2 )9 . While the CCSD(T)
IBr− channel never reaches the heights that the standard ﬁt did at IBr− (CO2 )11 (in fact, it’sfairly close to the experiment), it is still a major product, often more prevalent than Br− .
Thus, as with the near-infrared photodissociation dynamics, Figure 3.9, the CCSD(T) LJ
ﬁt provides a closer match to experiment. In the case of UV photodissociation, though, there
is not the opportunity to test the CCSD(T) LJ ﬁt against time-resolved absorption recovery
data, due to the absence of ground-state recombination IBr− product in experiment. The lack149
of experimental product ratio data at larger cluster sizes also prevents one from determining
whether IBr− product becomes as important as the simulations say it does. Access to this data
could help shed light on whether the E − V hypothesis in Section 5.2.2 is plausible or whether itis the LJ parameters that cause the overestimation of IBr− product in the standard simulations.

5.4

Conclusions
Simulations of the ultraviolet (UV) (355 nm) photodissociation of IBr− (CO2 )n were per­formed and compared to experiment. We found that the large kinetic energy release associatedwith the B ← X transition led to worse agreement when compared to our simulations’ per­formance in the near-infrared (IR) case. We saw that at small cluster sizes our simulations
roughly agree with experiment and tend to replicate the pattern of the photoproduct branchingratios. This pattern, however, was “shifted” to higher mass clusters in the simulations leading
to a delayed onset of the Br− product channel. The two product channels proceeded with rapid
dissociation on the order of a few picoseconds. We also saw that since the B ← X excitation
is a charge-transfer Σ → Σ∗ transition, rapid solvent motion occurs quickly upon excitation.
This is because at the moment of promotion to the B state, the solvent shifts from the neutral
bromine atom in order to solvate the now anionic iodide.
The major diﬀerence between experiment and simulation occurred at larger clusters.
This diﬀerence was attributed to the existence of an alternate spin-orbit quenching process inthe experiment not seen in simulation. We showed that the spin-orbit quenching process needed
for ground-state recombination in the simulation was that of spin-orbit quenching via chargetransfer. This process allows the formation of ground-state recombined IBr− as a signiﬁcantproduct channel in the simulation—something not seen in experiment up to a cluster size of
eleven solvent molecules. We then attempted to explain this dichotomy by proposing a process
which could compete with spin-orbit quenching via charge transfer (SOQ-CT) in the exper­
imental system that our model does not include. Through use of the solvent ﬂow plots, we
proposed that the major spin-orbit quenching process occurring in the experimental system was

150
spin-orbit quenching via vibrational deactivation of the Br(2 P1/2 ) → Br(2 P3/2 ) transition by
CO2 . The CO2 ν1 + ν3 combination band has near-resonance with the spin-orbit splitting ofbromine, only 30 cm−1 diﬀerent, and, according to the literature, the collisional deactivationof spin-orbit excited bromine by CO2 is fast and eﬃcient. The absence of CO2 vibrations inthe simulation model would lead to the simulations neglecting this possible pathway. While wehave no experimental evidence that this is the process causing the divergence of experiment andsimulation in the larger clusters, it is an avenue worth exploring.
Finally, tests were performed on the sensitivity of the UV photodissociation to the
Lennard-Jones (LJ) parameter set used in our model. We found that using LJ parametersthat led to a weaker Br− · · · CO2 interaction essentially closed the I− channel. We propose that
due to the weak Br· · · CO2 interaction the cluster dissociated so fast that there was no time for
the B → a� transition necessary to form I− product. Use of the stronger Br− · · · CO2 interaction
from the coupled cluster with single, double, and iterative triple excitations (CCSD(T)) LJ pa­
rameters led to a better ﬁt with experiment with I− product dominating in most clusters. This
was attributed to increased time for the cluster to achieve the nonadiabatic transition necessary
for I− product formation. Moreover, the CCSD(T) LJ parameters also led to a decrease in
the ground-state recombination (GSR) IBr− product, although it is still a signiﬁcant channel
at larger cluster sizes. Lack of GSR IBr− product in the experiment precludes us from using
time-resolved experimental data as a second check on both the eﬃcacy of the LJ parameters,
as done with the near-IR simulations. Moreover, the experimental diﬃculties with generationof large clusters also precludes us from knowing whether GSR product occurs at the highest
cluster masses. In the next chapter, we will discuss whether new time-resolved photoelectron
imaging experiments on IBr− (CO2 )n will allow us another tool to assess the validity of oursolvent-mediated spin-orbit quenching hypothesis.

Chapter 6

Future Directions

We believe that not all has been said about IBr− (CO2 )n either theoretically or exper­
imentally. The unique features of this system could allow for collaborative work in areas not
usually explored. We ﬁrst focus on new work being undertaken currently by the Lineberger
group. This work involves photoelectron imaging of IBr− and IBr− (CO2 )n . We speculate onwhether we could use the model for CO2 solvation of IBr− developed in Chapter 2 to simu­
late the photoelectron spectra for IBr− (CO2 )n . Second, we speculate on the eﬀect of including
solvent vibrations in our model. As including these vibrations could aﬀect the solute-solvent
interactions already shown to be of primary importance in this and previous work, it is some­thing that must be considered. Then, we will have a much more ambitious speculation: that thetrapped metastable species seen in our study of ground-state recombination (GSR) dynamics
of IBr− (CO2 )n might be used as a new “ground-state cluster” to explore. Finally, we propose
revisiting the less well-understood dynamics of ICl− (CO2 )n clusters in the wake of the insights
developed in this thesis.

6.1

Photoelectron Imaging of IBr−
An area of study in the Lineberger [1,2,111,123,138–145], Sanov [113,146–155], and Neu­mark [56–60,66,68,71–74,156,157] groups is the use of time-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy
and imaging to explore the dynamics of solvated ions. In recent work, Sanov and coworkers [113]have shown that time-resolved photoelectron imaging can be used to map out excited states in152bare IBr− , Figure 2.3. If the Lineberger group were able to extend this technique to solvatedIBr− (CO2 )n , the research could dovetail quite nicely with our own.
The proposed experiments will involve a near-infrared (IR) pump pulse and a UV probe
pulse to detach the electron. As the ﬁrst pulse is the same near-IR excitation studied in thepresent work, Figure 3.1 can give us an idea of what might be seen. As solvent molecules areadded to IBr− , the photoelectron spectra would be able to follow the rise and fall of the various
product channels seen in Figure 3.5. The photoelectron experiments promise to provide insights
to the energetics of the cluster that complement those achieved by the absorption recovery
experiments. In analogy to Sanov [113], following the peaks of the spectra as a function oftime would provide experimental data about the evolution of the various electronic states as thecluster is solvated.
Also of interest would be study of the excited-state trapping of IBr− (CO2 )n . We are
intrigued by the possibility that time-resolved photoelectron spectra might provide information
about long-lived excited states seen in the simulations, and the mechanism of its decay. We
imagine that there might be two peaks assigned to the IBr− channel, one for the A� trapped
IBr− and the other for the recombining IBr− peak. The evolution of the magnitude of thesignal of these two peaks over time could provide another measure of the recovery time forrecombination. We base this possibility on previous work done by Neumark [57] who usedfemtosecond photoelectron spectroscopy to follow the dynamics of I−
2 (Ar)n clusters as previously
studied by the Lineberger group [15, 16, 45]. By following the evolution of the photoelectron
spectra for I−
2 (Ar)20 over several picoseconds, they were able to resolve a signal growing in on
the tens-of-picoseconds scale attributed to transitions of recombined I−
2 product, a ﬁnding later
supported by our group [25]. If extraction of the energetics of the excited-state well were possible,
it would be interesting to see how the experimental results compare to solvated potential energy
surfaces (PESs) such as Figure 4.4. In any event, any energetic information about the well or thetransition state would provide further insight for analysis of both experiment and simulation.
Speculations about the possible results of future experiments, of course, isn’t really the153
domain of this thesis. Rather, the question for this chapter is whether our group would be able tohelp to model the photoelectron imaging experiment. In previous work by this group, Faeder andParson were able to model the time-resolved photoelectron spectra for I−
2 in argon clusters [25].
They modeled the time-dependent photoelectron signal at energy E with pump-probe delay Δ
using a quasi-classical golden rule expression,�� ∞σ(E, Δ) ∝dt exp[−γpp (t − Δ)2 ]
−∞

×

�

2

|µif (R(t))|

�

(6.1)

f
i
2
exp{−γd (E)[hν − E − (VIX
(R(t)) − VIX− (R(t)))] }f

where the angle brackets denote an average over all trajectories, R(t) is the nuclear conﬁguration
at time t, µif is the transition dipole for detachment of an electron from state i of IBr− to statefi
f of IX (I−
2 in Ref. 25), VIX− and VIX are the energies of the initial and ﬁnal states, and hν isthe probe laser energy. The parameters γd (E) and γpp come from the electron detector widthand a convolution of the pump and probe laser widths.
In order to transfer this model to IBr− (CO2 )n , we would need several new pieces of
information. First, we would need both the IBr− and IBr potential energy surfaces. The
ﬁrst have been provided in this work in Figure 2.1. The IBr potential curves, however, aremore complicated. Several low-lying bound states are known to spectroscopic accuracy (X1

Σ+ , [158,159]; A 3 Π1 , [158,159]; A� 3 Π2 , [160]; B 3 Π0+ , [158,161], B � 3 Σ−
0+ , [158,161]) and it isprobable that some of these would be the most signiﬁcant neutral curves needed for inclusion,
along with the repulsive Y 0+ and C 1 Π1 states [114]. However, these states are only a fractionof the total; the I(2 P) and Br(2 P) interaction results in 23 spin-orbit coupled states [162, 163].
Patchkovskii has recently calculated [164] all 23 states for IBr at the multireference quasidegenerate second-order perturbation (MRQDPT2) level of theory, including all scalar and spinorbit relativistic eﬀects. These curves are presented along with those for IBr− in Figure 6.1 where
the bold curve in the anion is the A� state, and the bold curves in the neutral correspond tostates accessible from A� by the one-electron rule. We would also need to include the I· · · CO2
and Br· · · CO2 interactions which we have already determined and are tabulated in Table 2.3. As

154

7

6

5
I* + Br*
I* + Br

4
E (eV)

I + Br*I + Br3

2−

1

I* + Br−I + Br*−I + Br−0-1
2

I + Br3

4

5
R (Ang)6

7

8

Figure 6.1: Potential energy curves for the six lowest spin-orbit states of IBr− and the 23 statesof IBr calculated by Patchkovskii [164]. The bold curve for IBr− corresponds to the A� state.
The bold and dotted curves in IBr correspond to states accessible and forbidden, respectively,by the one-electron rule from the A� state in IBr− .

155
for the other parameters in Equation 6.1, µif , γd (E), and γpp , we would follow the prescriptions
from the previous work.
Using this approach, Faeder and Parson were able to successfully model the time-depen­
dent photoelectron spectra [57] of the dissociation of I−
2 Ar6 and the dissociation and recombi­
nation of I−
2 Ar20 . This represents both of the domains we would hope to explore in the studyof IBr− (CO2 )n . However, given the diﬃculties we have had in modeling CO2 loss (and, thus,
vibrational relaxation) as seen in Section 3.3, we would expect the modeling of this phenomenon
via simulated photoelectron spectra would be less successful than that seen for I−
2 in argon.
We would also hope that, if the spectroscopic challenges could be overcome, experiments could
be undertaken to study the larger clusters, especially IBr− (CO2 )14 . The photoelectron study
would provide more evidence for the existence or lack thereof of the excited-state trapping forthis cluster.
In addition to photoelectron spectroscopy following near-IR excitations, we might con­sider a study of the ultraviolet (UV) dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n with this method. Such experi­ments could help shed light on the questions raised in Chapter 5. Speciﬁcally, the photoelectron
study might be able to resolve the question of spin-orbit (SO) quenching in the larger clusters.
As discussed in Section 5.2.2, our simulations show evidence for a solvent-induced spin-orbit
quenching via charge transfer (SOQ-CT) process which leads to a signiﬁcant portion of UV
photoproduct ending as ground-state recombination (GSR) IBr− product. This contrasts withexperiment where IBr− is a very minor channel, see Figure 5.1. Our hope is that the energetics
seen in the photoelectron studies would be able to help us elucidate whether a hypothesized spinorbit quenching via vibrational deactivation (SOQ-VD) process due to collisional deactivation
by CO2 were possible and occurring.

6.2

Incorporation of Intramolecular CO2 Vibrations
If, as we speculate in Chapter 5, the near-resonance between the bromine spin-orbit (SO)splitting and the vibrations of CO2 allows for eﬃcient deactivation of the spin-orbit excited

156
bromine, an obvious future direction of study is the inclusion of the intramolecular CO2 vi­
brations in our model. This is easier said than done, however, because these vibrations would
have to be treated quantum mechanically. The mechanism proposed in Section 5.2.2 involves
a combination of both the symmetric and asymmetric stretches of CO2 , we would then also
require a model for the electronic-vibrational energy transfer.
In addition to investigation of possible E − V quenching of bromine, the inclusion of CO2
vibrations would allow for further investigation of the eﬀect of the bending vibration in CO2 on
dynamics. In our model, we keep the solvent rigid as a ﬁrst approximation. But, while CO2
has no permanent dipole in its equilibrium geometry, upon distortion it can develop one. Sinceeven rigid solvent motion has shown a great eﬀect on IBr− (CO2 )n dynamics, the possibility ofa dipole moment on the solvent could aﬀect the dynamics even more. Ladanyi and Parson [28]previously investigated the eﬀects of a ﬂexible CO2 model on the dynamics of I−
2 (CO2 )n andfound that, in this system, the normal low-frequency bends of CO2 did not signiﬁcantly aﬀect
the dynamics. Rather one had to increase the bending force constant by 5 times in order to anylarge eﬀects.
That said, we can partially speculate on how the inclusion of CO2 bends would aﬀect theIBr− (CO2 )n dynamics. Ladanyi and Parson showed that the eﬀect of the inclusion of a bend
was to strengthen the intermolecular interactions. Since the Br− · · · CO2 geometry is known inexperiment to distort the CO2 to a larger degree than for I− · · · CO2 [53], we would expect thatthe bend would have a larger eﬀect in IBr− (CO2 )n . In this work we have already investigatedthe eﬀect of a larger Br− · · · CO2 interaction on the dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n . In Sections 3.5
and 4.7, we saw that the inclusion of a stronger Br− · · · CO2 interaction was minor at best andoften detrimental, especially in regards to the ground-state recombination (GSR) dynamics.
Thus, we might expect that the investigation of the eﬀect of the CO2 bend would not be useful.
The problem is that the inclusion of the bends would not just strengthen the Br− · · · CO2
interaction, but also the I− · · · CO2 . As it is the diﬀerences between these interactions thathave led to much of the interesting dynamics seen in this work, it might still be useful to157
integrate the Ladanyi-Parson model for CO2 bending into our model.

6.3

Excitation of Trapped Metastable Clusters
In this section, we speculate about the use of the trapped species we have seen as astarting point for new studies. While the photoelectron investigations discussed in Section 6.1
are probably the best way to extend the study of the trapping in IBr− (CO2 )n , there are otherpossibilities.
Focusing on IBr− (CO2 )8 , we saw that the long-time ground-state recombination was due
to trapping in an excited-state well on the A� state, see Figures 4.4 and 4.6, located at a −ΔΦsolvent conﬁguration. To explore the properties of this metastable state, a simulated spectrum
for a set of trapped conﬁgurations of IBr− (CO2 )8 was calculated (Figure 6.2(a)) and an associ­ated potential energy surface (PES) for a trapped conﬁguration is shown in Figure 6.2(b). We
note that the PES shown in Figure 6.2(b) is generated from a single IBr− (CO2 )8 cluster con­ﬁguration in the excited-state well, but is compared to the simulated spectrum in Figure 6.2(a)which was generated as an average of all conﬁgurations in a trajectory which spent 50 ps in
the excited state well. Thus the interpretation of the average spectrum in terms of the PES
should not be taken too literally; it is shown rather as an indicator of the range of state energies
explored by a cluster in the well.
With these caveats kept in mind, Figure 6.2(a) does suggest that the metastable statemight be used as a novel “initial condition” for photodissociation studies. Such studies could
allow probing of the B state at a lower kinetic energy release (KER) than is generated withB ← X ultraviolet (UV) excitation. A lower KER could allow us to investigate B state dy­
namics where the dissociation is not so severe. Experimentally, this might make spin-orbit (SO)quenching more likely as the solute atoms would remain close together for a longer time. Similar
spectra are expected for the other species, IBr− (CO2 )9−10 , that also have long lifetimes due tothis well.
It should be emphasized that it is hard to assign the peaks in this spectrum to the

cm )

2

-16

1000

1500

2000
Wavelength (nm)

2500

3000

(a)

-0.5

0.1

0

0

0.5

2

1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1.5

2

3

4

(b)

5
R (Ang)6

7

8

Figure 6.2: (a) Simulated absorption spectrum for IBr− (CO2 )8 trajectories trapped in the A� state well. (b) Potential energy surface for an IBr− (CO2 )8
conﬁguration that is trapped in the A� well.

Absorption Cross Section ( x100.6Energy (eV)

2.5

158

159
corresponding states in the familiar bare ion curves, Figure 2.1. Since the B state dissociates toBr− one would expect that as the bromine end of the solute is solvated, the B state would belowered in energy relative to states that would prefer iodine solvation. Thus, it is possible thatthe larger peak in fact corresponds to B ← A� excitation. But, on the basis of the energetics
shown in Figure 6.2(b), this peak would correspond to either the a� state, as this is an Ω = 1/2
state like the A� , or the a state, but both states are so close together neither is easily separated.
Our simulations also predicted an excited-state well for IBr− (CO2 )14 . In analogy toIBr− (CO2 )8 , we can construct a spectrum, Figure 6.3(a), and a PES, Figure 6.3(b), for a
conﬁguration in the well. We see that the larger peak has now red-shifted from the analogous
peak in the IBr− (CO2 )8 well spectrum, Figure 6.2(a), reﬂecting the shifts in the states seen in
the IBr− (CO2 )14 PES, Figure 6.3(b).
Of course, it is much easier to run trajectories of a ← A� or similar excitations thanto perform the associated experiment. This author freely admits that the experimental setup
to probe such an excitation (i.e., 1500-nm lasers, infrared optics, etc.) may be too diﬃcult
to pursue. Plus, the predicted absorption cross sections in Figure 6.2(a) are on the order ofthat of the A� ← X peak in the bare ion spectrum, Figure 2.9. Thus, the same experimental
diﬃculties seen in the larger IBr− (CO2 )n clusters could come into play. Moreover, beyond thepractical diﬃculties of such an experiment is the fact that only a narrow range of cluster sizes,
IBr− (CO2 )8−10 , could be probed in this way.

6.4

Revisiting ICl− (CO2 )n Dynamics
In our group’s previous simulations of ICl− (CO2 )n , it was noted that for medium-sizedclusters, ICl− (CO2 )4−6 , ICl− was formed in the A� well and often remained there until thesimulation completed at 50 ps. In experiment [46, 76, 77], the major product channel for thesesizes was ICl− as well, but the small number of solvent molecules attached to the ICl− implies
that the ion has relaxed to the ground state by the time it reaches the mass detector. One
hypothesis for this apparent discrepancy between experiment and simulations is that there is

cm )

2

-16

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

1000

(a)

2000
Wavelength (nm)

3000

-1
2

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

3

4

(b)

5
R (Ang)6

7

8

Figure 6.3: (a) Simulated absorption spectrum for an IBr− (CO2 )14 trajectory trapped in the A� well on the +ΔΦ side. (b) Potential energy surface forIBr− (CO2 )14 conﬁguration that is trapped in the A� well.

Absorption Cross Section ( x100.4

E (eV)

2.5

160

161
in fact no real disagreement—the electronic relaxation is simply far too slow to be observers
in the simulation. This situation is very similar to what we have explored for IBr− (CO2 )n in
Chapter 4.
The obvious ﬁrst step would be to run long-time simulations in order to see if the groundstate recombination occurs eventually. Unfortunately, there are no time-resolved experiments on
the recombination of ICl− (CO2 )n due to the extremely low absorption cross-section for ICl− , see
Figure 2.11. Without these, it will take more trial-and-error with the long-time simulations to
select the correct run-time. In IBr− (CO2 )8 , we had the luxury of knowing that recombination
did take place after 50 ps, albeit by at least 5 ns. Since the Cl− · · · CO2 is such a strong
attraction, it is entirely possible that the ICl− (CO2 )5 A� state might in fact harbor an evenstronger well than that found in IBr− (CO2 )8 . If the IBr− (CO2 )n and ICl− (CO2 )n groundstate recombination (GSR) processes were to have similar excited-state mechanics, we would
expect to need to form a symmetric solvent conﬁguration in order to reach the nonadiabatic
transition geometry. The ICl− (CO2 )n model predicts that Cl− · · · CO2 is 100 meV stronger
than the I− · · · CO2 . In this study, we have seen that making the Br− · · · CO2 interaction about
20 meV larger, Figure 2.15, has had a dramatic eﬀect on the GSR dynamics of IBr− (CO2 )n in
Section 4.7. Thus, the much larger Cl− · · · CO2 interaction could necessitate 10-ns+ molecular
dynamics (MD) simulations. Luckily, the advances in computer hardware make such a simulation
quite possible at this time. We could then use the solvent-ﬂow plots pioneered in I−
2 (CO2 )nsimulations and used here with great success to more fully map out the solute-solvent concerted
dynamics.

Bibliography[1] A. Sanov and W. C. Lineberger, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 6, 2018 (2004).
[2] A. Sanov and W. C. Lineberger, Phys. Chem. Comm. 5, 165 (2002).
[3] J. Franck and E. Rabinowitch, Trans. Faraday Soc. 30, 120 (1934).
[4] J. Zimmerman and R. M. Noyes, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 2086 (1950).
[5] F. W. Lampe and R. M. Noyes, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 76, 2140 (1954).
[6] D. Booth and R. M. Noyes, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 82, 1868 (1960).
[7] L. F. Meadows and R. M. Noyes, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 82, 1872 (1960).
[8] T. Chuang, G. Hoﬀman, and K. Eisenthal, Chem. Phys. Lett. 25, 201 (1974).
[9] D. J. Nesbitt and J. T. Hynes, J. Chem. Phys. 77, 2130 (1982).
[10] A. L. Harris, J. K. Brown, and C. B. Harris, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 39, 341 (1988).
[11] M. L. Alexander, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado, 1987.
[12] M. Alexander, N. Levinger, M. Johnson, D. Ray, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Chem. Phys.
88, 6200 (1988).
[13] N. E. Levinger, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado, 1990.
[14] J. Papanikolas, J. Gord, N. Levinger, D. Ray, V. Vorsa, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Phys.
Chem. 95, 8028 (1991).
[15] V. Vorsa, P. J. Campagnola, S. Nandi, M. Larsson, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Chem. Phys.
105, 2298 (1996).
[16] V. Vorsa, S. Nandi, P. J. Campagnola, M. Larsson, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Chem. Phys.
106, 1402 (1997).
[17] M. E. Nadal, S. Nandi, D. W. Boo, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Chem. Phys. (1998), to besubmitted.
[18] S. Nandi, A. Sanov, N. Delaney, J. Faeder, R. Parson, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Phys.
Chem. A 102, 8827 (1998).
[19] A. Sanov, T. Sanford, S. Nandi, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 663 (1999).
[20] A. Sanov, J. Faeder, R. Parson, and W. C. Lineberger, Chem. Phys. Lett. 313, 812 (1999).
[21] L. Perera and F. G. Amar, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 7354 (1989).

163[22] F. G. Amar and L. Perera, Z. Phys. D 20, 173 (1991).
[23] J. Faeder, N. Delaney, P. Maslen, and R. Parson, Chem. Phys. Lett. 270, 196 (1997).
[24] N. Delaney, J. Faeder, P. E. Maslen, and R. Parson, J. Phys. Chem. A 101, 8147 (1997).
[25] J. Faeder and R. Parson, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 3909 (1998).
[26] P. E. Maslen, J. Faeder, and R. Parson, Mol. Phys. 94, 693 (1998).
[27] J. Faeder, N. Delaney, P. Maslen, and R. Parson, Chem. Phys. 239, 525 (1998).
[28] B. M. Ladanyi and R. Parson, J. Chem. Phys. 107, 9326 (1997).
[29] R. Parson, J. Faeder, and N. Delaney, J. Phys. Chem. A 104, 9653 (2000).
[30] V. S. Batista and D. F. Coker, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 4033 (1996).
[31] V. S. Batista and D. F. Coker, J. Chem. Phys. 106, 7102 (1997).
[32] V. S. Batista and D. F. Coker, J. Chem. Phys. 106, 6923 (1997).
[33] C. Margulis and D. F. Coker, J. Chem. Phys. 110, 5677 (1999).
[34] I. Last and T. F. George, J. Chem. Phys. 86, 3787 (1987).
[35] P. E. Maslen, J. M. Papanikolas, J. Faeder, R. Parson, and S. V. ONeil, J. Chem. Phys.
101, 5731 (1994).
[36] P. E. Maslen, J. Faeder, and R. Parson, Chem. Phys. Lett. 263, 63 (1996).
[37] J. Faeder, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado, 1998.
[38] A. J. Stone, The Theory of Intermolecular Forces (Oxford, New York, 1996).
[39] S. Hammes-Schiﬀer and J. C. Tully, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 8528 (1995).
[40] N. Delaney, J. Faeder, and R. Parson, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 651 (1999).
[41] N. Delaney, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado, 1999.
[42] R. A. Marcus, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 15, 155 (1964).
[43] D. Ray, N. Levinger, J. Papanikolas, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Chem. Phys. 91, 6533
(1989).
[44] J. Papanikolas, V. Vorsa, M. Nadal, P. Campagnola, J. Gord, and W. C. Lineberger, J.
Chem. Phys. 97, 7002 (1992).
[45] J. Papanikolas, V. Vorsa, M. Nadal, P. Campagnola, H. Buchenau, and W. C. Lineberger,
J. Chem. Phys. 99, 8733 (1993).
[46] M. Nadal, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado, 1996.
[47] J. M. Papanikolas, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado, 1994.
[48] V. Vorsa, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado, 1996.
[49] A. E. Johnson, N. E. Levinger, and P. F. Barbara, J. Phys. Chem. 96, 7841 (1992).
[50] D. A. V. Kliner, J. C. Alfano, and P. F. Barbara, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 5375 (1993).
[51] J. Alfano, Y. Kimura, P. K. Walhout, and P. F. Barbara, Chem. Phys. 175, 147 (1993).

164[52] P. K. Walhout, J. C. Alfano, K. A. M. Thakur, and P. F. Barbara, J. Phys. Chem. 99,
7568 (1995).
[53] D. W. Arnold, S. E. Bradforth, E. H. Kim, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Phys. 102,3493 (1995).
[54] D. W. Arnold, S. E. Bradforth, E. H. Kim, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Phys. 102,
3510 (1995).
[55] I. Yourshaw, Y. Zhao, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 351 (1996).
[56] B. J. Greenblatt, M. T. Zanni, and D. M. Neumark, Chem. Phys. Lett. 258, 523 (1996).
[57] B. J. Greenblatt, M. T. Zanni, and D. M. Neumark, Science 276, 1675 (1997).
[58] B. J. Greenblatt, M. T. Zanni, and D. M. Neumark, Faraday Discuss. 108, 101 (1997).
[59] M. T. Zanni, T. R. Taylor, B. J. Greenblatt, B. Soep, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Phys.
107, 7613 (1997).
[60] K. R. Asmis, T. R. Taylor, C. S. Xu, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Phys. 109, (1998).
[61] M. T. Zanni, V. S. Batista, B. J. Greenblatt, W. Miller, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem.
Phys. 110, 3748 (1999).
[62] B. J. Greenblatt, M. T. Zanni, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 10566 (1999).
[63] V. S. Batista, M. T. Zanni, B. J. Greenblatt, D. M. Neumark, and W. Miller, J. Chem.
Phys. 110, 3736 (1999).
[64] M. T. Zanni, A. V. Davis, C. Frischkorn, M. Elhanine, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem.
Phys. 112, 8847 (2000).
[65] B. J. Greenblatt, M. T. Zanni, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Phys. 112, 601 (2000).
[66] M. T. Zanni, A. V. Davis, C. Frischkorn, M. Elhanine, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem.
Phys. 113, 8854 (2000).
[67] A. V. Davis, M. T. Zanni, C. Frischkorn, M. Elhanine, and D. M. Neumark, J. Elec.
Spectro. Rel. Phen. 112, 221 (2000).
[68] D. M. Neumark, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 52, 255 (2001).
[69] A. V. Davis, R. Wester, A. E. Bragg, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 4282
(2002).
[70] R. Wester, A. V. Davis, A. E. Bragg, and D. M. Neumark, Phys. Rev. A 65, 051201(R)(2002).
[71] H. Gomez, T. R. Taylor, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Phys. 117, 8181 (2002).
[72] A. V. Davis, R. Wester, A. E. Bragg, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 2020(2003).
[73] A. V. Davis, R. Wester, A. E. Bragg, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 999(2003).
[74] A. Stolow, A. E. Bragg, and D. M. Neumark, Chem. Rev. 104, 1719 (2004).
[75] N. Delaney, J. Faeder, and R. Parson, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 452 (1999).
[76] M. E. Nadal, P. D. Kleiber, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 504 (1996).

165[77] T. J. Sanford, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado, 2004.
[78] T. Sanford, D. Andrews, J. Rathbone, M. Taylor, F. Muntean, M. Thompson, A. B.
McCoy, R. Parson, and W. C. Lineberger, Faraday Discuss. 127, 383 (2004).
[79] T. Sanford, S.-Y. Han, M. A. Thompson, R. Parson, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Chem.
Phys. 122, 054307 (2005).
[80] V. Dribinski, J. Barbera, J. P. Martin, A. Svendsen, M. A. Thompson, R. Parson, andW. C. Lineberger, J. Chem. Phys. 125, 133405 (2006).
[81] A. J. Stone, Chem. Phys. Lett. 83, 233 (1981).
[82] A. J. Stone and M. Alderton, Mol. Phys. 56, 1047 (1985).
[83] A. J. Stone, Chem. Phys. Lett. 155, 102 (1989).
[84] A. J. Stone, Chem. Phys. Lett. 155, 111 (1989).
[85] C. A. Hunter, J. K. M. Sanders, and A. J. Stone, Chem. Phys. 133, 395 (1989).
[86] S. L. Price, A. J. Stone, and M. Alderton, Mol. Phys. 52, 987 (1984).
[87] A. J. Stone and R. J. A. Tough, Chem. Phys. Lett. 110, 123 (1984).
[88] L. Greengard, The Rapid Evaluation of Potential Fields in Particle Systems (MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1988).
[89] L. Greengard and V. Rokhlin, J. Comput. Phys. 73, 325 (1987).
[90] C. A. White and M. Head-Gordon, J. Chem. Phys. 101, 6593 (1994).
[91] C. A. White, B. G. Johnson, P. M. W. Gill, and M. Head-Gordon, Chem. Phys. Lett. 230,
8 (1994).
[92] L. Verlet, Phys. Rev. 159, 98 (1967).
[93] J. C. Tully, J. Chem. Phys. 93, 1061 (1990).
[94] B. J. Schwartz, E. R. Bittner, O. V. Prezhdo, and P. J. Rossky, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 5942
(1996).
[95] W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes
in C: The Art of Scientiﬁc Computing, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York,
1992).
[96] H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, R. Lindh, M. Schütz, P. Celani, T. Korona, F. R. Manby, G.
Rauhut, R. D. Amos, A. Bernhardsson, A. Berning, D. L. Cooper, M. J. O. Deegan, A. J.
Dobbyn, F. Eckert, C. Hampel, G. Hetzer, A. W. Lloyd, S. J. McNicholas, W. Meyer,
M. E. Mura, A. Nicklass, P. Palmieri, R. Pitzer, U. Schumann, H. Stoll, A. J. Stone, R.
Tarroni, and T. Thorsteinsson, MOLPRO, version 2002.6, a package of ab initio programs,
2003, see http://www.molpro.net.
[97] H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, J. Almlöf, R. D. Amos, M. J. O. Deegan, S. T. Elbert, C.
Hampel, W. Meyer, K. Peterson, R. Pitzer, A. Stone, and P. R. Taylor, Molpro, version
94.3, a package of ab initio programs, 1994.
[98] H. A. Kramers, Proc. Amsterdam Acad. 33, 959 (1930).
[99] M. J. Klein, Am. J. Phys. 20, 65 (1952).

166[100] H. Stoll, B. Metz, and M. Dolg, J. Comput. Chem. 23, 767 (2002).
[101] H. Stoll, private communication.
[102] K. A. Peterson, D. Figgin, E. Goll, H. Stoll, and M. Dolg, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 11113(2003).
[103] A. J. Sadlej, Theoretica Chimica Acta 79, 123 (1991).
[104] A. J. Sadlej, Theoretica Chimica Acta 81, 339 (1992).
[105] H.-J. Werner and P. J. Knowles, J. Chem. Phys. 89, 5803 (1988).
[106] P. J. Knowles and H.-J. Werner, Chem. Phys. Lett. 145, 514 (1988).
[107] P. J. Knowles and H.-J. Werner, Theor. Chim. Acta 84, 95 (1992).
[108] J. A. Pople, R. Seeger, and R. Krishnan, Int. J. Quantum Chem. S11, 149 (1977).
[109] C. E. Moore, Atomic Energy Levels, Vol. 35 of National Standards Reference Data Series,
2nd ed. (National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, 1971).
[110] T. M. Miller, in Electron Aﬃnities, 73rd ed., edited by D. R. Lide (Chemical Rubber,
Boca Raton, 1993).
[111] R. Calvi and W. C. Lineberger, private communication.
[112] R. J. Le Roy, LEVEL 7.7: A Computer Program for Solving the Radial Schrödinger Equa­tion for Bound and Quasibound Levels, University of Waterloo Chemical Physics Research
Report CP-661, 2005, see the ”Computer Programs” link at http://leroy.uwaterloo.ca.
[113] R. Mabbs, K. Pichugin, and A. Sanov, J. Chem. Phys. 122, 174305 (2005).
[114] E. Wrede, S. Laubach, S. Schulenburg, A. Brown, E. R. Wouters, A. J. Orr-Ewing, and
M. N. R. Ashfold, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 2629 (2001).
[115] C. G. Gray and K. E. Gubbins, Theory of Molecular Fluids (Clarendon, Oxford, 1984),
Vol. 1.
[116] C. S. Murthy, S. F. O’Shea, and I. R. McDonald, Mol. Phys. 50, 531 (1983).
[117] Y. Zhao, C. C. Arnold, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 89, 1449
(1993).
[118] R. A. Kendall, T. H. Dunning, Jr., and R. J. Harrison, J. Chem. Phys. 96, 6796 (1992).
[119] T. H. Dunning, Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 90, 1007 (1989).
[120] G. Herzberg, Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure. I. Spectra of Diatomic Molecules,
2nd ed. (Van Nostrand, New York, 1950).
[121] E. J. Heller, J. Chem. Phys. 68, 2066 (1978).
[122] P. C. Engelking, J. Chem. Phys. 87, 936 (1987).
[123] J. Martin, J. Darr, and W. C. Lineberger, private communication.
[124] J. I. Steinfeld, J. S. Francisco, and W. L. Hase, Chemical Dynamics and Kinetics, 2nd ed.
(Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998).
[125] M. D. Newton and N. Sutin, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 35, 437 (1984).

167[126] G. C. Schatz and M. A. Ratner, in Quantum Mechanics in Chemistry (Prentice Hall,Englewood Cliﬀs, 1993), Chap. 10.
[127] J. M. Papanikolas, P. E. Maslen, and R. Parson, J. Chem. Phys. 102, 2452 (1995).
[128] I. Suzuki, J. Mol. Spec. 25, 479 (1968).
[129] D. Husain and R. J. Donovan, in Advances in Photochemistry, edited by J. N. Pitts, Jr,
G. S. Hammond, and W. A. Noyes, Jr (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1971), Vol. 8, pp.
1–75.
[130] R. O. Johnson, G. P. Perram, and W. B. Roh, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 7052 (1996).
[131] H. Reisler and C. Wittig, J. Chem. Phys. 69, 3729 (1978).
[132] A. Hariri and C. Wittig, J. Chem. Phys. 67, 4454 (1977).
[133] A. J. Sedlacek, R. E. Weston, and G. W. Flynn, J. Chem. Phys. 93, 2812 (1990).
[134] R. O. Johnson, S. J. Karis, G. P. Perram, and W. B. Roh, Appl. Phys. B 66, 411 (1998).
[135] A. B. Peterson, C. Wittig, and S. R. Leone, Appl. Phys. Lett. 27, 305 (1975).
[136] A. B. Peterson, C. Wittig, and S. R. Leone, J. Appl. Phys. 47, 1051 (1976).
[137] R. L. Pastel, G. D. Hager, H. C. Miller, and S. R. Leone, Chem. Phys. Lett. 183, 565(1991).
[138] J. B. Kim, P. G. Wenthold, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 830 (1998).
[139] F. Muntean, M. S. Taylor, A. B. Mccoy, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 5676
(2004).
[140] G. J. Rathbone, T. Sanford, D. Andrews, and W. C. Lineberger, Chem. Phys. Lett. 401,
570 (2005).
[141] A. Sanov, T. Sanford, L. J. Butler, J. Vala, R. Kosloﬀ, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Phys.
Chem. A 103, 10244 (1999).
[142] R. L. Schwartz, G. E. Davico, and W. C. Lineberger, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom.
(2000).
[143] R. L. Schwartz, G. E. Davico, J. B. Kim, and C. W. Lineberger, J. Chem. Phys. 112, 4966
(2000).
[144] M. S. Taylor, F. Muntean, W. C. Lineberger, and A. B. Mccoy, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 5688
(2004).
[145] M. S. Taylor, J. Barbera, C. P. Schulz, F. Muntean, A. B. Mccoy, and W. C. Lineberger,
J. Chem. Phys. 122, 054310 (2005).
[146] E. Surber and A. Sanov, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 5921 (2002).
[147] R. Mabbs, E. Surber, and A. Sanov, Analyst 128, 765 (2003).
[148] E. Surber and A. Sanov, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 9192 (2003).
[149] R. Mabbs, K. Pichugin, E. Surber, and A. Sanov, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 265 (2004).
[150] R. Mabbs, E. Surber, L. Velarde, and A. Sanov, J. Chem. Phys. 120, 5148 (2004).
[151] E. Surber, R. Mabbs, T. Habteyes, and A. Sanov, J. Phys. Chem. A 109, 4452 (2005).

168[152] R. Mabbs, E. Surber, and A. Sanov, J. Chem. Phys. 122, 054308 (2005).
[153] F. A. Akin, L. K. Schirra, and A. Sanov, J. Phys. Chem. A 110, 8031 (2006).
[154] T. Habteyes, L. Velarde, and A. Sanov, Chem. Phys. Lett. 424, 268 (2006).
[155] L. Velarde, T. Habteyes, and A. Sanov, J. Chem. Phys. 125, 114303 (2006).
[156] A. Osterwalder, M. J. Nee, J. Zhou, and D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 6317
(2004).
[157] A. A. Hoops, J. R. Gascooke, A. E. Faulhaber, K. E. Kautzman, and D. M. Neumark,Chem. Phys. Lett. 374, 235 (2003).
[158] W. G. Brown, Phys. Rev. 42, 355 (1932).
[159] T. Yukiya, N. Nishimiya, and M. Suzuki, J. Mol. Spec. 214, 132 (2002).
[160] D. T. Radzykewycz, C. D. Littlejohn, M. B. Carter, J. O. Clevenger, J. H. Purvis, and J.
Tellinghuisen, J. Mol. Spec. 166, 287 (1994).
[161] W. H. Eberhardt and W. Sullivan, J. Mol. Spec. 70, 270 (1978).
[162] R. S. Mulliken, Phys. Rev. 61, 277 (1942).
[163] R. S. Mulliken, J. Chem. Phys. 55, 288 (1971).
[164] S. Patchkovskii, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 8, 926 (2006).

Appendix A

List of Acronyms

BO

Born-Oppenheimer

CASSCF

complete active-space self-consistent ﬁeld

CCcoupled cluster

CCSD

coupled cluster with single and double excitations

CCSD(T)

coupled cluster with single, double, and iterative triple excitations

CI

conﬁguration interaction

CISD

singles-and-doubles conﬁguration interaction

CPP

core polarization potential

CSF

conﬁguration state function

DM

distributed multipole

DMA

distributed multipole analysis

EAelectron aﬃnity

ECPeﬀective core potential

eKE

electron kinetic energy

FWHM

full-width half-maximum

GSR

ground-state recombination

HF

Hartree-Fock

icMRCI

internally-contracted multireference conﬁguration interactionIR

infraredKER

kinetic energy release

LCAO-MOlinear combination of atomic orbitals-molecular orbitals

LJ

Lennard-Jones

170
MCDHF

multiconﬁgurational Dirac-Hartree-Fock

MCSCF

multiconﬁgurational self-consistent ﬁeld

MD

molecular dynamics

MFP

Maslen, Faeder, and Parson

MRCI

multireference conﬁguration interaction

MRCISD

singles-and-doubles multireference conﬁguration interaction

MRQDPT2 multireference quasi-degenerate second-order perturbation
NACME

nonadiabatic coupling matrix elementPEpotential energy

PES

potential energy surface

SA-MCSCF state-averaged multiconﬁgurational self-consistent ﬁeld
SA-CASSCF state-averaged complete active-space self-consistent ﬁeld
SBE

sequential binding energy

SCF

self-consistent ﬁeld

SO

spin-orbit

SOQ

spin-orbit quenching

SOQ-CT

spin-orbit quenching via charge transfer

SOQ-VD

spin-orbit quenching via vibrational deactivation

TDSE

time-dependent Schrödinger equation

UV

ultraviolet

ZPE

zero-point energy

171

Appendix B

Table of Ground-State Recombination Dynamics

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Duration
(ps)
20
20
200
2000
4000
4000
3000
300
300

No. of
Traj.
1796
1000
237
100
100
90
100
223
250

No. of GSR
Product
711
440
155
75
54
44
74
181
199

Extrap. GSR
Producta
—
—
—
—
76
70
87
—
—

14

3000

100

96

—

15
150
100
16
150
100
a
A0 in Eqn. 4.1
bRef. 80c
Lower bound to time constantdUnreported. Ref. 123

99
97

—
—

No. of CO2

τsim
(ps)
3.43 ± 0.06
6.97 ± 0.18
33.4 ± 0.7
498 ± 233620 ± 60c
4150 ± 120c
2540 ± 60c
61.8 ± 2.1
34.1 ± 1.6
40.9 ± 1.91500 ± 440
32.7 ± 2.8
52.0 ± 3.1

b
τexpt
(ps)
12 ± 0.530 ± 5140 ± 20900 ± 100—900 ± 100
—
≈ 10d
—

—
—
—

Table B.1: Ground-state recombination (GSR) recovery dynamics of near-IR (790 nm) pho­todissociation of IBr− (CO2 )n . All simulations performed with 1.0 fs time step. A trajectory
was considered dissociated once I-Br bond length reached 40 a0 or recombined after 20 crossingsof the ground state well.