banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The role of solvent structure in the absorption spectrum of solvated electrons: Mixed quantum/classical simulations in tetrahydrofuran
Rent this article for


Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Gaussian–Lorentzian fits to the experimental absorption spectra of the solvated electron in THF (solid curve), HMPA (dashed curve), water (dash-dot curve), and methanol (dotted curve). The fitting parameters were taken from Ref. 12.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Time dependence of (a) the eigenvalues, (b) the transition dipole moments, and (c) the spherical harmonic projections of the lowest six eigenstates of the THF-solvated electron shown over a small window in the middle of our equilibrium trajectory. The key for panel (b) should be read as the transition from the ground state (labeled as 0) to the excited state; is the energy of state and is the energy gap between the ground state and the state. The projection (see the Appendix and Ref. 58) of each excited eigenfunction onto the (-like) spherical harmonic is shown, as is the projection of the ground state onto the (-like) spherical harmonic. The spherical harmonic projection of the sixth excited state is not shown in panel (c) because this state has no significant spherical symmetry. The arrows indicate the specific configuration examined in Fig. 4.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

(a) Calculated absorption spectrum for an excess electron in THF using Eq. (3). Underlying the total spectrum (thick black curve) are the individual transitions from the ground to each of the excited states (thin gray and black curves). (b) The scaled density of energy gaps of the THF-solvated electron between the ground and each of the six lowest excited states, defined as the distribution of instantaneous energy gaps between the ground and each of the excited states.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(Color) Attractive cavities (orange surface) and charge densities (wire meshes) for the solvated electron in THF, calculated as described in the text. The wire meshes shown are contours drawn at 10% of the maximum charge density. Panel (a) shows the ground state, (b) the first excited state, (c) the second excited state (d) the third (red) and fifth (blue) excited states, (e) the fourth excited state, and (f) the sixth excited state. The drop shadows are placed under each state’s center of mass to aid in perspective and are not meant to convey size information. Note that for clarity, the cavity surface contours are drawn away from the nearest solvent molecule, and thus do represent the entire volume available to trap the electron (see text). The cubes shown represent the entire volume of the simulation cell with side .

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Comparison between the normalized distributions of energy for the equilibrated THF-solvated electron eigenstates (solid curves) and for the eigenstates of an excess electron injected into neat THF (dashed curves). The energy probability distributions in the neat liquid were calculated from an trajectory, whereas the distributions for the solvated electron were calculated from the full equilibrium trajectory.


Generic image for table
Table I.

Parameters for the classical THF-solvent potential (Lennard-Jones plus Coulomb), taken from Ref. 32, and the quantum THF-electron pseudopotential [Eq. (1)], which was modified from the hydrocarbon-electron pseudopotential presented in Ref. 27. Interactions between different sites were calculated using these parameters and the standard Lorentz–Berthelot combining rules.

Generic image for table
Table II.

Results for the projections of the wave functions of solvated electrons in THF and water onto the spherical harmonics [Eq. (A1)], the projections of the THF-solvated electron were calculated from configurations spanning of the total equilibrium trajectory, and the projections for the hydrated electron were calculated from configurations spanning a run (Ref. 59). In all cases except the time average, the two standard deviation error bars are less than 1%. The time average is the percentage of time each state is projected more than onto its maximally projected spherical harmonic (the maximally projected spherical harmonics are shown in bold face.). That is, the second excited state of the solvated electron in THF has a projection onto the spherical harmonics only 17% of the time, meaning that it meets our criterion for -like only 17% of the time. The one standard deviation error bars for the time averages are given in parentheses.


Article metrics loading...


Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: The role of solvent structure in the absorption spectrum of solvated electrons: Mixed quantum/classical simulations in tetrahydrofuran